shitboxes

If you were a neutral (neither aligned with china, russia or the west) and poor country, which one of these APCs would you buy?

MT-LB, M113, BTR-50?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if those are my options I unironically start welding Rhodesia tier MRAPS, they'll provide just as much protection and I can pretend Ungabungastan has a military industrial complex

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is the only true answer. Build your own MIC wannabe and who knows may be it'll be real mic in the future.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I would have to agree. Whenever possible don’t use a vehicle an prevent being discovered. It’s called mobile coffin for a reason. Sniper, manpads, small mortars, drones and anti tank guided missiles are the future.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What would PrepHole's ideal super cheap baby's first MRAP look like? Is it worth putting a 20mm on it for self defense, or just stick with an MG? 8x8 like a BTR, or a converted civilian truck chassis? 14.5mm protection on the front, or all around?

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    wheeled? boxer
    tracked? mtlb

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    pimp out M113s

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      M113 with a few simple mods
      maybe some M58A3 Wolf and M163 VADS

      hell yea

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    M113 is the least terribly protected of the 3. It's at least proofed against 7.62, while the MTLB isn't.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >M113
    Not even a competition.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    M113, because you can spent billions on a basically useless upgrade and immediately retire them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's not true, ukies are making good use of them, thanks bush gays

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >immediately retire them
      I fucking wish.

      Ukraine could have been mostly liberated in '22 had we given all the m113as4's. We could have negotiated temporarily fielding Bradleys if we didn't like making a decision on the replacement IFVs. Then when we did finally reveal we chose the redback and we were going to give the Bradleys back we slip on a banana peel and in the chaos Ukraine has the bradleys now.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Should've been 400 bradleys, not 40.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Should've been 400 bradleys, not 40.

        We should just send you retards there instead.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >we
        >we
        >we
        what is this complex called where you take ownership of things that have nothing to do with you, and you've contributed nothing personally to

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Moaning about shit that doesn't matter is called insufferable gayry, gay-kun

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the collective "we" is perfectly serviceable in reference to any organization or culture to which you belong.

          >have nothing to do with you
          >you've contributed nothing personally to
          some people here actually pay taxes, kiddo.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >china
    How is their APC, the Type-63?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Original variants have more in common with original M113s but they’re steel hull and are built to Cold War Chicom specifications. On paper it seems decent but it’s antiquated by modern standards.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The VPA has both of this and m113 but i have seen more M113 than anything

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    SOVL
    https://streamable.com/wmvetv

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Holy kino, Dr. Gavin

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      butifel
      i wish i had the tapu tapu tapu sprüdo

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I prefer your vid to the original one. The music slaps. Sauce?

      butifel
      i wish i had the tapu tapu tapu sprüdo

      >i wish i had the tapu tapu tapu sprüdo

      I can share this Benis-simo spurdo

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        here fren

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      amazing stuff

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I can't wait until this shitty war is over and every town square in Ukraine has Cold War era NATO surplus equipment on a pedestal with a plaque explaining how many Russians it helped kill.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        oh dude, when that happens I'm there

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I have seen many wars
      >More than I can remember
      >I have seen jungles
      >I have seen deserts
      >Now I am somewhere new
      >I don't know the language of my new owners
      >All I know is I must drive them to safety
      Godspeed little M113, or maybe its time you finally earned your name; Gavin.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >gavin
        have a nice day gay

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You sound like a wonderful person and am sure have no social or developmental issues to speak of.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I just really hate reformers and anything they created, including the 'gavin' nickname. if literally anyone else made it i wouldn't mind.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            social retards do not understand the culture or conventions of the places they infest, as the genuine article perhaps you could explain why you are so compelled

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANKS, DR. GAVIN!

