Land vehicles

One of the original ideas was to have BTR-60's and OT-64's, while these are excellent vehicles i dont think they would fit our needs entirely. They have the advantage of speed and amphibious capabilities at the cost of armor and firepower. The T-72 and T-55's we would be able to purchase are the opposite, slow as fuck but death raining mobile bunkers. although the T-72's ammo stowage makes it a powder keg. The Czech built OT-90 is a BMP with the turret off a BTR or OT-64, im not entirely sure but i think BTR's andOT-64's can mount the turrets used on BMP's. Essentially imagine an OT-64 with a BMP-1 turret
>dat 73mm cannon

Or one of these.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Also technicals, don't forget the technicals. We could get and uparmour, maybe, 10-15 hiluxes for one BTR. I'm just saying that I think 12 or so techies backing up a BTR could rove around, killing Sommies.

GnuTrip wrote:Also technicals, don't forget the technicals. We could get and uparmour, maybe, 10-15 hiluxes for one BTR. I'm just saying that I think 12 or so techies backing up a BTR could rove around, killing Sommies.

That seems tactically viable, an upgunned BTR leading technicals would eliminate the need for tracked tanks. i would still own one because tanks are awesome but thats beside the point.
This is a BTR with a T-72 turret.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

>BTR with a T-72 turret
It looks like it would need struts like a Starcraft Siege Tank to keep from flipping over. Were they widely used like that, or were they more ballsy than practical (like that Nazi Super Tank)?

I see the raw appeal of having an APC with a tank turret mounted on it, but how easy will securing these rounds be?
We would be better off with something on top that we can secure rounds for and perhaps even recycle brass for. I'm new to the concept of ammo reloading, so I might be talking out of my ass, but I see a heavy machine-gun as being more useful (at least at first) then a cannon.

Also, if we use a place like Mortar Investments, the guns are all demilitarised:

Mortar Investments wrote:
"Generally, a demilitarisation consists in breaking the gun lock, firing several holes into the cannon barrel and in some cases piercing holes also into the army vehicle's armour. MORTAR INVESTMENTS refills the holes cut with simple iron."

So we might have to fix up the armor (maybe just weld plates to the outside) and the barrels anyway. It might be best to plan on buying equipment for the turrets afterwards, or just go without a full turret and just mount a PKM on top with a shield built around it (>implying we are talking about the ones going to the U.S. /k/ompound, because if we have them sent to wherever the forward operating post is, then we might not have to worry about such nonsense).

I'm making a brochure of sorts so we can do an easy comparison between the options that have been listed. It will mostly help people like me that aren't as familiar with Russian armor, and it will allow me to look at everything all at once without having to load 9 web pages (a tall order here some days).

Until we actually leave the US for our new homeland or whatever, is there really a need for anything more than pickups and SUVS? Buying, importing, and transporting a frikkin BTR is not going to be cheap. There's tons of ex Soviet equipment strewn all over Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. It'll be alot cheaper to, say, take a little trip to the Ukraine, buy some equipment, load it onto a cargo ship, and transport it all at once. We might even get lucky and find the guns still in order, who knows.

HJH1990 wrote:Until we actually leave the US for our new homeland or whatever, is there really a need for anything more than pickups and SUVS? Buying, importing, and transporting a frikkin BTR is not going to be cheap. There's tons of ex Soviet equipment strewn all over Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. It'll be alot cheaper to, say, take a little trip to the Ukraine, buy some equipment, load it onto a cargo ship, and transport it all at once. We might even get lucky and find the guns still in order, who knows.

In the US its a 90% chance of it being only pickup trucks but i like to think we might buy one BTR for driver training purposes.

HJH1990 wrote:Until we actually leave the US for our new homeland or whatever, is there really a need for anything more than pickups and SUVS? Buying, importing, and transporting a frikkin BTR is not going to be cheap. There's tons of ex Soviet equipment strewn all over Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. It'll be alot cheaper to, say, take a little trip to the Ukraine, buy some equipment, load it onto a cargo ship, and transport it all at once. We might even get lucky and find the guns still in order, who knows.

