Thread 64238994

Say hello to Europe's new battle taxi.

>>64238994 (OP)
Hello

>>64238994 (OP)
>Babcock

Patria just can't stop winning

>>64239021
Happy little vehicle that could

>>64239021

Cutie!

>>64238994 (OP)
It's ugly.

>>64238994 (OP)
I won't.

>>64238994 (OP)
>6x6 design
wouldnt this cost off-road performance?

>>64238994 (OP)
march of the binn :DDDD goes on

>>64239021
>viewports with shutters
what kind of WW2 throwback is this?
was the 3-way periscope design too limiting in vision?

>>64244324
It's a Finnish design
>can't we make it cheaper?

>>64239021
>vrooom vrooom
>pew pew!
>aaaaahhh!!
>Anon, dinners ready!
>but i don't wanna!

>>64244350
>wheeled
>all-around .30cal protection
>big ass frontal windows that needs to have the port closed when taking fire
>tiny turret with a machine gun
>15 ton weight
>has doors on its side
is this just a finnish BTR?
at least the side doors are just for the driver and the crew have a rear hatch

>>64244500
>is this just a finnish BTR?
yes, it's an armored truck

>>64244500
It's a true battle taxi type vehicle. Apparently somewhat mine resistant and that's good enough

>>64244610
When you say 'somewhat mine resistant' does that mean "the dismounts are going to be bruised and disorientated after the vehicle runs over a mine"? Or more "50% of the men inside the vehicle will survive, probably, under ideal laboratory conditions, we think".

>>64244931
pretty sure the only two combat casualties have both been vehicle commanders being crushed under the bus after and ied explosion in afghanistan, so I would say the former

>>64244500
Its exactly that, the basic older XA is our equilevant of a BTR with better ergonomics and protection. Its a vehicle originally designed to keep peacekeepers alive.

The 6x6/CAVS is a significant update to it. Better, more modern components and design features, more modularity and parts commonality, better protection, etc.

>Babcock
Lel

>>64245997
>more modularity and parts commonality,
it says 14.5mm AP protection with a 25mm cannon turret are on the table as modules, turning it into a bradley
but never seen any photos of the armor kit installed

>>64238994 (OP)
Bri'ish automobile, so you'll have to take off all the tires and the roof just to change the oil and even then it will never run quite right, or make you look anything other than very gay.

If a wheeled vehicle hits a mine, will only one tire be blown off and the remaining tire be able to drive?

>>64248431
They seem to be better than some low tanks.

>>64245988
Don't know about the ones in Ukraine but one ran into a mine with no casualties

>>64247649
>but never seen any photos of the armor kit installed
now you have

>>64249123
Still cute

>>64249123
>IFV: patria
>APC: patria
can we get a tracked patria with a 125mm gun for MBT and a soft-skinned patria for moving supplies?
the add-on armor fits so snugly that its not obvious that it even has addiotional protection

>>64249144
It's unlikely, the Finns have a close relationship with Sweden so heavy combat vehicles will most rely on the continued Hägglunds + Bofors collab that gave us the CV90 also seeing export success lately. Sweden also historically shares strong defense ties to the UK; it seems Finland has been invited the BAE circle too.

>>64249144
Finland hasn't made anything tracked pretty much ever but a Patria 8x8 armored car with a big gun would be kino

>>64249176
Sisucentauro :DDDD

>>64249176
>>64249176
You're in luck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaDZw1DuMGk

Though I don't think this ever went past a preliminary testing stage it's still something that exists.

>>64249197
>Piranha
But you're right, they have made gun turret versions too. I guess I just forgot they existed.

>>64249197
>turn gun 90 degrees off axis
>fire
>flip over
>PERRRRRKELE!

Seems extra. What happened to the original battle taxi?
Mines? Never heard of her.
Gunfire? Carlos in the door gun will take care of that.
How do I fortunate son in a Patria? Asking for a friend.

>>64249176
>Finland hasn't made anything tracked pretty much ever
>>64240356

>>64249262
And the Nasu, mind
But both are relatively lightly armored vehicles

>>64249210
Too many cheaply available AA tubes around. Drones too, these days. Expensive to maintain and train. Made of glass and cardboard so can't take even small arms fire.

You just don't dare to fly in a combat zone even if you have air superiority. Too risky.
Metal boxes are cheaper and safer option if you need to get men into front lines.

