Are IFVs becoming more viable as modern combat vehicles than tanks?
The Chinese think so
>>65198234They still have a worse survival ratio on the field.
They're just cheaper and logistically easier to manage
>>65198234Yes
The IFV, is the new medium tank.The Main Battle Tank is the heavy tank concept and it is becoming obsolete
No, because you will always have somebody go>I need something biggerAnd while you can go>b-b-b-but Stryker 105 is a IFVThat's not viable in standing against other IFVs with 30mm etc. Almost like the army needs something that can provide fire support with a big gun, has armor to resist IFV weaponry up to 30mm/35mm, is cheaper than a MBT and lighter than a MBT and could be attached to infantry units rather than having to request mech unit support.I dunno, call it something like, I'm just spitballing here, the M11 Rooker or something. I dunno, I'm not in procurement.
>>65199516Why not just use drones?
>>65199519Because drones require a place to launch them and a place to loiter them and you need to make sure you've SNEEDED and they don't get shot down.>b-b-b-but Alibaba drones with a grenade on them.....Yeah ain't gonna blow up fortifications and shit.>w-w-w-ell put something big on them!So infantry units now have to carry around a drone capable of carrying heavy loads and also need to make sure the enemy doesn't have manpads and shit?Well you're now adding more weight to the already overloaded infantryman and leave him fucked if the drone is shot down. Whereas if he had something attached to his unit already he can just go>Put a frag round on bunker, 10 o clockAnd it's just done and you move on.
>>65199516>could be attached to infantry units rather than having to request mech unit support.I know youre trynna be cheeky, but thats exactly what was wrong with the Booker, It required mech unit support as none of the infantry regiments had the means to
>>65199531No, what was wrong with the Booker is, and I quote>It wasn't air droppableThat was the issue and why it was cancelled. Its entire purpose was to be a support unit for IBCTs. The whole point was it needed to be able to go where Abrams and other 'heavy gun' vehicles couldn't go. Remember, Abrams are pushing north of 60 tons now. The Booker is half that. So ignoring all the fuel consumption, range, mobility, speed and stuff, it simply can traverse stuff the Abrams can't and allows IBCTs to perform fire support without requiring something from a mech unit. It was suppose to allow operational flexibility, but because the new admin arrived and screeched it couldn't be air dropped so stop building them, despite that NEVER being a requirement in the original design request, we're now left in a situation where IBCTs have to request mech support or air support or use other tools which are more suitable for other things.
>>65199540Cancelling the booker was the right call
ahem.
>>65199531What do you mean? It isn't much heavier than fully layden logistics trucks
>>65199523>SNEEDEDFormerly?
>>65199570Man, the Ukrainians think of everything
>>65198234IFVs have been the new hot shit since the first Gulf War.
