/k/ - Weapons

>>521276

What am I trying to do? Suppress internal dissidents? Threaten a similarly powerful neighbor? Make it cost prohibitive for one of the big boys to gobble me up?

>>521278

>Suppress internal dissidents? Threaten a similarly powerful neighbor? Make it cost prohibitive for one of the big boys to gobble me up?

All of the above.

Plus I need a tank fleet for my annual military parade and shit better looks snazzy.

>>521279

Chrome plated FT-17 with a Maxim Pom-Pom instead of the standard cannon.

No other taker?

I suppose Leopard II is also kinda cheap no?

Armored car would be a better move.

Potential bigger invader would likely go through with aircraft, bombing everything, first. Which means it doesn't matter how armored your track is, what matters is having more of them than can be destroyed. If you have 500 tracks and 90% get wrecked, the fifty that remain aren't a huge help when the enemy armor rolls in, they would be too separated from one another to coordinate or do anything. But if you have 50,000 armored cars, the attacking enemy is going to have to do 100k + observation sorties to find your damn cars, and 50k+ strike sorties to have the same (95%) kill rate for tracks. You probably wouldn't lose even 30%, but lets say the enemy is Espheni and you lose say 85% of your cars, you still have around 7,500. This is enough to raid enemy supplies, or build a nucleus of technicals around. Hell, armored cars can penetrate even enemy MBT from the side, if they have a good cannon or ATGM, which means you can conduct direct strikes against invaders (not recommended).

Domestic suppression and neighbor raiding is just as fine for armored cars, the wars in Africa proved that.

The cost difference is YUGE. In the west a tank costs ~$9 million and an armored car ~$100,000. In the east it's something like ~$4 million for a tank and ~$50,000 for an armored car. Both have the same effect on civilians, insurgents, and logistics.

>>521311

Do you know how many men it would take to make use of 50,000 armored cars? You're talking 200,000 active duty personnel at LEAST. Most countries on earth could never dream of having this many soldiers let alone all allocated to such a specific and laughably counterable niche.

Forget the soldiers, do you know how much fucking fuel 50,000 armored cars would consume?

>>521350

You're assuming that 100% of the total vehicle stock is active at the same time. Say that of the 50'000 total armoured cars you have enough crews to have 1000 active at any one time. That way you keep the number of crew and support personnel down, still have enough to be able to supress local insurgents, and the loss of a single car (either to enemy action or just poor maintenance) is almost incidental, especially if you can streamline the training program to limit the value of the crew to your military as much as the vehicle they're driving.

>>521276

whatever the US gov is willing to give to you w/ service agreement in exchange for stopping your chemical weapons program

>>521417

>Fifty countries could keep 50% of the vehicles in active service, and 50% in reserves.

Reserves means actual legit army reserves.

Reserves doesn't mean storage. That would be separate.

It does not count police, gendarmes, national guards or militia, which could alone fill the armored cars

>>521405

I'd prefer chemical weapons to any US tank tbh.

AMX 30. It's as mobile as most modern MBTs and old enough to be fairly cheap.

Well it would have to survive common anti-armor weapons (nothing that falls to an RPG-7 every nigger and sandnigger has) or it's just a tool for crushing flaming churches

>>521441

With ERA, even M4 sherman can survive a RPG-7 or two.

The matter is not letting your tank being RPG in the first place.

And IED, most tank casualties of BLUFOR in Afghan was due to IED.

>>521311

Armored core would go to shit the moment an actual invasion force starts, and I assume a fleet of 500 tanks would require less maintenance than 50 000 armored cars.

>>521396

M60 always seems like some kind of relic tank for me, no point when I can get the more modern T72 (that is still in production in some countries).

>>521376

I consider it but as you said, barely no one make it anymore.

much better to buy retrofitted T72.

>>521441

RPG7 is only a threat if you dont have cage, ERA or infantry escort, like some pleb.

>>521452

Also less utility.

>>521473

RPG9 broke an Abrams through the front IIRC, thats why the US don't let the Iraqis keep em I think.

Why not just get armor car specializations? Like AAMs on a AC LOL, anyone remember the kebab vid with a Katyusha on a technical?

>>521481

RPG9 is a whole lotta ballgame than RPG7, much more heavier.