I concur. Acquiring things on site would be cheaper I imagine, particularly if we've got someone who knows people in that sort of business. Between LEOs, Mils, Ex-Mils, contractor types, and your average fudd, I would expect we could come up with some kind of connection, or at least, a start on where to look.

Admin wrote:
In the US its a 90% chance of it being only pickup trucks but i like to think we might buy one BTR for driver training purposes.

>this

I think one of the cheapest APC's we can find will be necessary to practice dismounting drills, and just using it in general.
Bailing out of an APC is way different than bailing out of soft-skinned vehicles (like Vans and trucks). So I think one will be necessary before we start harvesting from foreign depots. I mean shit, we'll need to know HOW to drive one anyway and make sure our mechanics understand Russian-MacGuyver-engineering.

Domestic operating vehicles need to be incognito anyway.

Pendrake wrote:

Admin wrote:
In the US its a 90% chance of it being only pickup trucks but i like to think we might buy one BTR for driver training purposes.

>this

I think one of the cheapest APC's we can find will be necessary to practice dismounting drills, and just using it in general.
Bailing out of an APC is way different than bailing out of soft-skinned vehicles (like Vans and trucks). So I think one will be necessary before we start harvesting from foreign depots. I mean shit, we'll need to know HOW to drive one anyway and make sure our mechanics understand Russian-MacGuyver-engineering.

Domestic operating vehicles need to be incognito anyway.

Im currently looking at the mechanics of different combloc vehicles, one thing i dislike about the BTR-60 is its twin gasoline engines and side armor being practically nil, also shit tier fuel efficiency. (gas is holyfuck volatile too)

"BTR-60PB was used in large numbers during the initial part of the Soviet War in Afghanistan. This was because the units that were originally used for this operation weren't the top priority of the Soviet military which prioritized the units stationed in East Germany. The same flaws of the design were present during this conflict and the vehicle became even more vulnerable due to the kind of fighting that took place in Afghanistan. The GAZ-40P gasoline engines experienced frequent losses of power and overheating due to the tropical highland climate not well suited for them. BTR-60PB's turret also could not elevate its armament high enough to fire at the Mujahideen attacking from high ground. Like during the Sino-Soviet border conflict many BTR-60PBs fell victim to RPGs. Because of those drawbacks the BTR-60PBs were replaced by BTR-70s as soon as possible to a point were only the BTR-60 command variants were used.[19]" -wiki article describing combat in Afghanistan. i expect conditions to be similar in Africa.

a

Admin wrote:
Im currently looking at the mechanics of different combloc vehicles, one thing i dislike about the BTR-60 is its twin gasoline engines and side armor being practically nil, also shit tier fuel efficiency. (gas is holyfuck volatile too)

"BTR-60PB was used in large numbers during the initial part of the Soviet War in Afghanistan. This was because the units that were originally used for this operation weren't the top priority of the Soviet military which prioritized the units stationed in East Germany. The same flaws of the design were present during this conflict and the vehicle became even more vulnerable due to the kind of fighting that took place in Afghanistan. The GAZ-40P gasoline engines experienced frequent losses of power and overheating due to the tropical highland climate not well suited for them. BTR-60PB's turret also could not elevate its armament high enough to fire at the Mujahideen attacking from high ground. Like during the Sino-Soviet border conflict many BTR-60PBs fell victim to RPGs. Because of those drawbacks the BTR-60PBs were replaced by BTR-70s as soon as possible to a point were only the BTR-60 command variants were used.[19]" -wiki article describing combat in Afghanistan. i expect conditions to be similar in Africa.

well what if for know we get an old truck and mock it up for an apc for know and later when we start our hostilities we can build something like stryker knock offs. for the interim buy a four or five. of bmp-1's for FOB/ convoy security. while were gathering the strength to take all of somalia.
[/quote]

imonaboat wrote:

Admin wrote:
Im currently looking at the mechanics of different combloc vehicles, one thing i dislike about the BTR-60 is its twin gasoline engines and side armor being practically nil, also shit tier fuel efficiency. (gas is holyfuck volatile too)