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    sisu pasi

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    genuinely the M113

    >actually sane method of troop exfiltration unlike the clown car top hatches of BTRs and MTLBs
    >best protection especially since a bunch of modernisation options exist to add soft armour inserts to have much better protection

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >and MTLB
      Doesn't the MT-LB use regular doors? Not much head room but still better than a BTR.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    mtlb is an artillery tractor

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      but then why did it have space for a full squad?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "space" is extremely generously defined. The inside of a MTLB is about 4 foot tall. if you are over 5 foot 6 you have to lean forward because your squamates are to your sides.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >but then why did it have space for a full squad?
        it pretty much doesn't.

        M113 wins by default because it's the only option that's actually suitable for carrying men into combat. The others are armored tractors.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          M113 for comparison

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But the M113 offers close to zero protection it’s a tin can. The aluminum offers next to no protection

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Then realize that they all use aluminum and that the MTLB and BMD have even less armor.

              BMD had to be light enough to be air-dropped

              MTLB got armor as an after-thought. It is a utility vehicle made for moving conscripted POGs and for towing things. I unironically like the idea of the fuel tank being part of the armor, as long as it uses diesel and nothing else.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You are correct on the BMP. You are wrong MT-LB there it‘s steel.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                True, a whole 6mm of it, and 10-14mm on the turret and front plate.
                They are all tin cans just barely resistant to 7.62 AP and fragmentation at best.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Like I say all are mobile coffins. Still better than the M113 7,62mm AP would easily make swiss chess out of it.
                That’s why troops regularly put sand bags on it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                True, a whole 6mm of it, and 10-14mm on the turret and front plate.
                They are all tin cans just barely resistant to 7.62 AP and fragmentation at best.

                wrong
                M113A3 is proof to 50 cal

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

                if those are my options I unironically start welding Rhodesia tier MRAPS, they'll provide just as much protection and I can pretend Ungabungastan has a military industrial complex

                fpbp
                build your own domestic Casspir that's small arms proof with a V-hull for mine protection cause that's about all you need

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But like I already elaborated on I‘m no proponent of these vehicles whatsoever.

                So is the MT-LB. But the problem with tracked vehicles is how easily they are spotted. I would also disagree on the no roads means tracked paradigm. It would depend on the surface and the climate. If the is no chance of air superiority or appropriate air defense, which is likely in case of poor countries. The question becomes, if anything but light „stealthy“ vehicles makes any sense at all. It also depends on the capabilities of the possible opponents.

                It’s just a false sense of security.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It’s just a false sense of security
                retarded bros (you) need to shut the fuck about aluminum armor, if I see one more post acting as if the whole point of using aluminum armor doesn't provide protection against artillery fragmentation and <7.62 small arms fire I am going to lose it for real.
                ALL APCs or that era are aluminum shit boxes because that was what was available in terms of metallurgy and manufacturing capabilities when I can to making a light but somewhat armored vehicle

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Of the 3 options in the OP, the M113 is the most protected.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Motorized coffin 113
                >protected
                Good one anon. But from what does it protect? Funeral costs, because the coffin is already there?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Many countries uparmor them but Viet Nam rejected that because they wanted the mobility it was built for despite having decades experience killing them.

                PrepHole wants impregnability so best to have no APC because any tracked vehicle is obsolete due to ATGW but somehow that doesn't apply to wheeled vehicles.

                Thirdies are better off with technicals anyway.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >PrepHole wants impregnability so best to have no APC because any tracked vehicle is obsolete due to ATGW
                no, we should go hard the other direction and build Namer tier APC tanks with active protection. The original APC was a turretless Ram II, APCs should be as armored as the tanks they bring infantry to support.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Peak retard. Armored fighting vehicles have been "obsolete" since the development of the recoilless rifle. In other words, just because there's a weapon out there that can one shot your weapon, doesn't make said weapon obsolete. That would be like saying infantry are obsolete because they can get killed by a single piece of shrapnel. You don't want your APC taken out? Don't get hit, simple as but unironically.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                We sold Vietnam Gavins?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                they were all former ARVN vehicles, they also have a shit ton of M48A3 pattons too

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          that looks claustrophobic as fuck (for a non-manlet) holy shit. literal mobile coffins

