Puma/lynx comparison

>They are both tanks with infantry compartments you tit
And that makes them not APCs/IFVs... because?

>And that makes them not APCs/IFVs... because?
They are not purpose built IFVs and APCs. Since they are converted/multi role they first need to be a Tank and an APC second thus explaining stuff like having composite armor and more armor than a WW2 tank.
If you look at purpose built IFVs and APCs the trend is just dumber and dumber. Look at the French for example.

Attached: Griffon_VBMR.jpg (600x400, 37K)

Incorrect, they are both production vehicles with numerous changes from the tanks they're based off of.

>purpose-built
Not a requirement of any sort.
Besides, the T-15 is based on the modular Armata chassis. It's not a tank.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform

>Modern IFVs are deathtraps

As opposed to what? Old IFVs or an APC?

That looks like a solid APC/MRAP hybrid to me user. Dont know why you are so triggered

>Not a requirement of any sort.
If you wanna be a pedantic little shit then it isn't but by the same level of stupidity a jeep with a ceramic plate duct taped to the front is an APC.
When there is a clear difference between a BMP-2, a Jeep with something stuck to it and a Namer.

Old IFVs and APCs while having equally shit armor had a much smaller profile. The Lynx has a bigger profile than an M1 Abrams and the Grifon is a bus.

It's taller and longer than the VAB, with the same protection level and using civie engines that will be serviced by civie contractors.

>If you wanna be a pedantic little shit then it isn't but by the same level of stupidity a jeep with a ceramic plate duct taped to the front is an APC.
That's a complete false equivalence. If the Jeep is not Armored, it's not an APC.

>If the Jeep is not Armored, it's not an APC.
But it is armored. Again you are being pedantic.
Can you understand why I don't put the Namer and Armata and T-55s APCs in quite the same categories as the Lynx?

>Old IFVs and APCs while having equally shit armor had a much smaller profile.
Not by a far strech, stuff like BMPs has horrible protection compared to a modern CV90 or Lynx

>The Lynx has a bigger profile than an M1 Abrams and the Grifon is a bus.
I agree that they are becomming a bit large, that might be an issue

>It's taller and longer than the VAB, with the same protection level
Its to fit more stuff inside, since soldiers today carry a fuckton more then they did in the 60's. Also, its mine/IED protection is far better then that of a VAB, and threats like that have been proven to be more common today.

>and using civie engines that will be serviced by civie contractors
Thats not the fault of the vehicle. You could youat train military personel to do the same if you wanted.

>Again you are being pedantic.
If you think accurate usage of terminology is pedantry, you're a mouthbreathing retard.

>If you add an armor place to a jeep it becomes an APC
>No because I said so

Attached: 1535384827946.jpg (1280x899, 252K)

>stuff like BMPs has horrible protection compared to a modern CV90 or Lynx
The Lynx only has steel armor and only 50mm of it. CV90 on the other side can at least take 30mm APDS.
>Its to fit more stuff inside, since soldiers today carry a fuckton more then they did in the 60's.
It fits two less Troopers than the VAB. And while it does have mine protection it comes at a cost of being a bigger target.
>Thats not the fault of the vehicle.
True that's a problem with the French army being dumb, similar situation with the Lacrelrc.

Slapping a ceramic plate on a Jeep does not make it "Covered with or protected by armour." as defined by the Oxford dictionary. If you have some special snowflake definition for the term that validates your argument, please go ahead and inform me.

Not only is everything on here wrong, it's also off topic. Please go be a dribbling retard somewhere else.

Then what does the KF41 offer?

I thought they could tank 120 mm apfsds rounds, both the kf41 and the puma.

its like half a meter longer and thus has more space. don't think there is much more difference

So what you are saying is that there is nothing wrong with modern IFVs and the Lynx just happens to be a shitty oneoff?

A Griffon fits less personel because they have individual seats wich are independently suspended separatly from the floor so that the troops dont lose their legs if they hit mine

The VAB can only fit a full load if those guys has pretty much no equipment and no platecarriers. They also sit on regular benches. Have you never even seen the inside of that thing or what?

Better armored, more cargo capacity, bigger turret, more power and space for equipment etc

Puma is expensive as fuck. Literally more than twice as expensive as a CV90.

It is pretty gucci though

Attached: pbv501-hammar.jpg (992x744, 178K)

And a CV90 is about as expensive as a Leopard 2A6...

This so much. People forget that the VAB is basically a Soviet-era APC. It has shitty Soviet-style benches, it's horribly cramped (it can only fit 10 soldiers without their vests or combat packs) and, even with extra armor, it can't withstand more than 12.7 mm (it had very limited up-armoring potential from the get-go).

Really? What 10 million for a battle taxi?
What is it made out of? Solid gold?

tfw no gGolden IFV to ride into battle to shoot my Golden Gun with Golden Ammo at enemies

IFVs are not battle taxis you mong.

Why even live user?

Attached: FBFCAE33-D4EF-4E3D-97DD-95E326A21483.jpg (720x824, 124K)

Yeah you’re right, still it being more than an mbt seems a bit off

user, dont post that picture, It hurts too much

>433 vehicles
>3 million euro total
>10k USD per vehicle

please staph user

Attached: pbv401-skrotning1.jpg (496x309, 84K)

>Literally more than twice as expensive as a CV90.
Where'd you get this price from?

if you can go by wiki
the latest purchases of the CV90 go by roughly 4.4 million, while the goymoney pays roughly 8.8 for each vehicle