Sulomon Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 hours ago, Oleksandr said: Look on BMP2 and BMP3 and on German Puma (not a correct compare but still) - elevation depends on a module itself. If you talking about killing everything what is lower then it is also adjustable. For example your turret can have an ability to elevate in certain moments and so on. The BMP2 and BMP3 have relatively poor depression and elevation for being able to engage air and ground. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleksandr Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 47 minutes ago, Rinaldi said: Unfortunately not, because I'm disagreeing with the overwhelming majority of your observations. Oh ok. Well I mean never harm to ask right?) Keep on disagreeing my friend. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleksandr Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 15 minutes ago, Sulomon said: The BMP2 and BMP3 have relatively poor depression and elevation for being able to engage air and ground. Well they are not AA guns thats true but they can make life difficult. But not the point - they are vintage stuff as well - what we need to take from them is a concept of pairing different types of weapon systems and overcome them in quality. Another way of making IFVs (not APCs) is to make super heavy IFVs what would provide tank level protection. Basically when you turining a tank into IFV - but those are good only for one thing - break through feild along with tanks. When im thinking about IFV I'm thinking about having a flexible thing what is deadly, fast, and not very expepensive - so that the price of casualty is not a killer. It is funny but I do consider price as a factor as well. Thats why I think that we should look for modernization options for what we have. But Ideal IFV for me would be something compared to BMP 3 but with implimentation of western technologies. And... Im aware of high profile vehicles I'll be honest with you here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Sulomon said: The BMP2 and BMP3 have relatively poor depression and elevation for being able to engage air and ground. Say what? 740 Even the BMP-3 is respectable: 600 (and it'll likely throw a guided missile at your shiny & oh so expensive helicopter) Edited January 3, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleksandr Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: Say what? Thats what I'm talking about!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) For comparison: 590 Man those things look badass with all the ERA & electrickery up top! Edited January 3, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleksandr Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 From a personal point of view I would call this one a perfect one... the only thing I would like to add is a lil more firepower to it. So when I think about perfect IFV I'm thinking about something like these pumas but with bigger guns and a bit more power in its engine. And again - crossing rivers is important - new IFV must be a universal - it must be able to do few things well and one or two very well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Does that already have the Spike launcher? If not it will soon from what I recall, but it's a pricy thing and likely not much more Kornet resistant than a Stryker unless they add an APS, which would further up the cost.....Somebody has to pay for all this and TBH Europe as a whole and Germany in particular are not very enthusiastic about things like that right now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 19 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: 600 (and it'll likely throw a guided missile at your shiny & oh so expensive helicopter) ...that it can easily evade. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleksandr Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Alrighty gentlemen - I've made my point. I hope you guys will keep on talking about future vehicles - it is an important topic. Hope everyone was happy on their new years eve - see you in other discussions! P.S. A lil more firepower and it might be just what we need (personal/subjective opinion). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, LukeFF said: ...that it can easily evade. While it's evading it isn't hunting and there's always the missile that you don't see coming (likewise there's also always the helicopter you don't see coming too, but rather than enter into a futile willy-waving competition, let's just accept that the comment regarding BMP gun elevation was bollocks, because it was). Edited January 3, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 5 hours ago, Rinaldi said: Unfortunately not, because I'm disagreeing with the overwhelming majority of your observations. Yeah I am totally confused by the supposition. How the hell did the vehicle survive if all the infantry which is the very reason the vehicle existed are dead? If you wanted a tank why didn’t you start with a tank. You’d have saved a few lives in infantry. I think i am I am starting to slip into a rabbit hole of non logic. @MOS:96B2P can you share some of that popcorn? I actually hate the stuff but if I keep my pie hole full maybe it will save me from further confusion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rinaldi Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Too late, he's already "made his point." He stirs up just enough sh*t to revive a dead topic, then prances off. You might as well leave the popcorn on the counter with logic and reason sitting next to it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS:96B2P Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 8 hours ago, sburke said: can you share some of that popcorn? I actually hate the stuff but if I keep my pie hole full maybe it will save me from further confusion. Sure thing. I'll also break out the bottle of Jack Daniels. I tag our friend @Rinaldi to buy the next round .......... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougPhresh Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Whole lot of people who have never served obsessed with toys ITT What's that saying about amateurs studying tactics and professionals studying logistics... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrTom Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 It really looks like a big "what if" game. What if we run into tanks? What if the infantry are all dead, what if we are surrounded, what if they have battle mechs, what if they have John Rambo? There's only so far down the chain you can go before it gets ridiculous. +1 for Pentagon Wars. It's my favourite "almost too real to be funny" movie alongside Office Space. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleksandr Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 I'm just going to leave this here... he he 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 This thread is very confusing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleksandr Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 3 hours ago, HerrTom said: It really looks like a big "what if" game. What if we run into tanks? What if the infantry are all dead, what if we are surrounded, what if they have battle mechs, what if they have John Rambo? There's only so far down the chain you can go before it gets ridiculous. +1 for Pentagon Wars. It's my favourite "almost too real to be funny" movie alongside Office Space. Its exactly what it is. We have 0 people here what would make decisions about how our APC/IFV will look like in the future. So basically all this discussion is a huge "what if." None of you will construct and then build an APC/IFV. So yes I view all descussions about hardware as a huge "what if." Its a game forum where gamers are sharing their thoughts, content, and ideas. Furthermore, there is no such class of a person here who would be considered right or wrong. Everyone thinks how they like to think. So if we would imagine that we will always fighting terrorists with small arms - then yea current way of building APC/IFV will work perfectly fine. Yet, if we will imagine situation of a hybrid conflict or a world war, or a border conflict against some powerful military force then our vehicles (and understanding of them) should be adopted to new variables. What I did was simply suggesting some hardcore scenario - where one vehicle - one gun would not make a difference. Besides from the very beginig I've said that what Im saying is subjective. So let us agree to disagree lol I'm fine with that. P.S. Guys I'm thinking about starting my own youtube channel where I will be sharing kinda same thoughts while making some in game footage - you guys going to be my subscribers right?) I mean I can count on your support right?) lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleksandr Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 7 hours ago, Rinaldi said: Too late, he's already "made his point." He stirs up just enough sh*t to revive a dead topic, then prances off. You might as well leave the popcorn on the counter with logic and reason sitting next to it. With all do respect my friend, its not you who decides when this or any other topic is dead. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleksandr Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 15 hours ago, sburke said: Yeah I am totally confused by the supposition. How the hell did the vehicle survive if all the infantry which is the very reason the vehicle existed are dead? If you wanted a tank why didn’t you start with a tank. You’d have saved a few lives in infantry. I think i am I am starting to slip into a rabbit hole of non logic. @MOS:96B2P can you share some of that popcorn? I actually hate the stuff but if I keep my pie hole full maybe it will save me from further confusion. I simply describe you a situation when you have to fully depend on a firepower provided by your APC/IFV. Basically speaking I've described you a situation where you cant depend on Javelins and infantry. You are so sure that you will always be able to use that - that I've had to describe a situation where you cant depend on that. Why? So that you will think out of the box a little. There is no logic in different pattern however - think about it - when we talk about APC/IFV itself you are putting major AT role on infantry - in my opinion - that has no logic. So the purpose of those things I've said is to take you out of your comfort zone in terms of fantasizing (and this is what we do here) about new type of APC/IFV for our wonderful military. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleksandr Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 6 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said: Sure thing. I'll also break out the bottle of Jack Daniels. I tag our friend @Rinaldi to buy the next round .......... I would suggest to go with DEANSTON scotch my friend. And if you are a smoker you will never regret that choice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleksandr Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 But don't worry guys I've got it - you simply don't like what I'm saying no matter what it is. Well not going to disturb your fine company any longer. I'm sorry for invading this little topic of yours. All of you obviusly and most surely - > definitely know more than me about everything, and thats why you guys feeling nice while grouping up against a person who thinks differently. I understand thats how the world works its ok. Again sorry for my input - it was probably highly disturbing for some of you, and it was probably highly illogical and amatur from your standpoint. I mean how dare I right?) lol Anyhow enjoy your week gentlemen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 I think you are too personally invested in the suggestion you are making. You set a situation as one necessary for AFV design but the view of most here is that is not how you design a vehicle. You design it to assume a particular function. Taking it out of that function and creating an unusual situation is not then the basis for designing the vehicle. The assumption is flawed. That is all folks are saying. There isn’t the same interest to redesign an AFV which does not start from what is its primary function. Dont get too wrapped up in it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.