>>521487

I have great distrust towards chinese tanks, and I disagree anyway, if you are in Asia, you can still buy T72, straight from Russia.

>>521496

T-72 sucks ass, its absolutly obsolete and my country is trying to phase them out for a fuck long time. interestingly its considered to be equivalent of up armored apc with cannon on top

so yeah just getting a fuckton of apcs with some apc/canon would be the best choice for small country. cheaper, newer and more versatile

>>521499

T72 doesn't suck ass for a low intensity conflict, shit still kicks ass in the Syrian war as long as it's manned by a good crew and has ERA.

And I really doubt your opinion on tanks anyway.

>>521506

>T72 doesn't suck ass for a low intensity conflict, shit still kicks ass in the Syrian war as long as it's manned by a good crew and has ERA.

and so does uparmored apc/ ifv/afv because we will never agree on naming conventions while being potentially cheaper, having same survivability none and having all the pluses of not being half century old platform.

>And I really doubt your opinion on tanks anyway.

>says monkey to a guy with 2nd largest tank fleet in nato

>>521508

Wait, I thought that's Greece or Turkey?

Also, APC is vulnerable as shit, m8. Nobody wants APC to replace tanks, and new APCs would literally cost more than old tanks.

>>521510

>Also, APC is vulnerable as shit, m8.

you know whats also vulnerable as shit? t-72

>Nobody wants APC to replace tanks

that explains why two proposals for replacing t-72 are uparmored cv 90

>and new APCs would literally cost more than old tanks

while letting you have more flexible force with interchangable parts

>>521512

>you know whats also vulnerable as shit? t-72

Not with ERA, proven in the Syrian war.

>that explains why two proposals for replacing t-72 are uparmored cv 90

Your govt is fucking retarded and wants to downsize your armored fleet. Unarmored "PC" is fucking retarded.

>while letting you have more flexible force with interchangable parts

To be fair, you can substitute T-72 with other vehicles and it would be cheaper than buying a fleet of APC chasis and playing legos with them.

>>521515

>To be fair, you can support* T-72 with other vehicles

>>521499

No APC/IFV even "modern" ones, other than those derived from tank themselves, can compare to a tank in terms of protection and firepower.

Even the Canadians know that:

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/tanks-for-the-lesson-leopards-too-for-canada-03208/

The maximum protection provided by APCs is STANAG 6 ie 30 mm APFSDS or AP at 500 m. For a comparison of T-72's armour (Excluding ERA in both cases):

http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/armania/armor/armour/t72/T72M1.html

A comparison of T-90 and M1 to illustrate Soviet armor protection philosophy:

https://i.imgur.com/QQdhuXE.jpg

The only advantage modern vehicles have is with regards to protection against IED and mine blasts but with disadvantages of much higher profile.

(https://imgur.com/0vAxky2

https://imgur.com/cB1XhTO

for Abrams vs T-72 comparison

http://armour.ws/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/sizes.jpg)

With regards to versatility T-72 upgrade packages are available to suit all kind of cost, political and operational requirements. Ranging from the combat proven T-72B3 (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-t-72b3-the-lethal-russian-tank-ukraine-fears-most-16500) to BMPT-72 to the weird Ukrainian BMT-72 with rear troop (or midget) carrying compartment like Merkava.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72_operators_and_variants

>>521515

>Not with ERA, proven in the Syrian war.

even with era, proven in ukrainian war

>Your govt is fucking retarded and wants to downsize your armored fleet. Unarmored "PC" is fucking retarded.

>implying that wanting to cycle out orginal run t-72 for anything better or comparable isnt good idea

>To be fair, you can substitute T-72 with other vehicles and it would be cheaper than buying a fleet of APC chasis and playing legos with them.

i doubt that but i must run some number crunching

>>521517

>No APC/IFV even "modern" ones, other than those derived from tank themselves, can compare to a tank in terms of protection and firepower.

and both of them die like a bitch to a goat herder with atgm

>A comparison of T-90 and M1 to illustrate Soviet armor protection philosophy:

not comperable

>The only advantage modern vehicles have is with regards to protection against IED and mine blasts but with disadvantages of much higher profile.

which would be often used in scenario provided

>>521522

>even with era, proven in ukrainian war

The Ukrainian war proves that it doesn't matter how old the tank, what matters is experienced tankers and how updated it is.

