Mine's the MT-LB, very short & handles rough terrain well. Though riding inside it / getting inside it is very uncomfortable.It also looks very cool, I like how it can be used in so many roles.
>>64413411These things are also super uncomfortable to drive, unreliable, hard to see out of, and have such terrible steering that it's genuinely hard to keep them on a narrow road at any speed greater than a brisk jog.
>>64413411The cooler MT LB
>>64413411These two.Bradley for effectiveness.T-55 as a close second for being THE most "tank" looking tank ever constructed.
>>64413422MT-LB with seafood allergy
>>64413423Yeah, I'll give you that. Like when you realize that the Honda Civic is THE car silhouette.Also, did they start getting new Bradleys out there at some point? I don't remember them being paired with M-55s, but I could be misremembering the lower-profile side of the Zaporizhia Six.
>>64413448>Also, did they start getting new Bradleys out there at some point?I don't think so. I saved that pic in May 2023.
>>64413411>shoots atgms >good protection>destroys t-90s
>>64413472I know BAE was starting the line back up. We know there's been nothing in further drawdowns, but other contracts aren't subject to the same transparency rules. Didn't recall seeing the picture, so I guess I just dared to hope that you were a knower.
>>64413411My favorite military vehicle is the M60 Patton, but I love the MT-LB's little mini turret it is the cutest thing. If i ever have children I will build them a little jungle gym with a mini turret, but with a telescope replacing the machine gun.
>>64413411For me it's the M48, and not the later M48A5 but the old 90mm model. MTLB is pretty cute though>>64413423The M-55S is pretty sex, then again I love super extensive modernizations to incredibly ancient equipment. Same feeling I get with the super Mig-21s, F4 Terminators, and the heavily modded AKs ex-comblocs field
>>64413420all true, but it goes no matter what. it just goes and looks cute doing it.
Mine is rhe MTLB Waffenträger purely for the asthetics.
The Boxer is highly underrated as a vehicle, although my sole experience with it is the Revell battle ambulance kit I build
>>64413735Forget about E-50s or jets, time-travelling wehraboos should just give Nazi Germany Puccia's pre-Ukraine stockpile of these badboys [spoiler]plus modern knowledge of oil wells and extraction[/spoiler] and we wouldn't have ziggers to worry about today.
>>64413735Videos like this highlight the reasons why the Soviets/Russians insisted upon amphibious vehicles with paper-thin armor. You can't get to the fight if you're stuck in the mud. The flipside is that you can't survive the fight if the armor only stops rifle-caliber bullets. So Vadim rides on top and hopes for the best.
too bad they are extinct, i actually had a bit of fun collecting new ones
>>64413411m8 greyhound
>>64413411For me the last few days, it's this piece of pure sex.
>>64413870Too modern, the M109 still does it for me
>>64413878DoD needs to get off its ass and replace that sumbitch already.
Kek. Just looked it up. Congress is now forcing the Army to look at buying a foreign SPG design.
Most kino tank design coming through
>>64413411
>>64413870They really are trying to shoehorn that vehicle into something that someone wants to buy
I bet I'll get some flak for this, but I rate the Topol M. I just think it's a good launch platform
>>64413411>Favorite military vehicle?
>>64414090
>>64414090The fuck is up with those fooating wheels?
>>64414105WWII French vehicles optimized for trench/ditch crossing.When the front drive wheels go into the trench/ditch, the small front unpowered wheels are already in contract with the opposite embankment preventing it from digging in and getting stuck. The rear drive wheels then power the vehicle forward until the front drive wheels pull it up and across. The small unpowered wheels under the chassis prevent the vehicle from being high centered.
>>64414090>AI-slop>Thalidomide Joop
>>64414105Unditching wheel/rollers.Gives your vehicle unlimited approach angle to go up steep sides. Halftracks and scout cars had them too. I dont know why more off roaders do this instead of chopping the shit out of their front end, it seems easier.
for me it'sMatilda 2 - because it's cuteKettenkrad - because it's cute and SSR is very goodSpitfire - because it's cute and squadron 303IL-2 Sturmovik - because it's fat and cute and i played the game a lot and liked it a lot
>>64413411Why did the west never really field lightly armored amphibious multipurpose tractors? Obviously they make shitty APCs, but I could see all sorts of less suicidal uses for them.
