IFV and Autocannon Thread

What are your thoughts on the future of IFVs and their armaments?
What is the best current IFV, is it the Lynx?
What is the best general use autocannon caliber? Are the really big varieties still pretty high rpm or are they way slowed down?
Can IFVs damage tanks? New tanks? What caliber/ammo is best for tank threats?
Is the Bradley still competitive with other producion IFVs? Is the 25mm too small?
How big do autocannons get?

I know it's a lot questions, but I just find autocannons so interesting and kino. I was 11b and saw a lot of Bradleys but have never been in one.
I just feel like the autocannon is the purest, most final form of the firearm.

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    With that barrel shroud, she better have an amazing personality.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it should be cut off right ? people prefer it that way

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    25 and 30 are still great for regular IFVs for their capacity and ability to kill most vehicles. 35mm-50mm are great if you have an onboard radar and proximity shells.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    This isn’t a very good design. I’d be surprised if a single one was sold.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Can IFVs damage tanks? New tanks?
    There was that video of UA BTR-4 fucking up some russgroid tanks. You can hit the optics, tracks, not all parts of a tank is equally protected.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Most IFVs have ATGMs for dealing with tanks anyway.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Thats true of course, but I was specifically talking about a case where the BTR4 was using its autocannon. You could see the tracers glancing skyward.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the way I see it, IFVs face
    >loitering munitions / atgms
    >other IFVs
    >artillery
    You can't do much to protect against a direct hit from artillery so give it shrapnel protection all around and heavy autocannon protection on the front. But you want to remain mobile and also counter top attack and loitering munitions, so you need an active protection system. Therefore, IFVs need lasers. Lasers are cost effective per shot, useful against class 1 and 2 UAVs as well as ATGMs at relatively modest power levels, and can put on a cool IFV disco party for morale (autocannons can do this with tracer ammunition but that may result in UXO)

    As far as non-laser weapons they should probably have a 30-50mm autocannon and some form of top attack ATGM. This does lead to the interesting problem that if two IFVs fight each other, designed as described, neither can kill the other.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Just use depleted uranium ammo. 25 DU will punch right through frontal armor that claims to be rated for 30mm.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Or you can be cool and use 50mm DU sabots and punch through the front of a Type 99. Yes the Bradley's 25mm is still viable with the right ammo, that doesn't mean 25mm should be kept forever.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Even armour rated to 30mm under sustained 30mm auto cannon fire wouldn't last long.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Daily reminder that this is what the Lynx really looks like when it´s used by an actual army

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >1500 have been preordered.
    Show me one order for this

    [...]

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    In your opinion. Some countries use their IFVs to destroy large amounts of MBTs

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not the puma that’s for sure

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Almost 4 out of those 18 vehicles have been fixed already

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/G80rfUj.jpg

        Not the puma that’s for sure

        17 out of the 18 are fixed, which isn't difficult because only 2 had real issues and only 1 serious issues.
        The rest was stuff like a single loose screw making a box rattle (unironically and literally).

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    IFVs are used for reconnaissance and troop support. They have ATGMs just in case they encounter a tank on their mission.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    what even is your argument here dennis

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's not Dennis, I'm Dennis.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No I am Dennis!

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Thats if the MBT has
    >better optics
    >better battlefield awareness
    If the tank has shit awareness and optics, the IFV can score a kill.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    That's a stupid assumption, because the enemy can deploy his main battle tanks wherever he wants and you'll probably have IFVs there because it's the basic mechanized infantry vehicle all your troops have. What are you going to do, pull your mechanized infantry off the line and wait for your own tanks to arrive? No, you're going to launch ATGMs from your IFVs.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Fuck 30mm, skip straight to 50mm

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Fuck 30mm, skip straight to 50mm
      How does the 50mm compare with CTA40?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Slightly less penetration, significantly better wxplosive effect.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I wonder if the Puma Internet Defense Force will show up to defend their broken piece of shit

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Worse, you have a serb diaspora german coming in here to prop up german shit.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Because you can’t back up your claim. No t-72s have ever scored a kill on a Bradley

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    at least he'll get new images to spam soon of all eight bradleys ukraine is going to lose liberating melitopol

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You mean dennis? Probably, but he will also get to see the marder being destroyed.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]
    Because you can’t back up your claim. No t-72s have ever scored a kill on a Bradley

    Bradley is better armored than any BMP but yes, it's vulnerable to even Iraqi training ammo tier 125mm, I don't know why this is even an argument

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The lynx is vulnerable to Iraqi training ammo tier 125mm

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes all IFVs are except like, Namer

        Because you're arguing with a known shitposter. He doesn't care and only cares to spread falsehood as a way to seethe about america.

        I know the guy spamming blown out US tanks is just the guy who does that, I was more asking why get hung up on whether T-72 can kill a Bradley when we're literally weeks or days from seeing T-72 on Bradley kino in HD and losses on both sides are expected?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >was more asking why get hung up on whether T-72 can kill a Bradley when we're literally weeks or days from seeing T-72 on Bradley kino in HD and losses on both sides are expected?
          Because his purpose is to troll. All of his post are made in bad faith and he will false flag if you even bother questioning on who he is by accusing you back.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because you're arguing with a known shitposter. He doesn't care and only cares to spread falsehood as a way to seethe about america.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    There isn’t a case of a t-72 scoring a hit on the Bradley. The Bradley’s TOW would always just knock out the t-72 first. I’m surprised you didn’t know that

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is the generally accepted take on the matchup.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Against T-72M1s with no thermals like Iraq had sure, but against something like a T-72B3M both sides have thermals and it comes down to see first kill first. If there hasn't been a documented T-72 on Bradley kill before this war there probably will be soon. Which is fine, and we should send 10 more for every one lost.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I’m willing to go out on a limb and say the older Bradleys probably have better optics than any t-72 in existence. You’re just going to have to deal with that

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Sure, I'm just saying the optics gap isn't what it was in the Gulf War. It still exists (and for older Russian tanks like T-72B and T-62M they're no better off than Iraq) but against newer Russian tanks the Bradley probably isn't invincible just from optics superiority. But if it comes down to crew quality Ukranians probably win anyways, 1GTA fought worse than the Republican Guards.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >newer russian tanks
            Newer russian tanks still has shit optics. Their T-90m in particular doesn't have good optics/other shit.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Shit thermals is still a lot better than no thermals

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Good thermals are still a lot better than shit thermals

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                T90M thermals are about on par with what's in 90% of Abrams tanks and Challenger2 etc..

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    APC: mg and 40mm gl, or 20mm
    IFV: autocannon and ATGM
    garden gnome's 60mm mortar is also something worth trying
    China and russia are no longer with autocannon and low pressure gun combo.
    20mm will still be useful against all but the heavier IFV's front and most tank, and more weapon stations are mounted on lighter vehicles as upgrade from 50cal.
    Large gun with blazing fast rpm? Revolver cannon can fire ~40mm at 1k rpm.
    Green Mace shoot 102mm at ~90 rpm.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Bradley can protect against 30mm. You’re thinking of early versions with upgraded armor.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Reverse image search says it’s an EFP hit in iraq what would you like clarified?

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    looks like a Bradley got fucked in the butt, am I supposed to be able to tell from the hole what caused it? Could be 125mm sabot, could be an RPG.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It was an EFP

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What is the best current IFV, is it the Lynx?
    >What is the best general use autocannon caliber?
    It's the Lynx, also 30mm or 35mm caliber due to the possibility of being adapted to use AHEAD ammunition. 57mm is way too big and no proposed future IFV can carry much of it anyways, severely limiting the IFV's effectiveness in combat.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      50mm is the best. Takes up the same space as 35mm. 30 is good for general IFV uses but is inferior to 50mm when it comes to smart rounds.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Germans thinking programmable ammunition is something new and ground breaking
      lmao

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Didn’t this thing just lose out to the Korean IFV in Australia?