Updated T72 literally kicks ass for the Donbass side.

>and both of them die like a bitch to a goat herder with atgm

So don't let them do that, support your tanks with infantries.

>>521523

>Updated T72 literally kicks ass for the Donbass side.

literally old field guns contributed more in this war then tanks.

>So don't let them do that, support your tanks with infantries.

which you transport in [???]

>>521524

>literally old field guns contributed more in this war then tanks.

True, but that's a doctrine, tank still plays a large role, a fleet of T-90 saved donbass ass when they were getting kicked around by hohol early in the war.

>which you transport in [???]

APC or IFV, along with the tanks.

>>521529

>more like environment tbh. and it also only proves that t-72 / t-64 is obsolete

Not really, just that T-90 is better, updated T-72 serves well for the rest of war, and BTFO the ukie T-72.

>then why not take some of them, double their armor and mount big ass canon instead of troop compartment and use them as support for your apc fleet?

Because:

1. Tank inherently has more armor than APC

2. Tank inherently has more firepower than APC

You are basically trying to turn the APC into the tank and waste more money when you can just buy a tank.

>>521532

>only because of context, its a slap fight between enemies with similiar capabilities, aka. they are both outdated.

Except the donbass side has less manpower and was only supported mostly materiely, the difference in equipment and training were the keys.

>which hardly matters because you will get fucked by nigger with atgm/rpg no matter if you are in t-72 or any apc.

A tank would survive an ATGM better than an APC does.

>you can mount 120mm on everything, hell, its easier to transform most apcs into arty then t-72 so we could say that it has actually bigger potential firepower

Yeah, watch out that recoil and knockback.

Depends what the threat is, if it's primarily armor I would lean more towards ATGM carriers than tanks with IFVs for infantry support. If I am forced to send armor into a city I would want a couple of Shilka's leading the way.

>>521481

Abrams doesnt have cage or ERA. And at parts during the (badly choreographed) invasion it actually pushed ahead of infantry support.

>>521530

>>521525

Stop parroting Bellingcat CIA outlet, there is no T90 in Eastern Ukraine.

>You are basically trying to turn the APC into the tank and waste more money when you can just buy a tank.

Why are you surprised? Polish Anders is essentially a CV-90-120 bought direct from supplier.

Hes wrong only as hes shilling for extremely expensive solutions.

If I was a dictator I would invest heavily in having oiled up mostly naked body builders crew my tanks and call them the Mighty♂Armored♂Spank♂Force.

>>521499

Because those kikes want to modernise old run down Leopards 2 or buy Abrams from their ZOG overlords instead upgrade T-72's and PT-91's they already have.

>>521533

>Except the donbass side has less manpower and was only supported mostly materiely, the difference in equipment and training were the keys.

and it is most powerfull industrial region with fuckton of cities. of course it would become urban warfare: trench edition. why do americans always forget about terrain?

>Yeah, watch out that recoil and knockback.

not an issueat all. these are mounted even on armored cars

>>521537

>If I am forced to send armor into a city I would want a couple of Shilka's leading the way.

if you send armor into city it will get killed either way

>>521538

>pic reminds me the czechs have some slick T72 upgrades

everyone has them. its slav national right of passage, if you dont have your own version of t-72 and ak you will not get into club

>>521546

>Why are you surprised? Polish Anders is essentially a CV-90-120 bought direct from supplier.

MODULAR cv-90 made locally. also its in dev limbo

>Hes wrong only as hes shilling for extremely expensive solutions.

cant we have a normal civilized discussion without accusations of shilling? i just want to present my side of the argument.

think about it as about getting bmp3 and mounting cannons on some of them.

>>521573

OK fine, youre presenting your side of the argument for extremely expensive solutions. CV-90 is maybe 5 times more expensive than a genuine domestic solution from scratch would be.