>>64249326
but metal boxes are limited by terrain and speed, so helos are still vitally important

>>64249392
Helicopters sucked even in Vietnam since they lost, what, an average of two a day or something? There's a reason why all the kino helicopter wars happened just before widespread MANPADS use

>>64249400
helos are the one of the reason that the vietnam war lasted as long as it did because helos allowed men and material to be moved through dense terrain

> There's a reason why all the kino helicopter wars happened just before widespread MANPADS use
helos were in use throughout the entirety of the cold war and still are today
there is literally nothing else that can take off and land vertically while carrying a useable cargo load

>>64249409
I was more talking about the scale, they aren't ever getting used like they were in Vietnam or Angola or Rhodesia again

>>64249466
>I was more talking about the scale
infantry units have more helicopters today than they did in vietnam
a division has 30 blackhawks and 12 chinooks for general use, allowing for limited air assault capability
the 101st airborne was transitioned to use helicopters rather than parachutes as a direct result of the success of helos in vietnam
non-airborne divisions have a helo brigade

>they aren't ever getting used like they were in Vietnam
their mission role has expanded since vietnam largely as a result of the concept being proven in vietnam
being able to move things quickly and without regard to terrain is simply a very powerful capability to have

>>64249409
Helos are useful for generic lifting purposes, yes. But modern war, EW capabilities and manpads have drastically altered their usability in combat situations. Just look at Ukrainian war and how difficult it is for Russians to use their helos. The moment you lift your head above treeline your radar detector lights up like a christmas tree.

So they don't dare to go near the front lines. They even use the "fling shit on ballistic trajectories on far-off targets and hope you hit something" tactics because that's only thing they can realistically do anymore.

Iraqi war (and it's extremely successful starting campaign to take out enemy Air defense and getting full air domination) has given a lot of people a false idea on how peer-on-peer wars go. Even in Afghanistan sending helos out to insurgency-controlled areas was very risky and they preferred not to do it if there was any other way. A dude with a manpads hiding behind a rock is an extreme risk for air taxis and even dedicated gunships.

>>64249512
>Helos are useful for generic lifting purposes, yes.
which happens to be a critical function in wartime
which is why helos still see widespread use in combat situations today

>>64239012
More like babe cock amiright?

>>64249516
I honestly didn't expect the helo rush at the beginning of the 2022 war, but most of that was on the Russians correctly guessing that the Ukrainians would be too disorganized to have much AA in place
Had they prepared it would have been a massacre

>>64249392
Helis are also limited by terrain mind you, since there needs to be a cleared landing zone. Sure there are plenty of those in the desert or on the fields of Western and Central Europe but less so in the forests and swamps of Fenno-Scandia

>>64249683
>but less so in the forests and swamps of Fenno-Scandia
youll still have a much harder time driving a truck through a swamp than a helo

>>64249686
True, which is why Patria is working on this >>64240356 little puppy

>>64249686
Finland's problem when it comes to helo use is having relatively flat terrain, so there's basically nowhere to hide
So many big lakes in the central and eastern parts it would make more sense to have some sort of inland navy

>>64244931
>does that mean "the dismounts are going to be bruised and disorientated after the vehicle runs over a mine"?
Yeah.

There have been a few instances of that happening here and there during peacekeeping operations of the past decades.
And more recently in Ukraine, one of them drove over 3 soviet AT mines before coming to a stop. The crew survived.

>>64249210
the huge amount of helicopter losses in Vietnam should give you a clue

they're practically essential for rapid logistics, yes, but as a battle taxi they can't even get to the last mile let alone through it

>>64249516
original poster above was talking about helo use as battle taxi, however

>>64249683
>there needs to be a cleared landing zone
wasn't a problem in Vietnam or Malaya either, was it?
daisy cutters and pathfinders can sort out the LZ if it's really necessary, but that's not the real problem

>>64249842
>original poster above was talking about helo use as battle taxi, however
they are still used in that role and quite widely
the average infantry division only has helos to provide transport, they have few armored vehicles and the ones they do have are for specialized units
so infantry are more likely to be transported by helo than they are by any type of metal box

>>64249842
It *was* a problem because Vietnam couldn't have been fought the way it did without a country with a massive air force. I have been reading about MACV-SOG antics lately, and honestly the special forces look like a side attraction in the whole deal with the whole might of the air force working the area before they're even dropped in

>>64249852
>they are still used in that role and quite widely
other than specialised units such as the US air assault division, nearly all countries don't use helicopters as "battle taxis"; that is, they don't expect helicopters to come under light harassing fire
the main reason for armouring "battle taxi" APCs is that you expect them to be shelled, so they need a certain degree of artillery fragment protection
helicopters aren't expected to even survive that much, otherwise they'd be armoured more like AH-64s than MH-60s

>>64249854
I mean that it wasn't an insurmountable problem that precluded their use altogether; as I said, the air force could bomb open an LZ, or more realistically, SF could be dropped to blow an LZ

>>64249874
>other than specialised units such as the US air assault division
regular infantry divisions have their own helos for use for transport, and this includes combat transport
their air brigade also comes with gunship helos, for the explicit purpose of providing protection for those helos when they unload troops under fire

>>64249890
>regular infantry divisions
most countries not the US can barely muster a division
for these countries, attack helicopters aren't actually a divisional asset, they're an army-level asset; they're only assigned to operational control of an infantry unit by the high command
>for the explicit purpose of providing protection for those helos
nope, if you study European doctrines, attack helicopters are primarily used as recon, strike and air support
although they are uniquely capable of supporting an infantry air assault, it's emphasised that this is not their main role.
>unload troops under fire
nobody's doing that