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Too big. 50mm is the best. That’s why america chose it. America has the most relevant military in the world so their choices set the standard for the rest of the world. Anything else is just cope

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]

    https://i.imgur.com/7idf1Zl.gif

    No I am Dennis!

    whole lotta not dennises in here

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]
    Didn’t this thing just lose out to the Korean IFV in Australia?

    So far the only finalized fair tenders the Lynx entered have been Czechia and Slovkia
    Both chose the CV90 over the Lynx

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    That's retarded tho. The Lynx with the 120mm gun costs more than an used Leopard 2A4.

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    What part of 2/2 chose the CV90 over the Lynx do you not comprehend?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't the CV-90 also a lot less expensive?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes The fact that the German shit is too expensive for what it is is why it’s not getting many sales

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Next time you talk shit about the Bradley, try to post a picture of a vehicle that has better armor than it. The Boxer ain't it.

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    did you get a job yet dennis?

  34. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Assertions made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence, the burden of proof in debate is on the person making the assertion.

  35. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    nobody wants the boxer either because it's too fat and unreliable

  36. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Not a K-kill either. The outer armor took most of the hit as designed.

  37. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    do you only like femboys or do you like bears as well?

  38. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    you're never gonna get that prime bussy. you're gonna have to settle for being someone's fuck piggy

  39. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    germans haven't won anything in over a century lol. they're an american vassal state

  40. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    you might as well just copy and paste these, everyone knows it's you anyway. changing the wording does nothing.

  41. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm sorry, I just really, really like BMPs. Especially the BMP-2.

    Best IFV out there today? I like CV9040s but apparently the Puma can take tank rounds to the face and that's nothing to laugh at.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      huh? i really doubt a puma can take a 120mm to the face.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A Puma can supposedly resist 120mm and 125mm impacts to the frontal arc. Maybe against old shoddy ammo or HE.

  42. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Watching a wall of 30mm open up on something in Combat Mission is always a sight to behold. The BMP is a fast dakka machine and that's why I love them even if you'll lose multiple dozens every battle

  43. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What are your thoughts on the future of IFVs and their armaments?
    Missiles and autocannons, both get smarter.

    >What is the best current IFV, is it the Lynx?
    Whichever can carry the most soldiers while being the best armed. Lynx has no missiles so not that.

    >What is the best general use autocannon caliber? Are the really big varieties still pretty high rpm or are they way slowed down?
    I doubt that actually matters. I'd be inclined to think 40-50mm but I just like big guns.

    >Can IFVs damage tanks? New tanks? What caliber/ammo is best for tank threats?
    Yes. ATGMs

    >Is the Bradley still competitive with other producion IFVs? Is the 25mm too small?
    No. You are just killing infantry and light vehicles either way. If you engage a tank with an autocannon outside of an extreme emergency you're a major fuckup whether you live or die.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Lynx has no missiles
      yes it does

  44. 2 weeks ago
    RC-135 Rivet Joint

    just a good solid IFV

  45. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    So do it. Stop showing them off with just an autocannon.
    >Oh no our platoon spotted a tank while driving through open terrain
    >Okay dismount the ATGM team and f-
    >Nevermind the IFV was hit, fucking retreat

  46. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Requesting Namer images

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      is namer with a 20mm gun a tank?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Without turret? Armored personnel tank. APT.
        With turret? infantry fighting tank. IFT.

  47. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > soldiers are issued intermediate cartridges so they can carry more ammo
    why not do the same with IFVs so they can suppress for longer? making every IFV have less ammo which is more expensive to make ie smart rounds seems like something only US can afford

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      because humans are less armored than the vehicles and structures IFVs may face

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why not do the same thing with aircraft so they can suppress for longer?making every aircraft carry fewer bombs which are more expensive to produce i.e. guided seems like something only the US can afford

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        airplanes move around really fast and are unarmored its more cost efficient to have them drop as much ordnance in the small window they have in harms way.

        because humans are less armored than the vehicles and structures IFVs may face

        im saying if the normal 25 mm gun can reasonably face light vehicles and structures you may as well keep it small so you have more ammo