The basic IFV version of CV-90 with the 40mm Bofors is 5.8 million, but that's domestic production, you don't get that price. The export basic version is 9 million. An upgade to the basic version (CV-90-120) with more armor, more weapons, and more equipment is going to double or triple that on the basic export. I seriously doubt Sweden would give you a local production contract without recouping most of that profit. They probably calculated exactly how many taanks you might crew or field, added up the obscene cost per tank, then offered you a "technology transfer" for the total.

In fact given the relative sanity of Polish government, they likely realized they were getting scammed by a country that desperately needs welfarebux, so they dropped the whole program like the pile of shit that it is.

For the final cost of one glorified domestic IFV, you could probably buy multiple Type 10 tanks, or Armatas, or even an Abrams. It is not remotely like an upgraded BMP3, that would be the Sprut SD which is half that price, amphibious, and can be airdropped with full crew, ammo, and fuel ready to fight the moment parachute is cut.

Fuck MBTs, I'd buy APCs as they're better suited to internal policing actions against dissidents and generally cost less per unit when compared to their MBT contemporaries.

Tank on tank combat is nowhere near as common as people think. Armored vehicles have always been anti-infantry and anti-fortification assets and in a resource limited scenario, APCs offer the best combination of features to meet the requirements of those roles. Sure, a mix of armored assets would be best but when you're a banana republic/tinpot dictatorship you can't logistically afford to support a large mix of assets. The best part about an all-APC force is that many small countries can natively produce key components of such a weapon system. WWII-era armor technology is capable of protecting against threats up to .50 BMG which is all an APC needs and that tech is well within the capabilities of any country with a steel mill. The power requirements are also far lower so you can always adapt commercial truck powerplants should UN sanctions and embargos ever fuck with your ability to source parts.

This modern era of geopolitics has made "peaceful protesters", "moderate rebels", and "democracy loving revolutionaries" the greatest threat to the strongman dictator/el presidente/etc. Force on force conflicts with your neighbors is no longer something to worry about, it's the western intelligence agencies and (((the people pulling their strings))) you need to watch out for. That's why the APC is perfect, they have enough armor to put your forces at an advantage versus irregulars (even if they're CIA equipped), their lower cost can give you a numbers advantage versus traditional armor which allows you to conduct policing actions in greater strength or in more places at once, and they allow you to put boots on the ground where it matters most.

>>521551

You wouldn't lose a single battle

>>521612

Also, by APC, I mean IFVs like the CV-90 but simpler and cheaper. I'll never understand why countries design IFVs like the original CV-90 proposal, then turn their backs on the basic concept of light, fast, cheap, and armed/armored enough to deal with 99% of what you're expected to face. Fucking peacetime militaries and their fear of taking any casualties wind up uparmoring/overcomplicating every weapon system to the point that the system is no longer functional for its intended role, thus causing more casualties than the whizbang armor and technology could potentially save.

A lone IFV will be taken out by anything heavier armed or more technologically advanced than a 50's era infantry platoon. That's the facts Jack. However, a group of IFVs with a mix of weapon systems (ATGM version, mortar version, standard 30-40mm version) can go toe to toe with any modern opponent in conjunction with their well equipped mounted infantry. You're going to take losses but the more IFVs you can field, the fewer you'll take.

What about investing in equipment for anti-tank units?

Money for 500 tanks would buy lot of anti-tank weapons and you could spend rest to train them.

Look at how many tanks in Syria got fucked up to infantry.

Toyota Camry with a potato launcher

>>521623

Spend it on proper SAM's and the US will never invade.

>>521621

>unarmored IFV

>IFV with lego gun

These sound like bad fucking ideas to be honest.

You don't build your military based on peace time, you build it based on war time.

>>521732

Right we remember how Vietnam won the war with massive 60 ton main battle tanks.

>>521744

They did ride tanks into Saigon unchallenged in the final days of 75.

Invest all your money on highly explosive drones and focus on simply being a cunt from your bunker.

>>521757

Unchallenged means they could have rode donkeys into Saigon for the same effect.

I get that mechanization is important today, no way you're surviving an Apache attack without at least a motorbike, but tanks are necessary for tiny poor countries that can't even maintain said motorbike.

Hence armored car. Although for Vietnams climate I'd says some kind of light track. Armored car can't do it for you.

>>521885

Mostly there were no real high rises so your guys were safe capturing Baghdad. But lives were still lost over preventable errors.