What is the purpose of a wheeled, heavily armored troop carrier with a puny 40mm automatic grenade launcher? Why not just get an IFV or even a tank?
What is the purpose of a wheeled, heavily armored troop carrier with a puny 40mm automatic grenade launcher?
>7 am warriortard thread
take meds. there's unironically no such thing or person called "Armatard". Get help please, you are getting angry at a delusion.
There is and no amount of your impotent denying it is going to change that. Just because you are a newbie and he can't make ten obvious threads every day like he used to doesn't change what happened and what we could witness.
>here's unironically no such
nta
There is.He's made at at least 2 warrior threads today alone. One got deleted, he deleted the other one himself.
Not sure if he deleted it because he said 'drain drain' or because someone mocked his sexual fetish:
>Awww Warriortard!
>What you doin' man?
>Were you not humiliated enough last thread >to enable you to 'finish'? You dirty little boy!
>LMAO
Either way, he's about. And just as autistic as ever newbie.
>take meds. there's unironically no such thing or person called "Armatard
Dude is very real. He posts on weekdays, 6am-5pm. I WfH and have a tab open in my browser all day and I can see him doing his thing. That single lunatic has done unspeakable damage to board quality. He by himself has been worse for /k/ than all the war-tourists and 2016-tourists combined. You literally cannot talk about armored vehicles without him shitting up the thread.
I don't understand the question. They carry troops, and high pressure 40mm used in GMGs is more than ample to deal with light armor and infantry. Its not the same shit used in rifle GLs.
But why not put a turret on it?
Because it is assumed that its weight or ammo storage aren't worth sacrificing speed and personnel carrying capacity.
It makes it heavier, more expensive and it’s not the point of the vehicule, it’s supposed to transport troops.
But cant an IFV also transport troops?
IFV is for frontline combat where its main purpose is supporting its dismounts, and sacrifices some dismounts for a large gun
other situations do not call for a large gun and instead maximum capacity
Why not just use a truck then?
trucks are totally unarmored and mostly just used for moving around heavy equipment or equipment with large crews
Alright I see. Didn't consider IEDs. Thanks for not being dicks
You also need to think in a convoy lets assume you have one tanker coming with you that has enough fuel for 3 tanks or 4 IFV or 2 IFV with 4 ICV etc.
Because trucks are neither bullet nor shrapnel proof. If the primary threat expected to be encountered is small arms fire, ieds, and maybe a technical then this does the job.
Less. A crows mount can bolt onto any solid exterior surface, a turret has a bustle that takes up space inside the vehicle.
Today it's more a question of weight and economy, Oto Melara even makes a zero-hull-penetration 76mm autocannon turret.
Bustle is something like a trunk or bin sticking out from a main compartment. Usually where the ammo rack is. "Lady's bustle" was a lattice frame women would attach to their corset, or wear over their hips, to make their dresses more flower-bulbed or to accent their butts.
The part you're talking about is "basket." Turret basket is the floor and walls, attached to the turret gun house, descending into the hull.
>IFV also transport troops?
IFV's transport troops into combat, alongside tanks. At least the Western definition of IFV.
Why not make every APC and armored car an IFV? Too expensive?
>Why not make every APC and armored car an IFV?
> Too expensive?
the gun is just not necessary for every role
APCs are mostly used for specialist units like the HQ platoon, who wont see direct fighting but will be close enough to the frontline that they might get straddled by mortar or artillery fire
armored cars are mostly used for internal security or recon, where you mostly just need enough armor to fight infiltrators or scouts
Seems risky to assume soldiers will only need inferior vehicles because they are less likely to encounter danger
>Seems risky to assume soldiers will only need inferior vehicles because they are less likely to encounter danger
different vehicles for different roles
an HQ unit has both an IFV and APC available, the latter is used for when they are in the back and acting as a traditional headquarters while the former is used when they need to actually go into battle, usually as a reserve unit if they lose an IFV in battle
mortar and ambulance units also get APCs, also because they require more internal space for carrying crew and ammo or medical equipment respectively that prevents the use of a turret
a turret that will only ever be used if an enemy closes in to fight them
They're not "inferior", they're a different kind of thing used for a different purpose.
