Best Infantry Fighting Vehicle

[Onyx]

What's interesting about the M2 Bradley is that it was actually intended to be an upgrade to the M113. It was supposed to be a cheap APC that could carry 14 troops, was amphibious, move at faster speeds, and be low noise and able to navigate woodland.

Instead they spent over 5,600,000,000$ to conceived a 3 million dollar vehicle that could only carry 6 men, wasn't amphibious, moved slower than an M113, and was too large to navigate thicket. They have been trying to replace the junk bradley for almost three decades now.

Once again, I have to highly recommend the film Pentagon Wars.

 

[Onyx]

A where did you get that quote...b TOW will rip the face off anything

It's a bug. I fixed it to say Jake Starkey.

ATGM isn't effective against an MBT with advanced reactive armor. I'll take a stabilized rotating cannon with Sabot rounds over a flimsy immobile AT missile launcher any day.

 

[Manonthestreet]

A where did you get that quote...b TOW will rip the face off anything

It's a bug. I fixed it to say Jake Starkey.

ATGM isn't effective against an MBT with advanced reactive armor. I'll take a stabilized rotating cannon with Sabot rounds over a flimsy immobile AT missile launcher any day.

You go down range and lets test that out.........good luck with your 30 autocannon

 

[Onyx]

You go down range and lets test that out.........good luck with your 30 autocannon

It has been tried and tested. There is a reason most tanks are equipped with a 100mm plus cannon with APFSDS rounds and not ATGM.

By the way, I wouldn't suggest going up against an MBT with a 40mm autocannon either. As a last resort, I would rather use that over a TOW though.

 

[Manonthestreet]

You go down range and lets test that out.........good luck with your 30 autocannon

It has been tried and tested. There is a reason most tanks are equipped with a 100mm plus cannon with APFSDS rounds and not ATGM.

By the way, I wouldn't suggest going up against an MBT with a 40mm autocannon either. As a last resort, I would rather use that over a TOW though.

LLMMAAOOO.......,how old are you again

 

[Onyx]

I'll take that as your concession.

 

[Manonthestreet]

You go down range and lets test that out.........good luck with your 30 autocannon

It has been tried and tested. There is a reason most tanks are equipped with a 100mm plus cannon with APFSDS rounds and not ATGM.

By the way, I wouldn't suggest going up against an MBT with a 40mm autocannon either. As a last resort, I would rather use that over a TOW though.

Can u name a MBT that uses missiles instead ...... Might not cost be a heavy factor instead of penetration eh.......hhhhmmmmm

 

[Manonthestreet]

Tow is designed to defeat reactive armor.....you might beat it with a newer active system but not all of the time....wasting autocannon ammo on something you cant penetrate doesnt enhance you survival

 

[Onyx]

Can u name a MBT that uses missiles instead ...... Might not cost be a heavy factor instead of penetration eh.......hhhhmmmmm

I can name an MBT that uses ATGM in addition to a cannon. Most Main Battle Tanks use only a cannon and no ATGM.

ATGM is more effective against less armored tanks and not a modern MBT, in which the impact of the missile explosion on the chassis alone is sufficient to disable the tank. You can destroy a modern MBT using ATGM, but you need to fire multiple times on the same section of armor plating until it can no longer absorb anymore blows. It is much easier to just fire a Sabot round that can penetrate the tanks armor.

Armored warfare has always involved penetrating the tank and immobilizing it, either by killing the crew or disabling the internal components. Tanks blowing up in a blaze is mostly Hollywood.

 

[Manonthestreet]

tanks dont use atgms as main round because it limits number of rounds and simply isnt cost effective. Main gun rounds also travel whole lot faster

 

[Onyx]

tanks dont use atgms as main round because it limits number of rounds and simply isnt cost effective. Main gun rounds also travel whole lot faster

The main reason is that reactive armor absorbs impact, which necessitates striking at a section of armor plating multiple times before it loses its effect. APFSDS penetrates through armor with ease, killing the crew and internal components inside the tank.

It's also worth noting that the development of more advanced Active Protection Systems also reduces the effectiveness of AT guided missiles.

 

[Onyx]

Anti-tank guided missiles are very effective when used by aircraft though, since tanks have virtually no armor on their top.

 

[Manonthestreet]

tanks dont use atgms as main round because it limits number of rounds and simply isnt cost effective. Main gun rounds also travel whole lot faster

The main reason is that reactive armor absorbs impact, meaning that you need to strike at a section of armor plating multiple times before it loses its effect. APFSDS penetrates through armor with ease , killing the crew and disabling the internal components inside the tank.

Uh no..............reactive armor can be defeated TOW is designed to defeat it.......Cost of DU round 12 to 15 hundred....missile is at least 50 to hundred times that

 

[Onyx]

TOW was created in the seventies. Advanced reactive armor came in the eighties. Please tell me how TOW was designed to defeat advanced reactive armor before it ever existed...

There is nothing special about TOW that allows it to bypass reactive armor. It has to wear down the plating just like all other AT missiles.

 

[Hossfly]

A where did you get that quote...b TOW will rip the face off anything

It's a bug. I fixed it to say Jake Starkey.

ATGM isn't effective against an MBT with advanced reactive armor. I'll take a stabilized rotating cannon with Sabot rounds over a flimsy immobile AT missile launcher any day.

You go down range and lets test that out.........good luck with your 30 autocannon

The Bradley's 25mm is awesome. A couple years ago at the 1st Cav reunion in Killeen, we got to observe a firepower demonstration. An old M-113 was the target and it was filled with old rags, boxes, canvas and other junk. When the 25mm round exited the other side of the APC everything in it was sucked out through the hole. I could hardly believe what I saw. The Range OIC said it would do the same thing with a human body.

 

[yiostheoy]

Best fighting vehicle for the Infantry is a D Model Huey or a T-10 parachute. The ones listed are nothing but mobile coffins. Just sayin'.

Airborne !!!

You guys can easily be shot out of the skies while you are landing.

You need to sneak-in at night.

 

[yiostheoy]

In my opinion the USMC AAV-P7A1 Amtrac's are the best, because:

1 - they can swim

2 - they can pop the top and then the infantry can shoot while they are moving.

But that was not on your list.

 

[yiostheoy]

In a modern ground battle, the tanks will be deployed forward with infantry following closely behind them.

The mission of the tanks is to take out enemy tanks and field guns.

The mission of the infantry is to protect the tanks from other disbursed skirmishing infantry.

If you cannot pop the top of the infantry vehicle then it is not much good for anything. Then it might as well be a taxi cab.

 

[Onyx]

In my opinion the USMC AAV-P7A1 Amtrac's are the best, because:

1 - they could swim

2 - they could pop the top and then the infantry can shoot while they are moving.

But that was not on your list.

Because the AAV is not an infantry fighting vehicle, dumbass. It is classified by the US military as an armored personnel carrier.

There are plenty amphibious vehicles with mounted machine guns. Those are very stupid low-information reasons.

 

[Onyx]

In a modern ground battle, the tanks will be deployed forward with infantry following closely behind them.

The mission of the tanks is to take out enemy tanks and field guns.

The mission of the infantry is to protect the tanks from other disbursed skirmishing infantry.

If you cannot pop the top of the infantry vehicle then it is not much good for anything. Then it might as well be a taxi cab.

Did you learn military theory during WW2?