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          IFV's aren't substantially armored and for the same reason aircraft shouldn't just stick around hostile airspace, IFV's can't suppress endlessly with impunity. If the first 1 or 2 shots can get done what 10 minutes of suppressing with small munitions does, you're in a significantly better position. It simply can not be understated how much HE scales with diameter

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Airbursting. I know I jerk off airbursting like it's shooting maple syrup cum all over my face but it and the fire control computer are really one of the big game changers that's matured over the past few decades.
            Autocannons under 30mm can't fit the programmable control circuits and/or have so little HE filler that it's not worth making an airbursting round at all. It's why countries have started to move to 30-35-40mm and sometimes even bigger with their newer IFVs, they've realized that smart use of effective fire is more effective than massed fire.
            Direct fire will always be a deadly killer but being able to engage infantry in cover is an extremely useful ability. And if your target is so important that you're willing to stand there and blast away for a few minutes suppressing them it's definitely worth expending a few bursting rounds to just kill them and save time. This is something no amount of dumb bullets from a small autocannon would be able to fix.
            The small autocannon is still probably going to be cheaper to shoot but now you're just wasting time and unnecessarily risking soldiers by standing around for longer than you have to. Winning a war is expensive but losing a war is even more expensive. I could go on about morale and PR and stuff about not having dead soldiers but that's paper pusher territory.
            In a sense it's the same reason precision bombing won over saturation bombing, you can spend a lot of money on a nimble fighter jet and its guided bomb or you can risk an entire bomber but with cheap dumb bombs and hopefully it won't get shot down and actually hit what you want it to kill. Get in, fire off a precision bomb, get out. In the long term it may be cheaper since you've got less planes being shot down.

            ok I was wrong, thanks for explaining.

            dare I say, is the Chinese grenade launcher vindicated?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You mean the QLZ-87 grenade rifle thing? Maybe. I can definitely imagine it being useful as a DMR replacement/support.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If it performs as well as they say it does (as if the Chinese are ever forthright) then I think it would be excellent for vehicle mounted roles, but that they stuck with a man "portable" version tells me it's a fucking meme. They are far from the first to have the idea, but everyone else dropped it as largely impractical

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Airbursting. I know I jerk off airbursting like it's shooting maple syrup cum all over my face but it and the fire control computer are really one of the big game changers that's matured over the past few decades.
      Autocannons under 30mm can't fit the programmable control circuits and/or have so little HE filler that it's not worth making an airbursting round at all. It's why countries have started to move to 30-35-40mm and sometimes even bigger with their newer IFVs, they've realized that smart use of effective fire is more effective than massed fire.
      Direct fire will always be a deadly killer but being able to engage infantry in cover is an extremely useful ability. And if your target is so important that you're willing to stand there and blast away for a few minutes suppressing them it's definitely worth expending a few bursting rounds to just kill them and save time. This is something no amount of dumb bullets from a small autocannon would be able to fix.
      The small autocannon is still probably going to be cheaper to shoot but now you're just wasting time and unnecessarily risking soldiers by standing around for longer than you have to. Winning a war is expensive but losing a war is even more expensive. I could go on about morale and PR and stuff about not having dead soldiers but that's paper pusher territory.
      In a sense it's the same reason precision bombing won over saturation bombing, you can spend a lot of money on a nimble fighter jet and its guided bomb or you can risk an entire bomber but with cheap dumb bombs and hopefully it won't get shot down and actually hit what you want it to kill. Get in, fire off a precision bomb, get out. In the long term it may be cheaper since you've got less planes being shot down.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That kinda what the Germans did with the marder it "only" got a 20mm good enough for all autocannon stuff and all the heavy lifting is left to the big boys guns+ tanks And the dismounts. Because unless you do a Russian they should always support each other as a team and never engage alone.