>>64414151>it seems easier.It is easy. But it also doesn't work very well. A high bumper beats a roller bumper any day.
>>64414244Otter would be the closest US equivalent i think
>>64414135that all makes sense in a very french sort of way
>>64414244>Why did the west never really field lightly armored amphibious multipurpose tractors?
>>64414276The M76 Otter was unarmored, the body was insulated aluminum sheet metal.
>>64414276Neat, and I see there were a few other vehicles in the same lineage. Nothing since the 70s, though. Does the military just use helicopters to supply areas that wheels can't reach now?>>64414296Aren't these specifically amphibious APCs, though? More like a BMD than an MT-LB.
>>64413448>Honda Civic is THE car silhouetteMaybe if you're underage.
>>64413448>Like when you realize that the Honda Civic is THE car silhouette.I always felt like the R32 Skyline was the most "default car" looking car.
>>64413423>>64413448>T-55>M-55which is it?
>>64413737holy based
>>64414601M-55 is the Slovak modernization package with proper thermals and shit.
>>64414700oh, thank you for clarifying that
Has anyone in history ever used the machine gun turret in combat because I've never seen it.
the M3 and M3A1 half-track are greatbut almost all photos of them have the M2 browning equipped, theres only a few photos of them with the M1917A2 equipped, armored infantry were supposed to have the latter equipped as standard on their rifle platoonsmaybe they didnt want the public to see them using WW1 era guns?
>>64413681>not the later M48A5how dare (You)
>>64415347I just like the muzzle brake, the 105 doesn't look nearly as cool
removing these from infantry divisions was one of their more questionable decisions, since by all accounts they didnt like the towed 105mms nearly as much as the 75mm half-tracks despite the larger caliber
>>64413965Based Hilux appreciator
>>64413411>>64413422Nice to see men of taste
the baseline M3 halftrack is pretty rare in photographs, despite having a production run of about 10,000 vehiclescompared to about 6000 M3A1s produced with the raised gunshield for the main gun
>>64415467>>64414745were you supposed to close the flaps infront of the engine before combat?
>>64415478it could be toggled from inside the cabkeeping it closed would prevent air flow and risk overheating but prevented bullets from hitting the enginetypically, they would only shut it when taking fire and then open it up again once it was safe
>>64414244Because despite seeming like an obvious solution vehicles like the MT-LB are actually a niche of a niche of a nicheUSA automotive tech was always a step ahead of the Soviets and in the 70s it got to the point that even basic bitch wheeled cargo trucks could keep up with off roading tracked IFVs. For USA/NATO purposes, wheels were seen as mostly fine as any destination that couldn't be traversed with wheels, couldn't be connected to the road/rail network by engineers, but was still important enough to warrant transportation was given air lift which the USA is also really good at.Russia had to stick with tracks for a lot of their vehicles because of the usual suspects of mud, snow, and NATO air supremacy limiting strategic air lift but also because top-down command and deep battle doctrine sort of forced ground units to have to be able to do a bit of everything without relying on supporting engineers like bridgelayers, roadbuilders, and such. Hence why so many Soviet vehicles were made amphibious to the point that even their tanks were designed to snorkel through rivers. The fact that they made for inferior APCs and that wheels were superior for long ranged driving wasn't a concern, all their vehicles had to do was get to their destinations in western europe and exist in enemy territory until the tanks made it.The Soviets had unarmored tractors like everyone else but the reason they made armored tractors is because they were planning to fight both an offensive and a defensive war that involved thousands of cheap towed AT guns that might need to be moved around under artillery fire. Meanwhile the west knew that they would be reacting to Soviet action so they wanted overall good tactical mobility that could be used offensively and defensively. Hence why towed AT guns were more or less abandoned by NATO and replaced with tanks and advanced attack helicopters that obviously don't need tractors.
Are there even any MT-LBs left?
