-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Banzai! said:
Which is breeding more of it.
Aanyways, the MT-LBv has got to be the greatest general purpose APC ever, M113 is no match.
Banzai! said:
That is what the resistance did or tried to do. Nothing in that video was especialy cruel, considering the standards of such conflicts. Guerilla wars are like that, they just get glorified later.
Okay, I admit I knew the first one wasn't but the second has a large gun tube. What the Hell is that? (Further digging will have to wait until I go home as videos like these are banned on work computers).
I've always liked the Centurion, it didn't get the press of other designs, but the Mark II would be my choice for best all around tank of the 1950-60s until the USSR started production of the T-64.
[Edit: The BMP-3 is an IFV, not a light tank]
I would hope so... it was designed 10 years after, though I think the PIP M113 - (aka the MTLV) still is the best APC available. I think just about everyone but logistics experts agree that the Striker (which beat the MTLV in trials) is not very good at anything.Exel said:
[Edit: The BMP-3 is an IFV, not a light tank]
Last edited:
Duke_of_BOOM! said:
By the size of the main gun and the size of the vehicle, it's actually a light tank.
It carries infantry internally, has firing ports, and is to provide direct fire support in battle... ergo it's an IFV and not an APC or Tank.cdat said:
Duke_of_BOOM! said:
It's not a tank, but I put it in here because the past 80+ pages have exhausted pretty much all the tanks there are (unless you want to go into WWI). Also, it's a brilliant example of world-class Soviet workmanship.
BTW a BMP-3 can assume a light tank's combat role, i.e. reconaissance, air-droppability and infantry direct fire support.
We could do a spin off thread off the worst tanks. I'll start with the T-35:Banzai! said:
Under armored, over weight, large profile, extremely mechanically unreliable, and turret rotation blocked escape hatches. Though it did have five turrets.
So we start an IFV/APC thread?
Last edited:
Duke_of_BOOM! said:We could do a spin off thread off the worst tanks. I'll start with the T-35:
Under armored, over weight, large profile, extremely mechanically unreliable, and turret rotation blocked escape hatches. Though it did have five turrets.
So we start an IFV/APC thread?
What about a thread for people to post their designs of future tanks . . .
I like that ideaT-hiddemen said:
:I would like to see a return of the Infantry-tank with a large caliber hull-mounted main gun (for demolition), a top mounted remote-turret autocannon (with a co-ax MG), and a pair of electronically controlled-sensor housing Sponson turrets. Active and passive Anti-missile and anti-HEAT systems and a low profile would be a must.
Duke_of_BOOM! said:I like that idea
I would like to see a return of the Infantry-tank with a large caliber hull-mounted main gun (for demolition), a top mounted remote-turret autocannon (with a co-ax MG), and a pair of electronically controlled-sensor housing Sponson turrets. Active and passive Anti-missile and anti-HEAT systems and a low profile would be a must.
Ah, but now you must post either a blueprint, diagram or photoshop image of it . . .
The Nemmera variant is certainly.cdat said:
The role of troop transport is secondary in the basic model, as ammunition must be removed in order to squeeze the squad in there. Doctrine calls for this only to be done for short periods of time, in tactical movements where survivability of a dedicated APC/IFV or the Infantry Squad would be in question. This is a general storage space, not a dedicated troop compartment like the Nemmera, or the BMP have.
[Edit: Infantry in Merkava disembarking at 3:01 in this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T-GKplzI0k&search=Merkava ]
Hmm... sounds like a project for this weekend.T-hiddemen said:
Last edited:
Duke_of_BOOM! said:
I did a similar project designing a graphic of a Wotan Class Super Battleship for the Kaiserreich Mod. It was fun!
at the risk of going off topic here is a link to the Wotan
Back to the BMP 3, would you enjoy attempting a dismount like these guys?
Getting back in looks even harder! Hey, I have a question. Who shuts the doors/hatches after the grunts dismount?
And last but surely not least, how the Hell do you pull the engine if need be?
Getting back in looks even harder! Hey, I have a question. Who shuts the doors/hatches after the grunts dismount?
And last but surely not least, how the Hell do you pull the engine if need be?
What's so hard about that? The only problem is that you can get out just two guys at a time. Anyway it's only the Germans who are crazy enough to fight from IFVs. Russian (& rest of the world) doctrine is for the infantry to dismount as they come to the battlefield, so an "emergency pileout" would in most cases be unnecessary.
Anyways, the BMP-3 is still only a stopgap improvement of the BMP design. When the Russians unveil their next-gen IFV, cdat, I assure that you'll be gobsmacked. It'll be like when the Soviets introduced the original BMP-1.
There NATO was, swaggering about the fact it had just put the M113 (invented 1960) into production, only to find that at the same time the BMP-1 had been thought up. Here was an APC that could beat the M113 at every turn, and if left to it's own devices could destroy every M113 in the world! It had a 73mm cannon, AT rockets in addition to the mg the M113 had. And unlike the M113 the gunner didn't have to expose himself to fire.
The Pentagon generals wet their pants, and did so again when the T-72 was shown off to the world against the M60 Patton.
There NATO was, swaggering about the fact it had just put the M113 (invented 1960) into production, only to find that at the same time the BMP-1 had been thought up. Here was an APC that could beat the M113 at every turn, and if left to it's own devices could destroy every M113 in the world! It had a 73mm cannon, AT rockets in addition to the mg the M113 had. And unlike the M113 the gunner didn't have to expose himself to fire.
The Pentagon generals wet their pants, and did so again when the T-72 was shown off to the world against the M60 Patton.
