The Armored Vehicle Thread

Yeah but they are cramped as fuck and packed with tiny Ivans.

BTR: About 7.5 feet tall and 9 feet wide. The most reliable number I can find for capacity is latest variants are 12 capacity possibly 14 likely depending on configuration and other equipment.

It's not their fault Yankee is fat. Especially Marines, it's why they float.

Marines don't float, they sink head first. It is why we have to take off our pants and fill them with hot air from zipper suited sun gods.

edited 3rd Nov '17 8:38:52 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Reminds me of the time I was getting a guided tour of a Huey, and the pilot said the capacity varied depending on if they were hauling American or Vietnamese troopers. Evidently corn-fed Nebraska boys just take more room than South Vietnamese boys.

But yeah, the discussion of Tiny Ivans caused the expression "Tactical Clown Car" to pop up in my head for no good reason.

So, for the futurized M3 tank, I suggest we call it the Spencer, for the commander of what I consider one of the more interesting cavalry units of the American Civil War.

Call it Gavin, just to take a piss at Spark.

pfft. Make it non-airdroppable, have real armor, and none of that stupid troop suicide shot from the top hatches nonsense.

Per this Battlefield One Reddit thread.

Putilov Garford armored truck spotted at recent October Revolution celebration of 100 years.

It's at 25:02 in.

Two words: Lenco Bearcat. Conspiracy theorists go after it a ton.

Why Bearcats in particular? Lots of other MRAPs in use by SWAT teams.

Some interesting tidbits on Soviet armour compositions.

Things have clearly not gone well for this M60T.

Oh damn. That thing got opened up.

That'll buff out

Did someone stick their finger fist in the bore?

Someone call the Mythbusters.

I'm sure that at one point or another, a duck and a rabbit were involved.

Smuckatelli left the bore cleaner in again.

The Russian's new activie protection system known as ''Afghanit'' has managed to destroy incoming sabot DU penetrators in controlled conditions.

This system is also likely to be backported to be included in the most recent upgrade package for the T-90.

This one could be a serious game changer.

Got a more reliable source?

I don't believe it, if you read the article there source is a Russian weapons tester saying it had.... not any kind of hard data, and the Russians have every reason to lie on this one.

Stoping a missile is one thing, swating a penetrator is another.

I do actually have some Russian literature on the subject because this happened a while ago but completely forgot to post about it. Gimme some time to look for it though.

But basically they've managed to do it a handful of times out of god knows how many attempts. Afghanit uses basically mini-missiles and mini-mortars loaded with airburst charges to defeat incoming projectiles as opposed to basically a huge spread of shot like Trophy or something.

It is capable of either destroying the penetrator in flight or disrupting it's ballistics enough that it will shatter on impact or otherwise fail to penetrate.

The onboard radar is also sensitive enough to track it despite it's ridiculous speed.

The problem, according to the Russians themselves, is that they're having a hard time making a computer powerful and fast enough to consistently give Afghanit a targeting solution on the projectile before it impacts.

A diagram of the system itself.◊

edited 1st Dec '17 8:01:58 PM by LeGarcon

Gar, your source is the Russians, the Russians have every reason to lie about this and none to be truthfull.

If they really could shoot down penetrators, that would be the kind of shit you kept quite about, there major enemy the western nations rely on penetrators almost entirely, and it would give them an untold advantage to keep this card close to there chest until it was needed.

Imagine going up agianst a russian tank expecting to cut through its armor and your bullet gets swatted, and no counter exists.... thats a nightmare situation.

However there bragging about this, which leads me to believe its a "Starwars" situation, where they CAN'T shoot down penetrators, but want us to believe that they can so that we sink RND money into something completely unneeded, and possibly worse.

Until there is actual tests of them doing it being shown, and not just talked about by there own people, it is not worth believing.

Well that's the thing. They're not bragging. It's a quote from an internal interview for their own media.

They've also said that right now, today, it's barely more than a fluke and that at best they've got a proof of concept rather than anything useful.

But honestly, given the specs and methods the new system uses. The only problem being computing power sounds pretty feasible. Fair sized explosive charge detonating on the projectile is definitely going to disrupt it.

And if it is really a computing power problem then it's basically a matter of time.

Basically what they actually said is: "If we had a supercomputer we could do it but we don't so we can't but maybe someday."

It's being sensationalized a bit but I think it's worth mentioning and might cause some serious problems in the near future.

edited 1st Dec '17 8:30:47 PM by LeGarcon

Their own media. You mean the same media that is known to be overtly controlled by the state and almost exclusively used as a propaganda machine? The same one that tried to use screen shots of an unpublished mobile game as proof that America was helping ISIS? That media?