The issue is they look "tanky" you, so you kind of expect them to act like tanks. It doesn't work like that. It's like with knives: A kitchen knife and a combat dagger are both knives and look the part, but are used for different things. Neither of them is "inferior".
A pearing knoif will still kill you though but you can't debone a pear with a bollock knoif.
We can do this the easy way, or the hard way...
Tbf being killed with a butter knife sounds way more painful than with a sharp one. The guy must be a beast or straight hate your guts to be able to do that.
The "price" you pay in weight and volume in order to carry a gun and heavier (as in, resistant to 20-30mm fire) armor around is fairly steep. There are times--such as on the front lines against a mechanized opponent--where the gun and armor are necessary in order for the vehicle to perform its role. And, there are times--such as behind friendly lines (but still in artillery range), or in a COIN setting--where having larger carriage capacity is far more important. And on top of that, there are advantages, both tactical and logistical, to having lighter vehicles. Plus the extra guns and armor tend to be expensive.
Here's an example: the M-113 (particularly, its variants) remained in service in the US long after the M-2 was introduced. It was used mostly behind friendly lines, because that was what it was designed to do from the beginning. Likewise, the Stryker was designed to focus mainly on carrying infantry; *they* were its primary weapon, and that was good enough for over a decade. Only later, when guarding Poland against the BMP zerg rush, did a need arise for an autocannon to support the troops with direct fire.
There are tradeoffs in design. The classic tank triangle (speed/armor/firepower) is perhaps the best-known one, but there are plenty of other factors that have to be balanced against each other; and many of those factors shift or change when you look at a different theater, because of the differences in terrain, opponent, logistical situation, etc. There is no "one design to rule them all", and if there was, it would be absurdly--possibly ruinously--expensive. Everybody makes compromises in vehicle design; even the US.
>transport corpses
fricking tanks don't last long in actual modern warfare and you expect this tin can to do any work whatsoever?
unironically fricking ATVs would be more useful at this point. harder to hit with a FPV drone.
use your brain, moron
>unironically fricking ATVs would be more useful at this point
Russians resorting to something doesn't make it a good idea. The rest of us would rather put some armor between the men/material and the explosions.
Would likely increase weight so much that it'd no longer be amphibious, have any troop capacity or shrink the range, speed or defence to an unacceptable degree.
its a mystery
Thats a sexy turret
IFVs have less internal space, tanks have no capacity at all
Because it's an APC not a IFV, it can't have anything that needs a turret ring without drastically reducing the internal space and a AGL is a good option for putting a lot of firepower on the CROWs mount.
As someone that served along pic rel and was part of the logistics and support for it, wheeled apcs have way better fuel economy and maintenance footprints when compared to tracked vehicles. Also doctrinally these things are not meant to frontally assault positions on their own but rather be supported by armour.
That's not a Stryker
Theoretically an ifv with a small squad of dismounts is all you need
pretty much every vehicle in that list other than the half-track is still in use at the same time today
infantry in IFVs, specialist units in APCs, and trucks for logistics or divisional level movement
Good idea! We'll put a big honking cannon on it pronto!
APC’s are cheaper.
IFV’s are used primary to support tanks, and they need tracks to match tanks cross country capabilities.
If you don’t have tanks, there isn’t main reason why you need IFV.
>these moronic questions
it's warriortard thread
To carry troops usually.
>purpose
Infantry battalion all mounted in these with various different turrets depending on their roles. My weapons companies in most countries will have a mix of HMG's and AGL's so may as well have a mix of HMG's and AGL's on some of your vehicles.
just because you say your shitbox apc isn't supposed to be used on the front lines, doesn't mean the troops will listen to you. it doesn't matter that it has tinfoil for armor, only a single wimpy mg, and was explicitly designed under the assumption that it wouldn't be used as an ifv, it'll still be forced into that role by necessity because it's better than nothing.
I mean, yes, if your army is composed of hastily recruited and trained citizens.
Which is the case for the terrex
DoD needs something to spend millions on that rolls over trying to climb up embankments.