Vehicles in Ukraine: Tavria RWS

Novator with new TABPIЯ-14,5 turret. I believe this is the first use of the new (postwar) barrels. Thoughts on using 14.5 for APCs? Don't see it much. Stabilized, target detection "over 5km"
fb.com/437961655286224

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
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    14,5 is decent caliber when you need to deal with and APCs or even IFV, i just have gripes with it's visual design, it reminds me of russian tigrs and i fricking hate those visually so much.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I am interested in the M113 and HMMWV copies they are making, I haven't seen any

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No ERA?

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    14.5mm in this day and age? Fricking useless. You need at minimum a M230LF or equivalent.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What's the point of stupid armored cars like this? Just make a proper mini IFV. Where are you going to use it? It's off road capabilities are shit. It's only good to scare civilians.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >What's the point of stupid armored cars like this?
      Post-GWOT westoid mindset is that humvees never go outside the wire. Current ukraine reality is that humvees with 50s participate in thunder runs. APCs see a lot more action than people realize. Senators get more attention because they're evil #hato vehicles, even though this is also built on a Ford F-550 chassis.

      14,5 is decent caliber when you need to deal with and APCs or even IFV, i just have gripes with it's visual design, it reminds me of russian tigrs and i fricking hate those visually so much.

      Looks better than v1, imo.
      Some pics for comparison here.
      https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/60625597

      I like the look of the Inguar.
      Reminds me of TV commercials for toys.
      Pics here.
      https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/61063880

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/61063880
        I like this one because how stupid it looks, like from an XBOX 360 game. At least they can roll and die in style.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They actually made the lights glow in daylight conditions for the prototypes. They had to source special bulbs for it. It looks so goofy in person. Marketing to the military requires a mastery of neuron activation.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Current ukraine reality is that humvees with 50s participate in thunder runs.
        That was a foolhardy tactic, to be honest. It only works for a while until the enemy adapts. I don't think it's been done since the Kharkiv offensive.

        • 1 month ago
          CC

          >That was a foolhardy tactic, to be honest. It only works for a while until the enemy adapts.
          I mean, you work with what you've got, was the only point I was making there. Sometimes it comes down to a judgment call and your imagined violence of action turns into another man's gleeful worldstar hollerin' at your entire column lighting up on mines.

          >I don't think it's been done since the Kharkiv offensive.
          I wish I could say that were true. Some of the best work of the summer/fall 2023 offensive was done with humvee rushes.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Current ukraine reality is that humvees with 50s participate in thunder runs.
        Sure you have a source for it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It’s a fast, better armed, and cheap battle taxi when compared to similar vehicles in its role like M113s, humvees, MTLBs, etc. Engine placement and crew positions alone likely make it better performing than older vehicles against mine threats. What is there to dislike about them?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because it's completely useless in actual combat with shit off road capabilities. It's a worse battle taxi than an M113.
        >better armed
        What is it going to shoot at?
        >Engine placement and crew positions alone likely make it better performing than older vehicles against mine threats.
        This makes no sense.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This thing weighs 3x less than an M113 with a more powerful engine. No shit it’s likely worse than a tracked vehicle off-road by virtue of being wheeled. They’re already using uparmored humvees for assaults, it would be completely fine as a battle taxi.
          >what is it going to shoot at?
          It’s a 14.5 RWS with IR in a war where their opponents are just as likely to send golf carts and MTLBs as they are BMPs and tanks for offensive missions. It’s immensely more capable than the former.
          >This makes no sense
          Tell me you’d rather drive an MTLB over this into an area that’s likely been mined remotely. Soviet tracked vehicle designs practically invite death to the driver in the event a minefield is encountered.

          >cheaper
          >than m113
          Black person it's an aluminum box built in the 1950s with zero electronics in it and actively being phased out by the US, there is NOTHING in the world cheaper than an m113

          Average unit cost of an M113A2 was $200k from ~1995-2013. This thing is based on an F-550 chassis and likely has a lighter logistical footprint than a Gavin.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >This makes no sense.
          The engine is in the front, so if you hit a tilt mine or one with your front wheel it'll blast mostly into the engine rather than the driver's spine (which admittedly is a feature of any road-car-derived vehicle), and the crew aren't saddling a fuel tank or folded at a 60 degree angle to sit in the back, they have plenty of room. A proper AT mine is going to kill it, a proper AT mine would kill basically anything that isn't a tank, but this thing might be able to survive a light one or an anti personnel grenade without breaking in half and turret tossing a passenger.

          >Current ukraine reality is that humvees with 50s participate in thunder runs.
          Sure you have a source for it.

          >he hasn't seen the nuckingfuts videos
          He hit mines on several occasions. In areas where the Russians don't have ATGMs ready for front line infantry squad/platoon positions (most of them turns out) you can just run up and blast them to shit with the 50.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >but this thing might be able to survive a light one or an anti personnel grenade without breaking in half and turret tossing a passenger.
            The designers of this have one big advantage
            - access to a big boneyard of damaged IFVs and APCs for study. Everything from M113s to Brads to combloc shitboxes to MRAPs. I think I posted a vid in an old thread where one of the garages is shown briefly.

            So the current crop of up-armored vehicles have quite good protection as a result, given the form factor.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >cheaper
        >than m113
        Black person it's an aluminum box built in the 1950s with zero electronics in it and actively being phased out by the US, there is NOTHING in the world cheaper than an m113

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This
      >it needs to be a tank to survive the front lines.
      Sounds like this
      >tanks are obsolete because light infantry can carry ATGMs.
      Even armor that’s only good for stopping .556 and 7.62 still is protection. Even if it only stops fragmentation from grenades, it’s still protecting the troops inside. Armor is heavy and speed is everything on flat, open ground. It’s got a 14.5mm, so it can take on anything comparable to itself. Lightly armored vehicles like these are arguably just as important as tanks and IFVs.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, it's shit at everything it wants to be.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >What's the point of stupid armored cars like this?
      MedEvac, Logi, mobile FOB, recon, patrolling low intensity combat zones, rapid insertion, or as an anti-drone platform. You know, the things that require basic protection against small arms fire and don't justify the expense of putting an APC or IFV but are beyond what Pavel and Igor can do with a quadbike or a buggy.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Any weapon platform that requires a direct line of sight is vulnerable to ATGMs. This thing would get wasted by an rpg-7.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >*moves farther than 300m away*

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Any drone is going to see it. Most armed drones would be enough to score a gun or mobility kill.

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