"BTR-60PB was used in large numbers during the initial part of the Soviet War in Afghanistan. This was because the units that were originally used for this operation weren't the top priority of the Soviet military which prioritized the units stationed in East Germany. The same flaws of the design were present during this conflict and the vehicle became even more vulnerable due to the kind of fighting that took place in Afghanistan. The GAZ-40P gasoline engines experienced frequent losses of power and overheating due to the tropical highland climate not well suited for them. BTR-60PB's turret also could not elevate its armament high enough to fire at the Mujahideen attacking from high ground. Like during the Sino-Soviet border conflict many BTR-60PBs fell victim to RPGs. Because of those drawbacks the BTR-60PBs were replaced by BTR-70s as soon as possible to a point were only the BTR-60 command variants were used.[19]" -wiki article describing combat in Afghanistan. i expect conditions to be similar in Africa.

well what if for know we get an old truck and mock it up for an apc for know and later when we start our hostilities we can build something like stryker knock offs. for the interim buy a four or five. of bmp-1's for FOB/ convoy security. while were gathering the strength to take all of somalia.

[/quote]

That sounds viable for troop drills but driving/mechanic we need the real deal.

Admin wrote:

imonaboat wrote:

Admin wrote:
Im currently looking at the mechanics of different combloc vehicles, one thing i dislike about the BTR-60 is its twin gasoline engines and side armor being practically nil, also shit tier fuel efficiency. (gas is holyfuck volatile too)

"BTR-60PB was used in large numbers during the initial part of the Soviet War in Afghanistan. This was because the units that were originally used for this operation weren't the top priority of the Soviet military which prioritized the units stationed in East Germany. The same flaws of the design were present during this conflict and the vehicle became even more vulnerable due to the kind of fighting that took place in Afghanistan. The GAZ-40P gasoline engines experienced frequent losses of power and overheating due to the tropical highland climate not well suited for them. BTR-60PB's turret also could not elevate its armament high enough to fire at the Mujahideen attacking from high ground. Like during the Sino-Soviet border conflict many BTR-60PBs fell victim to RPGs. Because of those drawbacks the BTR-60PBs were replaced by BTR-70s as soon as possible to a point were only the BTR-60 command variants were used.[19]" -wiki article describing combat in Afghanistan. i expect conditions to be similar in Africa.

well what if for know we get an old truck and mock it up for an apc for know and later when we start our hostilities we can build something like stryker knock offs. for the interim buy a four or five. of bmp-1's for FOB/ convoy security. while were gathering the strength to take all of somalia.

That sounds viable for troop drills but driving/mechanic we need the real deal.[/quote]

true. well do we need the exact model were going to use or can we buy one on the cheap and let them go to town on it? the fact is if we invest in a trainer btr-60 here and we pick up some Cadillac-Gauges down range we will be in the same predicament.

imonaboat wrote:

Admin wrote:

imonaboat wrote:

Admin wrote:
Im currently looking at the mechanics of different combloc vehicles, one thing i dislike about the BTR-60 is its twin gasoline engines and side armor being practically nil, also shit tier fuel efficiency. (gas is holyfuck volatile too)

"BTR-60PB was used in large numbers during the initial part of the Soviet War in Afghanistan. This was because the units that were originally used for this operation weren't the top priority of the Soviet military which prioritized the units stationed in East Germany. The same flaws of the design were present during this conflict and the vehicle became even more vulnerable due to the kind of fighting that took place in Afghanistan. The GAZ-40P gasoline engines experienced frequent losses of power and overheating due to the tropical highland climate not well suited for them. BTR-60PB's turret also could not elevate its armament high enough to fire at the Mujahideen attacking from high ground. Like during the Sino-Soviet border conflict many BTR-60PBs fell victim to RPGs. Because of those drawbacks the BTR-60PBs were replaced by BTR-70s as soon as possible to a point were only the BTR-60 command variants were used.[19]" -wiki article describing combat in Afghanistan. i expect conditions to be similar in Africa.

well what if for know we get an old truck and mock it up for an apc for know and later when we start our hostilities we can build something like stryker knock offs. for the interim buy a four or five. of bmp-1's for FOB/ convoy security. while were gathering the strength to take all of somalia.