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Imagine having to exit that vehicle under great duress such as enemy fire and you’re the the last seat way in the back away from the doors.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >armored tractors.
          exactly what the MTLB is- a tractor that flunked out of bot BTR and BMP schools, got trafficked by criminals to the VDV to use for their pleasure, but even failed doing THAT as BMD is better.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hufff... those headrests in the form of a fuel tanks look very cozy D:

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The fuel tank armor unironically makes the MTLB a little safer with it than without it. It is quite difficult to ignite diese. No idea how many inches of diesel effectively provides 1mm of steel, but that is still a barrier of fluid between squishy humans inside and shrapnel and bullets outside. And if the MTLB does get hit with something capable of igniting diesel....well, the tractor and crew have already burst into treats.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/FG1xTBo.jpg

        >but then why did it have space for a full squad?
        it pretty much doesn't.

        M113 wins by default because it's the only option that's actually suitable for carrying men into combat. The others are armored tractors.

        okay nevermind I stand corrected, what a nightmare it must be to ride in that

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Its to accomodate the gun crew. And it perfectly fits at least 5'8 people t. MT-LBv mechanic. The V also can go literally anywhere

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Right answer is whatever the fuck I can get that's in at least decent condition and not too expensive.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    m113 gavin is the shittiest apc of all time

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Piranha III
    moldowa, the poorest country in europe just got some

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    BTR ZD
    Imagine not having 11 buddies and two 23mm guns on your troop transport

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the bmd is basically a liquid waiting to happen

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The M113, without a doubt. At least it's roomy enough in there that the infantry will actually ride inside the fucking thing.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    M113. Better ergonomics all that space means comfy rides for troopies so they arent fucking exhausted when its time to get out AND it means you can haul more logistics, super versatile and it just werks.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    okay guys I get it war feavor and everything but we don't have to pretend the M113 is a magically good vehicle now because it's in Ukraine

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the M113 was always good. It got a bad reputation in Vietnam because if you drove one over a landmine, you would die.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Pretty much the same reason Russians sit on top of their BMPs of the same period, hell even the newer ones.
        Simply put the period that they were used in saw mines becoming significantly more deadly and more commonplace, and the west being casualty adverse, fixed it, while Russia doesn't care.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It also was the only APC suitable to rice paddies etc which is why the people who won that war retained them. Mobility matters if you don't want to ruck everything.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      As an APC (and strictly an APC) the M113 was perfectly fine.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The M113 might be outdated for the US and other NATO Allie’s but in their heyday they were the the standard for APCs. Nowadays they’re replaced by a variety of newer APCs, IFVs, and MRAPs but many countries still field them to this day.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the M113 is a good APC. it has a bad rep because in vietnam they'd drive it into a firefight and try to use it like an IFV.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the M113 is a good APC. it has a bad rep because in vietnam
        anything Nam related has a bad rep

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's probably a good point, look at how long the bad rep from early M16s persisted, it's really only in the last decade and a half since the AWB ended and civilian ARs proliferated that people have finally given up shitting on it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The F-4 Phantom beat it's early 'Nam reputation to be considered based

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            a bad rep which it didn't deserve in the first place, because the problem wasn't the Phantom, the problem was dumb pilots who couldn't into dogfighting

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The sparrows having lots of issues and the lack of a gun really didn't help. Once that's ironed out the plane itself was fantastic.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Did the gun score a significant number of kills after it was added? No, it didn't. The gun was never an issue.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It certainly helps when you're actually in a dogfight. If the lack of gun was never an issue they never would have bothered adding gun pods later down the line. The problem was the idea that missiles made guns unnecessary.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                missiles have made gun unnecessary, though. the problem back then was bad missiles.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The trick is the gun isn't the PRIMARY weapon anymore, but a backup. Even now it's still good to have the gun as an "oh shit" backup and it allows any plane with one to do basic CAS gun runs which can save lives in a pinch.