>>64413411I’ve been looking for Syrian civil war footage of an MT-LB doing donuts. It was shot from a high building looking down into a plaza of sorts. There were a bunch of Syrian gov vehicles in action along this city with a large highway dividing it.
Although river crossing operations were carried out in Europe, LTVs were rarely used and Ford GPAs were sent to the Soviet Union. Were amphibious forces not actually needed to secure the bridgehead across the river? Or were DUKWs carrying soldiers and guns sufficient?
>>64413870that looks awfully impractical.it's like a bastardized hybrid of an armored self-propelled howitzer and a truck SPG with none of the advantages.
>>64414151Roller bumpers can snap your frame. Choose no stress over distributed stress.
another baseline M3 halftrack without the raised gun mount
>>64413423>T-55 as a close second for being THE most "tank" looking tank ever constructed.T-72 for me. It looks like a sleek, fast, powerful predator
>>64415481It was also a cold weather function to retain heat
>>64413473reformers and ziggers don’t like to hear it but it’s irrefutable truth
>>64413411bradley for obvious reasons followed by the LAV 6. I think the LAV 6 looks really cool, even cooler than the bradley. it's also faster and requires less maintenace than a tracked IFV which is neat. I think it'd be fun to drive around in an LAV 6 with the lads and shoot the cannon at shit.
>>64416106>were DUKWs carrying soldiers and guns sufficient?id guess so, other than the Waal crossing at Nijmegen I cant really think of situations on the western front were a river had to be crossed with any sort of urgency or strong oppositionyou'd put a light(ish) force on the opposite bank and then you waited for the bridging equipment
>>64414700>>64414704akhsually it's slovene, not slovak. not that you should care about eastern yuropoor shithole differences
>>64416106LTVs were also prioritized to the pacific, where the ability to go up to the beach and back to the water was important
>>64413771Careful what you wish for. I wouldn't trust a fucking G*rman with even half of that responsibility. Their ability to fuck up and explain away their failures matches their perceived technical autism. Actually, in some sense, those two things are functionally one and the same.
>>64416572Oh anon this looks like a bad star wars prop. It's way too greebly for modern tanks.
Nothing beats the CentauroEight wheels of pure sex
>>64413985What are the fire extinguishers for? Putting out the firestorm from counter volley?
>>64417453Do you even know how fast you can chill beer with a fire extinguisher?
>>64417453Firing giant missiles gets pretty hot, that's why the Scud and the Topol have a reinforced compartment below the cabin. You can see it pretty well in this picture, but I think extinguisers are necessary regardless, because of the high temperatures involved in firing missiles
What does anon think of the modular Kraut-Bongmobile?
>>64417966Patria makes better ones, both with their 6x6 and 8x8.
>>64413747More like the bull terrier
>>64418252Patria's is much happier, to be sure.
>>64416106US forces didnt like the Seep so they were sent to Soviet Union, used DUKW
>[Metal riff]
>>64413411>It's a boat>Twin water jets>Carries 6 guys>Light tank hull>It's a boat>Water jets>Twin 14.5mms and a 7.62x54>Really fast>It's a boat>IR spotlight and motorized twin 14.5mm AA guns>It's a light tank that is a boat>It's a boatOne of the things i really like about it is that it's really fast, has a light tank hull and has a pair of 14.55mm guns. Also it's a boat that has twin water jets. I'm sure it is not that great because it has to be compared to IFVs not APCs but they look like they are really fun to zip around in before you get killed.
>>64419952Worth noting that these things usually carry 1400-1800 rounds of 14.5mm, if they ditch the infantry that goes up to 8-10k rounds. Norks do love their 14.5mm.
>>64419952>The not BMP · BMD · MT-LBu at home
>>64419980Imagine how much more powerful they'll be when they discover 20mm.
nothing more permanent than a temporary solutionthe M10 did pretty well despite resistance to it
Any fucking thing that gives me a lift
>>64420038I will full admit that the Norks aversion to autocannons and IFVs is a mystery to me. They could make a decent IRV if they wanted to, they just don't want to. 23mm or even 57mm wouldn't be a issue but they love 14.5mm.They have something like 4K armored vehicles with those twin 14.5mm turrets (not to mention half the planets KPVs) and they seem like they are sticking with them. They spent half a century stockpiling 14.5mm, i assume they don't want it to go to waste.
>>64420066Their doctrine doesn't include IFVs, only MBT and APCs. That aside they're huge AGL fags, and you know it.
the M3 had mounts for up to 3 additional machine guns, though they didnt come with machine guns already mountedbut nothing was stopping them from borrowing unused M1919s or M1917s and slapping them on the side to make a guntruck
>>64413411Also, it's only 5 points to buy which gives some flexibility to deck building.
>>64420075Trying to figure out their military doctrine is a nightmare. Literally nightmares, i have dreams where i'm the loader for one their 125mm guns and i suddenly realize it's a Sprut not a 2A46 and i can't figure out how to operate the breech block because i haven't watched the youtube clip that shows me how to do that.
>>64420075I am really interested in the logic behind them just ignoring IFVs completely, i am sure they have a reason for it i just can't figure it out. They aren't stupid, i just can't understand why they don't have a IFV. 323s would very serviceable with a AC, much like M113s (better in a few ways) but they just aren't interested in IFVs. It is a mystery.
curvy and cute
It's a tough decision, but I think I'll have to say the humble BTR-82A. Something about the shape of it is perfect to me, but I also just like all of Russian vehicle design.
She cute. Looks like a little turtle.
>>64413411I have many but i still always come back to the M60. It still holds up even though it shouldn't.
>>64420878>invent a stopgap tank >it gets used for 30 yearsthe only "final" products that the US ended up using were the M48 and the M1 abrams, it seems
>>64419980Self replying pinko shill propagandist faggot
>>64420881The M60 was going to get an M60A4 variant in the 80s to serve alongside the Abrams into the 90s/2000s. It was developed by Teledyne/Continental. Gave it a much better composite armor pack, new tech that was actually better than early M1 electronics, uprated the engine to 1200hp and it could mount a 105mm or 120mm gun. Army literally declined it because it was too similar in capability to the Abrams and would have likely cause congress to cut back investment into further upgrades and purchases of the Abrams. Israel kept developing the M60 for two decades after the US stopped. Turkey and Taiwan still are launching new versions.
>>64417453They are probably there to stop a brake or tire fire from turning into a HATO counterforce asset.
Not sure why but i've always liked the Israeli Shermans
Recovery vehicles are always neat because it usually revolves around turning an MBT into a non combat role that still has to take a stray hit.
Anything built on the BAZ 59-- chassis. That angled front the ribbed metal looks is peak to me.Particular love for the Tochka TELs.
>>64413411Sexpanzer Leopard 1, since I've been able to drive one I've been obsessed by it
>>6442006614.5mm is just the Soviet cope equivalent of 20mm that they have to use because their vehicles are all amphibious and made of tinfoil and would tear apart if they used 20mm.
>>64413800Nah, there was a shit ton still in deep storage that were built out with ATGMs. Russia recently started pulling those out for reactivation, but they're rusted to shit so it'll probably take 5 hulls just to fix one
>>64421582Soviets had excellent 23 and 25 mm autocannons (barrel stiffness aside). The 14.5 is a HMG caliber and the KPV was always used as HMG
>>6442164223, 25, and 30 are the Soviet cope equivalents of 25, 30, and 40.
>>64421661>gasligthingAre you that bored? Sorry, but I'm not interested in arguing with lesser minds.
>>64421131for me it's the gecko, its smug face amuses me. it's also supposedly amphibious.
>>64421792It does looks kinda smug. And got to love an Eastern Bloc vehicle when it throws on the white walls.
>>64421792Those could be amusing in Wargame since some riverbanks were steep enough to block LOS, allowing you to have them hidden and dug in at unexpected locations
>>64413423Which brigade has our m-55s? How do they perform?40dtpx
>>64423332 (me)Also i don't know why didn't you just throw out this old-ass Blazer ERA. It's not much effective anyway, kontakt5 is probably way better. Or Nozh, even better.