That sounds viable for troop drills but driving/mechanic we need the real deal.

true. well do we need the exact model were going to use or can we buy one on the cheap and let them go to town on it? the fact is if we invest in a trainer btr-60 here and we pick up some Cadillac-Gauges down range we will be in the same predicament.[/quote]
Well we would likely be running BTR-60s, OT-64's, BMP's and the T-55 or T-72. (i hope we can deal with the T-72's horribly dangerous ammo stowage)
I found a page that discusses the capabilities of Russian MBT's
(I know it world of tanks but they have good points)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

have we thought about buying from the israelis? i would give us access to superior equipment and they probably wouldnt mind the thought of some one that hates these fucks as much as we do in their neighborhood. plus if shit goes sideways they would be a great place to hide.

imonaboat wrote:have we thought about buying from the israelis? i would give us access to superior equipment and they probably wouldnt mind the thought of some one that hates these fucks as much as we do in their neighborhood. plus if shit goes sideways they would be a great place to hide.

The Israeli's have some good shit but I dont know if I trust them, maybe its the retards on /pol/ or the fact that me being Canadian and not knowing much about them, But i just dont trust them.

Fuck Israelis.

GnuTrip wrote:Fuck Israelis.

whats wrong with the Israelis? yeah the double dealing snakes but be honest what governmental organization isn't these days? i mean were considering buying equipment from people who commit war crimes for fun. compared to that are they really that bad?

I just have a lot of Palestinian friends is all.

GnuTrip wrote:I just have a lot of Palestinian friends is all.

well can we agree to set aside our beliefs and politics for the greater good of our social experiment? i'm not really a fan of Arabs. but if more /k/ommandoes get to come home because we bought modern gear from the Saudi's rather than some cold war era bullshit that has been left out to rot for 10 years i'd happily kiss Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud's ass. the only reason that i suggested the Israeli's is that they are short of allies in their neck of the woods and perhaps be more amenable towards fostering some. because i don't know about you but i see us eventually pushing our borders across all of Africa and the middle east like some neck-bearded Alexander the great.

imonaboat wrote:i see us eventually pushing our borders across all of Africa and the middle east like some neck-bearded Alexander the great.

>Alexander the Neckbeard
>Gay sex
>Dat /k/amaraderie

I like what I see

imonaboat wrote:the only reason that i suggested the Israeli's is that they are short of allies in their neck of the woods and perhaps be more amenable towards fostering some

As much as I want to argue and call them cock-mongling Jews as a knee-jerk reaction, being on their good side would make us on the U.S. good side. So we might want to make some friends in Israel for the sake of connections and a sort of pseudo-political asylum. Also so we can all sport double-barrel AR's and Baby Deagles.

Now this can go the exact other way, Israel could feel we were encroaching on THEIR hunting grounds or something, and then the U.S. sends in those drones.

I think we might be better off buying through a smaller, less news-worth country, like that JORDEX (or whatever it was called) or talking to places like Tonga or Fiji(smaller, sometimes obscure countries with last-gen gear that would still be superior to junk yard stock). I like the idea of Fiji because they have had three coup attempts in the past 20 years, so I think their military might be open for business.

Pendrake wrote:

imonaboat wrote:i see us eventually pushing our borders across all of Africa and the middle east like some neck-bearded Alexander the great.

>Alexander the Neckbeard
>Gay sex
>Dat /k/amaraderie

I like what I see

imonaboat wrote:the only reason that i suggested the Israeli's is that they are short of allies in their neck of the woods and perhaps be more amenable towards fostering some

As much as I want to argue and call them cock-mongling Jews as a knee-jerk reaction, being on their good side would make us on the U.S. good side. So we might want to make some friends in Israel for the sake of connections and a sort of pseudo-political asylum. Also so we can all sport double-barrel AR's and Baby Deagles.

Now this can go the exact other way, Israel could feel we were encroaching on THEIR hunting grounds or something, and then the U.S. sends in those drones.