                They were right the guns pods were around from day one(1) and missiles stl accounted for the majority of Phantom a2a kills.
                Stop pushing boomer lore that has been proven wrong time and time again, further more most of the issues with the missiles were "solved" by telling the dumb fuck grug ground crews to not thrown them around like toys when moving them in and out of storage

                Did I say the missiles didn't do most of the work? I don't think I did. The thing is missiles had issues (new tech always does) and sometimes you get jumped. I think the original idea was that because the missile can fuck their faces well outside gun range you don't really need the gun but that forgets the all important rule of "shit happens". I'm also inclined to believe the veterans when they say they had problems with things like the heavy humidity of Vietnam and the collective problems led to things like ripple firing them to ensure you hit. When the missile worked (undoubtedly a majority of them) the sparrow would rape but you still only had so many of them. Closer the sidewinder was a great missile but you still only had a few of them too and sometimes there were still bad guys when you had blown your load.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                i'm gonna be honest, if you ever fight a competent force and try to go for a 'basic cas gun run' you 're just going to die to a manpad.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You get my point at least right? The gun still has a purpose, it's just not your go to weapon when you have things like AIM-120s, AIM-9s and JDAMs. Also remember that launching a manpad doesn't guarantee a kill either. Nothing's a "paper beats rock" tier I win button.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're making your point really poorly by emphasizing suicidal CAS runs instead of selling the gun as a way to kill things not worth a Sidewinder like cheap drones. There's no target worth risking an F-35 for a 20mm gun run unless you're fighting a country like Canada that physically doesn't own any MANPADS. Even ZSU-23 could get a lucky hit on you.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No I wasn't. That was a simple example. Why do people here have such a boner for jumping to conclusions like that?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They were right the guns pods were around from day one(1) and missiles stl accounted for the majority of Phantom a2a kills.
                Stop pushing boomer lore that has been proven wrong time and time again, further more most of the issues with the missiles were "solved" by telling the dumb fuck grug ground crews to not thrown them around like toys when moving them in and out of storage

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                guns (and lasers) are relevant again because you might scramble a fighter to intercept a shasneed but you don't want to fire a Sidewinder at it

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Did the gun score a significant number of kills after it was added? No, it didn't. The gun was never an issue.

                It was multiple things. Wrong training which led to bad fighting which was not corrected by experience quickly enough. Generally shitty doctrine. And shitty early missiles.

                The latter especially. Better missiles improved outcomes considerably.

                I think people get caught up on the shitty early Sparrow because everyone recognizes the Sparrow, but forget that the USAF F-4s were stuck using the impact fused and totally worthless AIM-4 Falcon in the early Vietnam war. These were replaced with Sidewinder.

                Missiles making guns obsolete probably was actually viable by the end of the cold war but the proliferation of drones has kind of brought the need for a gun back. Air Force NGAD might be a two+ man laser armed turret fighter, which really erects and launches my missile if you know what I mean.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It was multiple things. Wrong training which led to bad fighting which was not corrected by experience quickly enough. Generally shitty doctrine. And shitty early missiles.

              The latter especially. Better missiles improved outcomes considerably.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i'd buy a universal carrier

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      aside from meme factor, why?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        easy to ditch, easy for everyone inside to supress when contacted and can be modified relatively easily. just imagine some meme one-shot ATGM welded onto the back

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          no overhead cover means they get killed by airburst munitions, drone grenades, and anyone in or on a nearby building. I don't think they would work out.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            folding, deployable shield with a draw string that is mounted half-on-half (with overlap) on each side

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Why not flip a second carrier and weld it to the top of the first one? double the transport space, double the forward firepower, and tons of overhead cover.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                could potentially mount ATGMs to either side but you'd only be able to fire straight ahead

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You should cease as a nation if your industry cannot build an indigenous shitbox.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    JSDF APCs

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is that VLS tube?? If not then someone should make one.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      would the JSDF sell them to you, though.

