PAPsmearer reveals SAF new Hunter AFV is so bad, even Aussies refuse to consider it

[eatshitndie]

Its not water fordable as far as I know. But very few if not zero armies employ water fording these days. even in Ukraine, which has many rivers, they build bridges to ferry armour across.

thanks. suppose for the weight-space-armor-armament and speed tradeoffs it’s too ineffective to cater to bouyancy and waterproofing as a burden when bridging is speedier and can carry heavier and other loads, not just afvs alone.

 

[Papsmearer]

thanks. suppose for the weight-space-armor-armament and speed tradeoffs it’s too ineffective to cater to bouyancy and waterproofing as a burden when bridging is speedier and can carry heavier and other loads, not just afvs alone.

The buoyancy part is not hard to achieve in AFV design. The problem is the propulsion. To have some decent level of amphibianess, the usual means of propulsion is by track or by secondary prop driven system. Propelling a AFV in water using only tracks is slow and cumbersome. Propelling it using boat propellers at the rear of the hull is more efficient but more complicated due to a second motor at the rear for the props, and powering that.

Waterproofing the vehicle is a pain before water ops, but what is much worse, is the vehicle usually cannot fight right away when it crosses. The waterproofing has to be blown off or removed. Maybe under fire.

 

[eatshitndie]

The buoyancy part is not hard to achieve in AFV design. The problem is the propulsion. To have some decent level of amphibianess, the usual means of propulsion is by track or by secondary prop driven system. Propelling a AFV in water using only tracks is slow and cumbersome. Propelling it using boat propellers at the rear of the hull is more efficient but more complicated due to a second motor at the rear for the props, and powering that.

Waterproofing the vehicle is a pain before water ops, but what is much worse, is the vehicle usually cannot fight right away when it crosses. The waterproofing has to be blown off or removed. Maybe under fire.

yup, too much cost and trouble for few advantages. only the u.s. marines have to have their aavs (assault amphibious vehicles) and acvs (amphibious combat vehicles). it’s an offensive sea to land force since its inception so it has its traditions and mission orientation.

 

[eatshitndie]

ukranian all terrain vehicle cumming out in june. for swamps, marshes, and bogs.

 

[eatshitndie]

general dynamics griffin iii prototype back in 2018. potential candidate for bradley replacement. must have 50mm cannon in turret that can shoot up 85 degrees for urban highrise and drone threats. other shortlisted candidate is the kf41 lynx from rheinmetall.



kf41 lynx

hanwha / oshkosh proposal

bae proposal.