>>64413448The Thug Shaker General leak (remember that?) said the 47th Mechanized Brigade was getting M-55 and M2A2 ODS Bradleys.
>>64413878>>64413891The M109 is the SP howitzer of Theseus. The current model isn't even built on the same hull as the earlier ones. Is it super modern? No, but it's not antiquated by any means.
>>64424784Forgot the pic.>>6442333247th Mechanized
>>64413891155 isn't worth a whole new platform. Its role is heavily limited now between HIMARS and loitering munitions. It's worth fielding, but not worth upgrading unless they can find a way to greatly expand its capability, like they've been trying and failing to do with ERCA and all the programs that preceded it.
>>64413772And Vova in the driver's seat hopes they aim for Vadim and not him
>>64413411I just like it
>>64417100Looks sleek like an Italian sports car.
>>64420043>cope bags
>>64425411the army did actually conclude that sandbags were useless and officially advised against their use, but turned a blind eye to sandbagging in the field since it made soldiers feel betterbut about 50 shermans were uparmored with extra armor plate rather than sandbags and could supposedly resist the panthers gun
>>64421792The bane of my uh-60 gun runs in Mercenaries
For me, it's the AT-T. What if truck, but more?
>>64425475Ah fuck forgot pic
None higher. None faster. None cooler.
>>64425411we can do better
>>64424787How do they perform (m55s)? Didn't you (47th) used to have Abrams?Also can you write about your exp of the war?
Is there any advantage to having shorter vehicles? Is there a point where it becomes a liability and skimping out on extra spaces hurts survivability?
>>64425860By shorter I assume you mean less tall, and not shorter in length; not anymore, it's not 1942 where your biggest threat comes from something else at ground level.Russian tanks, for example, are all pretty smol, WW2 Shermans mog T-series tanks in terms of height. The idea being that, by presenting a lower profile, you are harder to spot and engage, and you minimize the possible angles you have defend from . . . But now tanks are getting drone'd 15 kilometers from the contact line and presenting a lower profile suddenly became much less important than say, having enough room for your operators to get out of the fucking thing when it catches fire.
>>64425860>Is there any advantage to having shorter vehicles?a smaller vehicle is lighterthe square cube law actually suggests that even small reductions in size result in large reductions in weight>>64425948threats still from the ground-level today, from other tanks, from infantry with launchers, and from non-tank AFVs with autocannons or ATGMsbut height always had jack and shit effect on protectionat a range of 1000m, the size difference between the M4 and T-34 would only have translated to a 10% reduction in probable hit chancesilhouette has never been a major factor in survivability, even when people were still using basic telescopic sights
>>64418252what's this dollar store BTR shit dude
>>64427905It's the happy Patria.
>>64425948>you are harder to spot and engage, Reducing size is a way to improve protection because weight is restricted. if you want to reduce visibility then you use camo
>>64416543They hate it as much as this board hates schizos that reply to themselves.
>>64427939No, it's Sisu.
>>64427905BTR is totally shit shitbox. With high quality vehicles you unload from the rear, not from sides or from the top from a hole, where you have to remove your webbing to get out. Sisu's PaSi's and Patria's AMV's are so much higher quality vehicles, you have no idea how much worse BTR's are.
>>64425478Objectively correct answer. Never forget, made with slide rules in under 5 years, still undefeated. The actual sky king.
>>64413411M113
>>64425499Can you consider this composite armour if you add kitchen tiles to it?
>>64420891Nice way to out yourself as a mod or jannie. I always do get very specific cross thread comments regardless of trip code before a 3 day ban. >>64421582>>64421642It isn't a bad round and the Norks have a ridiculous amount of it, the guns are big things but they work and they work well. There was never a nation in human history who ever complained about having too many KPVs or enough ammo to feed them. No one has ever complained that they had too many KPVs or too much 14.5mm stockpiled.
>>64413411The Sd.Kfz. 234
>>64432505And the Sd.Kfz. 234/4
>>64427905Upgraded BTR-50s are very under appreciated
>>64425476often imitated never duplicated
>>64427905It's the best. You may not like it, but that ^_^ is what peak performance looks like.
>>64432375You are a fucking cancer