      So is the MT-LB. But the problem with tracked vehicles is how easily they are spotted. I would also disagree on the no roads means tracked paradigm. It would depend on the surface and the climate. If the is no chance of air superiority or appropriate air defense, which is likely in case of poor countries. The question becomes, if anything but light „stealthy“ vehicles makes any sense at all. It also depends on the capabilities of the possible opponents.

      if your infantry is composed entirely of manlets then the MTLB might work, otherwise no, it's too cramped.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don’t think they want to drive geriatric patients or women around. If you aren’t overweight you are probably fine. Unless you are of Dutch, German or Scandinavian stock than height could possibly be an issue.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          have you seen the inside of a MTLB? they're just meant to fit a gun crew, not a squad.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mtlb is a big fuck chassis for literally everything.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You can buy a MTLB thats fully working in Poland for less then 10k USD (no permit required its registered as a truck)

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >poor country
    So, roads are nonexistent. Therefore, tracked vehicle is needed.
    Answer: mtlb

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      m113 is tracked, newfag

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So is the MT-LB. But the problem with tracked vehicles is how easily they are spotted. I would also disagree on the no roads means tracked paradigm. It would depend on the surface and the climate. If the is no chance of air superiority or appropriate air defense, which is likely in case of poor countries. The question becomes, if anything but light „stealthy“ vehicles makes any sense at all. It also depends on the capabilities of the possible opponents.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      All three options are tracked

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >M113
    can't afford western equipment in large numbers as a poor country so M113 is out, although it's the best in quality of the three
    >MT-LB
    equipped with 30mm autocannon that can be useful for protection and damaging light armor
    >BTR-50
    Only equipped with mounted machine gun but can carry a lot more people than the MT-LB

    Yeah, I think the BTR-50 would be my choice here if I want to get more people to the front quickly. MT-LB functions as more of an AFV at times.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >MT-LB
      >30mm autocannon
      wha

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Russia is willing to stick the BTR 82A turret on literally anything, I'm surprised we haven't seen a Buhanka 82A yet

        Occasionally you'll see BMP-1AMs which, you guessed it, is BMP-82A.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Give it time. I'm sure we'll see a futa Buhanka chan eventually.

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Definitely the M113. It has the most modernization and additional parts for it considering so many still use it making it insanely versatile. If I took the MTLB at all it'd be purely for a support/armored tractor role. You could fit a lot of stuff in an MTLB and food, ammo, and medical supplies don't get uncomfortable.

    M113 would be plenty against threats like cartels, especially when you slap a little extra armor and a turret on it. If you're not going to actually be at war in the foreseeable future a jack of all trades APC is plenty. The amount of shit you can stick on an M113 is ridiculous.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I disagree on almost everything, but you are correct about the M113 being a decent choice for police actions. That is until they have anything more than 7,62.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You know you can put extra armor on them right? If it can handle this it can handle some extra plating.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Cute SD aesthetic

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I imagine a certain potential as target drone or attack drone. Otherwise the potential is becoming an exhibit in some military museum or being recycled.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So you can do what? Equip your poor nation with inferior far less modular Russian garbage instead?

        https://i.imgur.com/IJMB84r.jpg

        Dacia

        >James May has entered the chat

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Buy manpads, ATGM, mines, man portable mortars, drones, snipers and night vision. Get light vehicles with a low profile, dirt bikes, ATVs and some regular construction machines for the engineers. Small trucks for logistics. As a poor country you don’t stand a chance against your enemies Air Force and artillery in the open field anyway - once we are talking about a serious opponent - hence you don’t want to be seen by them. If there is a little more money mobile artillery, mobile ship missiles and other mobile ground based long range stuff becomes an option. The IVFs and APCs are just target practice.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I forgot to mention buy a lot of decoy. And make sure there are decentralized networks of communications. With back ups.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We're not talking about a serious opponent. We're talking about a military that is most likely to face cartel goons and the occasional rebels at worst. Even in a military confrontation with a neighbor it's very likely they're going to be equipped at around the same level because they're probably poor too. If they're not poor like you then your best defense is a military alliance with someone strong and reliable, not bigger nastier equipment for yourself. Also why the are you acting like the entire military would ONLY be these vehicles? No shit you get all that other stuff.

            The big advantage of choosing the Honda Civic of the APC world is you can do so much with it and there's so damn many parts and upgrades out there it can fill a fuckload of roles and the base model is affordable. It simplifies things like logistics a ton because you don't have 15 different vehicles that all need different parts. An M113 with a Bradley turret strapped on is still going to have the lion's share of it's parts in common with an M113 with a Stuart turret.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >no serious state opponents
              Than there is the question, if the investment is even needed. And even than my strategy is still valid unless we are talking about desert (without mountains) or steppe.
              >cartels and rebels
              Well take less vehicles and don’t buy ancient outdated crap. If you want to fight cartels and rebels with something slightly more heavy on the ground buy international MaxPro and/or Wiesel. Mobile, somewhat easy to repair, proven concepts. True protection against small arms fire and small explosives. I could go on. Or simple buy two handful of true battle tanks. But I‘m sure well trained snipers, machine guns and accompanied by mortar teams with high grade gear (night vision etc.) will easily mob the floor with some cartel or rebels. Light attack air crafts and light attack helicopters adding some artillery you will get a better mix against any cartel or communist rebels. Situational awareness is key having good scouts and local contacts is better than driving patrols.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Why bother
                Because you should still have a basic level of national defense capability and that would be plenty for dealing with cartel goons and rebels. All the different possible configurations allows you to do a ton of things when it comes to national defense.

                >buy X more expensive platform
                Or I could just buy a heap of Gavins and modify them for the roles I need because there's a wide variety of parts specifically for them out there. You're missing the whole point of why you'd buy one platform that can be modified to fill a fuckload of roles. One of the biggest bonuses is it also frees up money for other things like a fleet of Hiluxes or cheap drones. Logistically and functionally the M113 is an amazing choice for a poorer nation that doesn't need actual tanks but still needs armored vehicles.

                I get that you don't like the M113, I don't care that you don't like it. It'd still be my choice for a jack of all trades APC/armored vehicle as the leader of a poorer nation.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >m113 configurations
                Still a Mobilecoffin113
                >M113 makes sense for fighting cartels
                Like I explained it wouldn’t. It just makes sense for somebody selling the old rusty donkey.
                >I get you don’t like M113
                It’s not about dislike or like. It’s a worse choice than the MT-LB. But more saliently they are all miles away from being a good choice.
                >frees money
                But than not buying any rost bucket frees even more money to buy something, which makes sense and truly adds to overall defensive capabilities.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The MT-LB would be a significantly worse choice as far as I'm concerned. It'd leave you with a lot of roles to fill with other vehicles and you'd be reliant on Russia and it's partners. At least it'd be better than the BTR-50 though.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                For everyone not familiar with M113 we are talking about 275 hp machine. It’s painfully obvious that no significant modifications or much additional amour is ever going to be a possibility.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Whatever you say pal.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The other two options are 240hp machines, so even worse in that regard. They're all dogshit but the 113 is at least a proven platform for upgrades, and the real meta for an unaligned 3rd party country might be to get some from the Israelis, who've upgraded a lot of them and are in the process of phasing them out.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >pic related

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                kys armatard

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on my country's climate
    If I live in a snowy muddy shithole then I need the mt-lb

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dacia

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    APCs in general seem like a retarded idea for poor countries

    just use technicals

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You're gonna struggle a bit once you get away from the road, and struggle a lot once you get shot at.

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fuckin none of the above, chieftain.
    >MT-LB
    Slavshit that isn't even good enough for dirt poor slavs.
    The furfag's choice of armored casket, and comes with a bunch of expensive electronic bullshit upgrade packages that I don't need.
    >BTR-50
    More slavshit that isn't good enough for dirt poor slavs, but also works in water...
    Here's what you don't get, op. It's a poor country. That means the country is probably inhabited by mostly uneducated blacks or Asians. The last thing these people need to work on all day are tracks, fuck that noise. These apcs exist for one reason and one reason only in a poor country: putting down revolts and riots. Therefore, I'm gonna opt for some BTR-80s and commission Cummins to put 5.9l diesels in them instead of the usual slavshit engine. We'd get like 20-40 and a few crates full of spare parts and be off, keeping our populace stupid and unthreatening to Our Dear Leader.

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Unironically Toyotas.
    Or those VWs they sent to Ukraine that do the same.

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >M113
    At least get a proper shitbox.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Chudley is just as much of a shitbox though

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        daily remind that "chud" is an intrinsically meaningless leftist insult that exists to give them a slur that doesn't actually offend anyone, missing the purpose of a slur in the first place, ripped from some garbage 80s B movie by podcast morons.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >chud
          >portmanteau of "chad" and "stud"
          Seems pretty based to me.
          Either way those are some nice digits ya got there.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ok chud

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Back to r3dd1t

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              reddit hasn't been wordfiltered for the better part of a decade you dumb candyass roodypoo

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >that doesn't actually offend anyone
          i don't know, anon, you seem pretty upset by it.

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Real talk guys any examples of third/second world countries successful deploying any type of APC or even IVF. I would be really interested.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They generally prefer to go either armored car or M41 style light tank rather than a tracked APC halfway between between I think. Examples being Brazil and the Philippines

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Does Israel count? They've used the 113 a lot and have a ton of homegrown variants/upgrades.

      Lots of countries, especially in Africa and SE Asia, have used BMPs and BTRs.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Of course
      Meet "Free Wifi", the famous APC of the battle of Marawi, Philippines

      IINM these are V-150 Commando APCs with wooden, rubber tire or even cardboard stand-off "armour". They worked because the jihadis they fought were armed only with RPG-2s, the even more obsolete ancestor of the RPG-7. Word is that the planks were effective.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazika
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoa_(armoured_personnel_carrier)
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DefTech_AV8
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazar_(armoured_vehicle)#Lazar_2
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-4
      off the top of my head. there are more if you consider a heavily modified bmp2 original or not too. if you look at a list of afvs you can probably find more. also basically every country makes their own flavor of MRAP

  34. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I guess M113 but it doesn't really matter though. They're all in the same class of "combat taxi" vehicles anyways. They're not supposed to see direct combat. They're supposed to get the infantry safely through the enemies security zone where they could get dabbed on by artillery and mortars or quickly through dead zones that are purely vehicle combat heavy areas such as farmland, plains, deserts, etc. I would only choose the M113 simply because it's cheap, reliable and can be pimped out to serve different roles other than troop transport.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm sure the M113 can add side armor to up the protections.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I still wouldn't want to go into "battle" battle with them. Stryker units have the best mindset when it comes to APC's:
        >It's an armored truck that gets you from A to B
        >It should never be in combat on purpose
        >The primary weapon is the infantry it dismounts

        I don't care if it's a fucking Bradley. If you are in any terrain that enables the infantry to hide, you should not be using IFV's and APC's in direct combat, even MBT's are vulnerable.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It absolutely does, the A3 model (the most recent US one) came from the factory ready to take an add-on armor package that gave it protection from 14.5mm and below, seems hard to find pics that show it though. (Or it's really hard to tell that the armor is equipped, not sure.)

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes indeed the crews often put sand bags around it, because sand is much better than anything on the M113.

        MT-LB is not even an APC, it's a tractor.

        Tractor with some minimal steel or a tin can APC.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Tractor with some minimal steel or a tin can APC
          So a technical but based on tractor instead of pickups.

  35. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    MT-LB is not even an APC, it's a tractor.

  36. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    M113 is the fastest and lightest so I go for that. Also there's so many different specialized combat variants that you can probably just copy what someone else did if you want a turret or something.

  37. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    M113s, there's a lot more spare parts around for those in lots of poor countries and you can upgrade them later or get more from the US if you're friendly.
    I'm Latin American, so I know.

  38. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    poor ?
    buy nothing and pretend like your neutrality grants you invisible armor.

  39. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the venerable METUHL BAWXES of course

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THE FOOLS

  40. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Toyota pickups are way superior

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