How does the marder stack up against other Cold War era IFVs?

How does the marder stack up against other Cold War era IFVs?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    oh look, it’s this thread again

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’s in the top 3

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Mogged by the Bradley and CV90 but reigned supreme for the 2 decades before the Bradley

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >CV90
      i thought the ukies disliked the CV90

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They don’t dislike it it just isn’t as useful in Ukraine. AFAIK if they get money to buy IFVs after the war they are going to spend it on a domestic cv90 jobs program.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      any good combat footage of the cv90 in action, always see the bradley kicking ass.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Cuck swedes only delivered them under the condition to not show combat footage of them publicly. Like the US did with Strykers.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >source: my ass
          Ukies have shown some cv90 combat footage but its been pretty lackluster compared to the bradley

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it's more of an APC

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not at all. It’s an infantry fighting vehicle

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Germanophobe spotted

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not at all. It’s an infantry fighting vehicle

      What the frick is the difference? Both carry troops in and out of the shit, frick up enemy infantry with auto cannons, and have a mounted TOW/ATGM to frick up the occasional T series.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Use case and armor protection levels

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        APCs are generally armed iwth just a machinegun. They're armored taxis to bring the infantry into position and then get out of the way, while IFVs are meant to fight right alongside their dismounts.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        technically, an IFV has a cannon while a APC only has a machine gun
        doctrinally, an IFV acts as an additional squad member in combat and will follow their dismounts around while APCs act independently from their dismounts after dropping them off

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If your army is using APCs as IFVs then they're either fighting very poorly equipped opponents or they are losing.

          In practice, every army since ever has used APCs identically to IFVs on an ad-hoc basis. IFVs are merely designed for it from the start, as opposed to APCs being jammed into the role as an expedient. Making a fuss over the difference is a sign of midwit autistry. So we can compare the two anons I quoted, one with a reasonable attitude and one without.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            lol wtf, you never see MTLBs used like BTRs or BMPs in ukrain

            same thing with m113s vs bradley

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If your army is using APCs as IFVs then they're either fighting very poorly equipped opponents or they are losing.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >20mm+ gun in a fully enclosed turret on a tracked vehicle with personnel transport capability
        >IFV

        >Cannon smaller than 20mm or not fully enclosed turret on a tracked/wheeled vehicle with personnel transport capability
        >APC

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >T-Series (tanks)
        I hate when people use this term

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not at all. It’s an infantry fighting vehicle

      Anything is an IFV, of you're brave enough

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Unironically this. Ukraines been using m113s like IFVs this whole time, weirdly I’ve seen Bradley’s act more like battle taxis, dropping guys off then fricking off, while there’s a lot of footage of m113s pushing trenches with their dismounts and staying throughout the engagement for support.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I think it's a difference in situations. The M113s are being used aggressively in conjunction with dismounts (and recorded) when the enemy armor threat isn't that high, where the Bradleys are being used in very high threat areas where there are tanks and ATGMs everywhere. Bradleys also have far better weapons and sensors so what looks like "fricking off" could actually just be them coming back 400 meters and engaging targets at a thousand.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Fair points anon. I’d also wager the pressure to not lose Bradley’s due to limited numbers play a big part in it. With a larger number of units comes to confidence to expend them and the willingness to perform aggressively with the afv. And that aggressive use is a gamble that might pay off more than passive use.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Beats all russian/chink trash which is what matters, the rest is just useless what if larping

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The way Milan is mounted/used is kinda moronic.

    >Verification not required.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It makes perfect sense for the time, though. Reminder that Marder was jsut about the first western IFV to incorporate an ATGM into the basic model, rather than have a specialsied missile variant.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The way Milan is mounted/used is kinda moronic.

        >Verification not required.

        >The way Milan is mounted/used is kinda moronic.
        The "IFV that shall not be named" has the same issue. I'm about to get bombarded by haters, and called "The 'IFV that shall not be named'-tard".

        An ATGM on an IFV can be set up different ways, with varying levels of protection from kinetic and CBRN threats.

        0. ATGM is carried inside and is deployed by dismounts separately from the vehicle
        1. ATGM is on an external flex mount, which must be manned to operate and to reload
        2. ATGM is on an unmanned external mount and can be operated from inside but must be reloaded outside
        3. ATGM is both fired and reloaded from inside the vehicle

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They're supposedly going to get upgraded turrets with new autocannons, opticals and Spike LR capability soon as not enough Marders can be produced to replace them 1:1 in the short term. The Germans had an option for that in the 90s (with a different ATGM than the Spike) but didn't pursue it back then. am still super butthurt that Mexico had a chance to get these at firesale prices in the mid 90s but instead decided for a lackluster VCI upgrade. Apparently Chile may get a similar upgrade to their Marders soon too.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Chilean modernization will probably be interesting. I think they're supposed to get full thermal and electronic shrouding like the Leopard 2A4CHL upgrades.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I love the square leopard turret

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Back at its beginning
    > Probably best armoured IFV in existence
    > pretty good fire power with the 20mm shooting as fast as the mg3
    > pretty decent optics
    Today
    > Pretty decent armour better than anything russia is fielding
    > very good mine protection( Took like 1 ton of explosives to kill the driver and injure but not maim the rest of the crew and dismounts)
    > Pretty decent optics for Nato standarts( comparable to to modern russian mbts)
    > pretty poor duel ability as it has no stabiliser and atgms have to be mounted and dismounted before driving.
    > has drone jamming which probably contributes to its lack of footage)

    Very good IFV for its time that can still do its job today but its dated compared to more modern systems like the Puma or Bradley mostly due to its lack of stabiliser.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’s an incredible IFV

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Pretty good for it's time but it was already really old by the end of the Cold War. It was supposed to get upgraded via the Marder 2 project but that one got canned since post-1991 German governments felt there was no point in upgrading the Marder.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    by Allah germ*n marketers should be killed

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's held back by the lack off an under-armor ATGM which is baffling considering the BMP-1 had that back in 1965.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      BMP-2 regressed with Konkurs being a staple on mount as well. Kornet installations in the 2M is under armor however but the 2M is an unicorn at this point and so are Konkurs equipped BMP-2s.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Pardon I am moronic, Konkurs/gayot installed to the BMP-1 in a modernization package is non under armor. BMP-2 should be capable of firing under armor with Konkurs/gayot.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    curious how necessary it is to make it usable under armor
    obviously it’s better, but it seems most combat is blasting some unsuspecting target who isn’t aware of the threat anyway

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Prevents the ATGM user from being killed by suppressive spray from HMGs and MMGs along with artillery frag. I'd call it important.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the ability to reload under armor translates to being able to reload at all

        if you have to get outside the tank to reload, you arent doing that even if you fire first because of the threat of getting clipped by a stray bullet

        aren't these intended just as stand off long distance ambush weapons anyway?
        given that most of these refits are just sticking an infantry crewed atgm on top of the vehicle, how is that much of a drawback from its original usage as a infantry crewed atgm?
        infantry are subject from getting shot at without armor protection, and any situation where a buttoned up crew wouldn't be operating the atgm, the infantry wouldn't be either
        obviously having under armor is better but the concept doesn't seem incredibly nuts or anything

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >how is that much of a drawback from its original usage as a infantry crewed atgm?
          it is possible to reload a tripod-mounted launcher under cover
          or at least without making yourself conspicuous
          being on the roof of your vehicle while reloading is going to single you out as a target

          >obviously having under armor is better but the concept doesn't seem incredibly nuts or anything
          even if you are ambushing the enemy, you arent reloading the launcher in the field if you have to get out of the vehicle and climb on top
          so being able to depress the launcher into the vehicle to reload is a bare minimum

          hence why dedicated ambush vehicles like the M901, an M113 with no dismounts at all in favor of its own TOW, is designed to lower its launcher into the hull to reload under armor so it could get multiple shots off before retreating
          when the TOW was just stapled on to the M113 in earlier versions, then SOP was to retreat after every shot to reload

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the ability to reload under armor translates to being able to reload at all

      if you have to get outside the tank to reload, you arent doing that even if you fire first because of the threat of getting clipped by a stray bullet

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's old as shit now, but it would have clapped some Russian cheeks if the cold war ever got hot.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >It's old as shit now, but it would have clapped some Russian cheeks if the cold war ever got hot.
      This

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    destroyed by $5 cardboard drone. its over for IFVs,APCs and tanks.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *