Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

See Mr. Burke, what you fail to understand is that if a vehicle exists, and its in the military, it has to be a tank. Its a simple concept; army vehicles go boom boom with big guns. Trying to app

If all the infantry the carrier is meant to protect are hors d'combat, it has already failed in its primary mission and everything else is a moot point. 

This part is true.  This part is not.  No to both.  Roads, off-roads, it really doesn't matter. Before the Stryker, the Army had two types of forces: very light, and very heavy. Ver

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

bmp-2+gun+elevation.jpg

740

Even the BMP-3 is respectable:

bmp-3_1.jpg

600 (and it'll likely throw a guided missile at your shiny & oh so expensive helicopter)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

B2s5T7T.jpg

icyajCF.jpg

VuPTXsF.jpg

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

w24zmfH.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...