  48. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly for an IFV as long as it has a 30mm cannon or something more powerful and decent optics and fire control unit and is good at the actual troop carrying thing it's okay. Obviously something like a Russian BMP has shit ergonomics and the crew comfort is a non-existent concept and unless if it is one of the modern BMP variants with a decent set of thermals it'll just get plastered by light infantry with X brand ATGM. Honestly it's hard to overstate how gargantuan the difference is between like a CV90 with modern electronics and a BMP2 with barely functional ones. Your 30mm cannon while maybe not that impressive against a main battle tank can mow down an entire squad in literal seconds if you see them but if you can't your firepower is useless. In a way I think the sweet spot for an IFV cannon is between 30mm to 50mm because you want a semi-high rate of fire and in the future to be able to shoot down low flying drones with some airbursting tech magic. In a country like Ukraine where it's all flatlands you just want all the armor possible and in a place like Finland where it's innumerable rivers the whole amphibious thing becomes a worthy consideration. Hard kill APS would obviously be nice but it's expensive as fuck.

  49. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can an AA gun be used on an IFV as a normal cannon? Or a naval autocannon? What's the difference? Or is it all standardized

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      there isn't really a big difference between those, obviously aa guns are designed for absurd fire rates unnecessary for ifvs, but those 25mm bushmasters the bradley uses are pretty much the same as the ones the navy uses on ships

  50. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I like the Puma, I really don't want it to be shit 🙁

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Puma's fine. Recent articles about 18 failing were literally fake news and the stupid cunt responsible for spreading the fake story just lost her ministry over it and similar things.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's not shit, see what

        [...]
        17 out of the 18 are fixed, which isn't difficult because only 2 had real issues and only 1 serious issues.
        The rest was stuff like a single loose screw making a box rattle (unironically and literally).

        already wrote
        it's expensive and took too long, but it's a good vehicle, only the German army organization is shit

        translate this article if you're interested: https://soldat-und-technik.de/2022/12/mobilitaet/33604/schuetzenpanzer-puma-pannenpanzer-oder-prellbock/

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Puma's fine. Recent articles about 18 failing were literally fake news and the stupid cunt responsible for spreading the fake story just lost her ministry over it and similar things.

          I guess that makes sense. I already assumed it was probably the typical Bundeswehr problem of, one screw being loose = the vehicle is not combat-ready. Still pretty shameful the hole thing.

  51. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  52. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rheinmetall ADS is interesting.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I wonder how it compares to stuff like Trophy or Iron Fist. Apparently Rheinmetall has APS against top-attack too, which they want to put on the KF51.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ass too big

  53. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What is the best current IFV, is it the Lynx
    Yes.

  54. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I imagine future IFVs as a family of carrier vehicles for various armaments, including guns, missiles, drones, mortars, and, yes, infantry. Their loadout would be generally varied (to prevent the all eggs in one basket effect) and not fixed, and it would be datalinked together to instantly support each other beyond line of sight. All of them (or most of them) would carry at least one NLOS ATGM and one MANPAD.
    True IFVs would be troop carriers with just enough to support their infantry in a pinch (slow 30mm gun with little ammo, but ability to do fancy munitions against drones, vehicles and other high value targets).
    Then there would be a dedicated AA/CRAM/infantry support vehicle with a powerful autocannon in the 35-50mm range, lots of ammo and more manpads, probably a laser too, think skyranger. Maybe a "light tank" with a quick shooting 80mm gun that can do indirect fire and AA, think OTOMATIC. Mortar vehicles, obviously (think AMOS). Dedicated missile carriers maybe, dedicated drone carriers definitely (pic related). Many vehicles would also get tethered drones for scouting. Some would be scout vehicles with maybe 2-3 dismounts and a lot of other stuff. All of this would be done on the same platform, not necessarily totally modular (looking at you boxer) but with technically very similar vehicles, both wheeled and tracked. This simplifies development, production and maintenance of all those different vehicles. One could also imagine that a separate smaller class of vehicles could be used, with respectively less/lighter armament where it makes sense, but again technical similarities.

  55. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Extrapolating from current trends, future IFVs will be extraordinarily huge. The battlebus will become real.

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