IFV/APC question

Discussion in 'Boats, Planes, Other' started by The Niggar King, Oct 3, 2011.

  1. Why is it that when USSR buirld family of vehicle in the 60's such as BMPs, BTRs and BRDMs, America stick with tin can like Jeep and M113? And then buirld the Humvee in the 80's?

    Is quite ridiculours maybe, put soldier in soft skin car, fight in Iraq. "Oh no, many hundred soldier die what supposed to do now?" Then is make expensive armoured Humvee, find still too many soldier get killed. Then buirld design like ASV and Sryker which is both similar layout like BTR and BRDM. Europe devil start buirld this kind of vehicle in 70's, why not America?

    If a nation is spend almost as much money on their military as the rest of the world put together, why its soldier have to spend own money to weld some "hillbilly armour" to the sardine can they travel in?
     
  2. #3 The Niggar King, Oct 4, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    "In spite of its effectiveness during the Vietnam War, the US military made limited use of the V-100s after the war, deploying only small units of the armored cars with US Army Military Police platoons at the Herlong Army Depot in California during the 1970s, or other related sites across the country. The remaining V-100's were expended as "hard targets" for tank and machinegun ranges throughout various military installations."

    Lame.
     
  3. #5 The Niggar King, Oct 5, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  4. #6 nappyjb37, Oct 5, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    We're not talking about vehicles meant to impose force; we're talking about vehicles meant to demonstrate force. This is a very different role, and has been the primary focus of coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq for a number of years (like how something like 2/3rds of combat sorties are to drop flares). Vehicles need to be small and nimble enough that they can interact in civilian, urban traffic without causing too much trouble. But armored enough that thousands of men aren't sent home draped in a flag because of their vulnerabilities to IEDs. Wheeled armor, under 10-15 tons is the only way to really do that.

    The Stryker is on the verge of too big for that job.
     
  5. It comes down to what the military needed, for example they figured it was better to have a vehicle that could cover long distances, was light and cheap to build so they could have tons and tons of them lying around.

    Thing is in a war with a front line you don't need to worry about IEDs, just need to quickly ferry soldiers around.

    But in Iraq they came into the problem of the IED and needed to quickly bring in the MRAP.


    Also the bmp was and is junk really, if you notice videos, especially from the chechen war, the tactic of tank desant was used, because it is basically a death trap if you run over an anti-tank mine.

    So basically now the standard is turning to anything with a "V" hull as it deflects the blast of mines and IEDs away from the passenger compartment and generally costs a lot less than say a Stryker.
     
  6. Maybe I am not talk about IED or mine protectiorn, more interested in ballistic protectiorn.

    BMP-1/2 quite obsolete now maybe like any other IFV from 60's. I don't see any other IFV from that era have better protectiorn from kill tank mine.

    I just not see the logic behind thinking: "HEY LETS PUT SOMETHING WITH LARGE WINDOWS, STRAIGHT SURFACES AND CARDBOARD DOORS TO MILITARY USE BECAUSE IS EASIER TO GO WENDY DRIVE-IN WITH IT"

     
  7. M2 and LAV were too expensive for things that did not fly, according to the budget planners.
     
  8. Even more expensive than AMERICAN LIVES?
     
  9. i kinda like these
     
  10. Yes Fennek quite better protection than Humvee but is not like America wourld ever buy those. Is no problem when they buy expensive machine like B-2 or F-35 but they really like save money when shourld buy simple thing like rifle, machine gun or car.
     

Share This Page