I think we might be better off buying through a smaller, less news-worth country, like that JORDEX (or whatever it was called) or talking to places like Tonga or Fiji(smaller, sometimes obscure countries with last-gen gear that would still be superior to junk yard stock). I like the idea of Fiji because they have had three coup attempts in the past 20 years, so I think their military might be open for business.

i don't think the Israelis would turn on us. at least not overtly. think about it. if Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon get into a scrap with Israel and lose they go home and get hadji pussy for trying. if the Israelis lose they get to suck up the holocaust part deuce. if we go to them right after we clean the scum out of Somalia and cut a deal for there safety (and possibly us throwing them some scraps of their former glory depending on how much they actually help us) i think they might be fine with it. think of it from there point of view. if we support this mercenary army all of our local enemies will be attacked or destroyed and a cushion protecting us from invasion will be wrapped around us. if i was netanyahu it would be a no brainer for me.

imonaboat wrote:

Pendrake wrote:

imonaboat wrote:i see us eventually pushing our borders across all of Africa and the middle east like some neck-bearded Alexander the great.

>Alexander the Neckbeard
>Gay sex
>Dat /k/amaraderie

I like what I see

imonaboat wrote:the only reason that i suggested the Israeli's is that they are short of allies in their neck of the woods and perhaps be more amenable towards fostering some

As much as I want to argue and call them cock-mongling Jews as a knee-jerk reaction, being on their good side would make us on the U.S. good side. So we might want to make some friends in Israel for the sake of connections and a sort of pseudo-political asylum. Also so we can all sport double-barrel AR's and Baby Deagles.

Now this can go the exact other way, Israel could feel we were encroaching on THEIR hunting grounds or something, and then the U.S. sends in those drones.

I think we might be better off buying through a smaller, less news-worth country, like that JORDEX (or whatever it was called) or talking to places like Tonga or Fiji(smaller, sometimes obscure countries with last-gen gear that would still be superior to junk yard stock). I like the idea of Fiji because they have had three coup attempts in the past 20 years, so I think their military might be open for business.

i don't think the Israelis would turn on us. at least not overtly. think about it. if Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon get into a scrap with Israel and lose they go home and get hadji pussy for trying. if the Israelis lose they get to suck up the holocaust part deuce. if we go to them right after we clean the scum out of Somalia and cut a deal for there safety (and possibly us throwing them some scraps of their former glory depending on how much they actually help us) i think they might be fine with it. think of it from there point of view. if we support this mercenary army all of our local enemies will be attacked or destroyed and a cushion protecting us from invasion will be wrapped around us. if i was netanyahu it would be a no brainer for me.

You know, that is a good point. in the event of total catastrophe the Israeli's have total deniability, just imagine the UN going "Israel, what the fuck is this shit?" and their response would be "lol iunno just some neckbeards we gave tanks to"

imonaboat wrote:

Pendrake wrote:

imonaboat wrote:i see us eventually pushing our borders across all of Africa and the middle east like some neck-bearded Alexander the great.

>Alexander the Neckbeard
>Gay sex
>Dat /k/amaraderie

I like what I see

imonaboat wrote:the only reason that i suggested the Israeli's is that they are short of allies in their neck of the woods and perhaps be more amenable towards fostering some

As much as I want to argue and call them cock-mongling Jews as a knee-jerk reaction, being on their good side would make us on the U.S. good side. So we might want to make some friends in Israel for the sake of connections and a sort of pseudo-political asylum. Also so we can all sport double-barrel AR's and Baby Deagles.

Now this can go the exact other way, Israel could feel we were encroaching on THEIR hunting grounds or something, and then the U.S. sends in those drones.

I think we might be better off buying through a smaller, less news-worth country, like that JORDEX (or whatever it was called) or talking to places like Tonga or Fiji(smaller, sometimes obscure countries with last-gen gear that would still be superior to junk yard stock). I like the idea of Fiji because they have had three coup attempts in the past 20 years, so I think their military might be open for business.

i don't think the Israelis would turn on us. at least not overtly. think about it. if Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon get into a scrap with Israel and lose they go home and get hadji pussy for trying. if the Israelis lose they get to suck up the holocaust part deuce. if we go to them right after we clean the scum out of Somalia and cut a deal for there safety (and possibly us throwing them some scraps of their former glory depending on how much they actually help us) i think they might be fine with it. think of it from there point of view. if we support this mercenary army all of our local enemies will be attacked or destroyed and a cushion protecting us from invasion will be wrapped around us. if i was netanyahu it would be a no brainer for me.

>implying we'd win against the entire middle east.