The Armored Vehicle Thread

^ Because it sucks that's why! The Strv 103 was replaced with basically a modified Leo 2.

Actually, the S-tank did very well in its intended role: a defensive tank killer. Compared to its contemporaries, it was a purer hull-down fighting machine than any of them, perhaps excluding the Chieftain. Comparing it to the Leo-2 is like comparing an M60 to a Leo-2: they were designed twenty years apart.

The heavy IFV does seem to be the modern-day close support vehicle of choice. They are, however, rather thin-skinned compared to tanks. Now, it's true that Bradley and contemporary IFVs are surprisingly survivable for their weight, but that would only be considered sufficient if they were more survivable than, say, a T-55AM with BDD applique armor (which I consider doubtful).

Survivability is not the best measure for close support of choice. All the frontal armor in the Universe won't save you from a Javelin or Spike hitting you in the top. Likewise it won't save you from a Kornet or TOW from the side or rear.

All of those platforms are quite mobile and can be set up in short order meaning a quick flank job or finding an elevated position quickly negates the advantage of frontal armor.

Sabre: I think you may be looking for something more like the M-8 Armored Gun System. The intended replacement for the Sheridan and intended to fill the role you are describing. It had a 105mm was light weight air droppable but had add on armor packages that could up its protection level. The highest level protection was too big and heavy for it to be air dropped and required follow on forces.

Now if you folks remember the US Army is again looking for air droppable armor with the same purpose and even the bolt on armor profiles.

As for the original assault guns while pretty well armored many lacked turrets limiting how easily they could aim in a different direction without moving the whole vehicle. They were even more vulnerable to infantry fire from lack of gun mobility and many lacked adequate anti-infantry weapon mountings. In the Case of the Stridsvagn 103 "S Tank" it wasn't really meant to be an assault gun but to dig in like a tick and be more like a moving gun position capable of taking out tanks. It was basically the opposite of an assault gun in its intended use.

You can save some weight and cost by not having a turret but you lose internal room in the main chasis and the flexibility a turret brings. Like most design options there are benefits and trade offs.

edited 30th Aug '15 8:24:24 PM by TuefelHundenIV

The M-8 was killed both for Clinton's adventure in the Balkans in The '90s and when Shinsiki had a hard on for the Stryker. Perhaps it could have a comeback, but Gen Dynamics is still mad about the AMPV and losing it to the turretless Bradley.

Oh yes, soon the M113 will be gone from Army inventory, someone get Sparks a fainting couch....

edited 31st Aug '15 11:31:46 PM by TairaMai

Wait, the Tupperware dish is still in service?

O_o

Yes the M-113 is still around mostly because it was easy and cheap to make in quantity.

There is, actually, one that you've overlooked: the infantry toolkit has gotten bigger through their access to numerous shoulder-fired rocket weapons. Stuff like the M202 FLASH or Schmel, various LAW-type weapons, and at the platoon and company level ATGMs, mean that dealing with buildings or bunkers is not so great a problem as it once was for infantry.

Those armies rich enough to develop dedicated assault guns are also rich enough to develop alternate warheads for their ATGMs, LAWs or RPGs specialized to defeat concrete bunkers or provide enhanced blast effect inside buildings. The ability of infantry to solve their own problems in this regard, at relatively long ranges, has in most cases obviated the need for assault guns.

Combine this with 50+ years of improvement in communications and the ability for literally any man in the squad to pull out a smartphone and have it do the hard work on GPS and vector mechanics to call an artillery or air strike. (There are apps for that. Dead serious. I know people who have them on their phones as a relic of their tours in the sandbox.)

edited 31st Aug '15 12:37:40 AM by Night

Sort of. The Guns on those systems still out range rockets and pack more comparative punch. That and the grunts don't have to carry the vehicle in their pack...yet.

I think he'll be strongly considering being a legal resident here.

Found, this◊ (and from the front):◊ file under "S" for "Syria", as well as "sweet Jesus what is that".

Original context. Anyone fluent enough in Arabic to translate?

Well, it's a Panhard VCR, one of the 44 given to Iraq by the UAE.

What an odd looking vehicle. I like the tire armor makes it feel all adhoc. The cockpit look is interesting too.

And yet compared to many MRAP's that's a sexy sexy beast of an APC.

I figured it wasn't homemade—the armor is far too professionally machined than what would be possible without a factory—but jesus christ it's hideous. The cockpit is interesting, but still.

Also, that probably means it's Iraqi, not Syrian, unless IS stole it in Iraq, drove it to Syria, and then lost it to the rebels.

edited 2nd Sep '15 12:40:30 PM by SabresEdge

Interesting Array of Armored Vehicle Pics Be warned it is a Pk Defence forum though. Has some neat turreted M113 turret pics free of Mike Sparks stuff. I did not know there were that many turret variances made for the Aluminum Battle Box.

Anyone heard anything new about that Kurganets 57mm SPAAG?

edited 3rd Sep '15 2:17:48 AM by TuefelHundenIV

This is what some of the M113s our armed forces have would look like◊.

That's the Scorpion turret right?

Yes. But it's the ones with the .50 cal RCWS that gets the installation treatment first.

It's adorable

Should be fine until the president gets to see if the modernization budget is worth it... Hopefully it ain't him.

Hello everybody, I'll just pop in to say that Russia just did what everybody and their mother predicted it would do and applied the innovations used in the Armata to an older chassis, in this case, BMP-3.

edited 10th Sep '15 8:54:25 AM by KnitTie

^ The linky no worky. It just drops back to the Moscow Times main site.

Ugh, Thanks, Putin.

Copypasted for your reading pleasure: