Bangladesh Army

Nike · Sep 12, 2016

BD army doesnt have any IFV in their inventory it is? your BTR is just APC rights?

maybe thats what @masud means

TopCat · Sep 12, 2016

madokafc said:
BD army doesnt have any IFV in their inventory it is? your BTR is just APC rights?

maybe thats what @masud means

BD does not have ifv, probably due to riverine terrain. BTR is amphibious and that is the reason they are buying so many of them.

masud · Sep 12, 2016

Khan saheb said:
I was countering your points with some of mine. You didn't answer me though.

1) What make you thought it,s newly built?
2) About our Tank launch atgm missile capability, please provide me the sourch. i am more then happy to see this.
3) The hypothetical scenario i presented is resently exersise by our army , the exersise name is assault river crossing. (first armored thrust is btr-80 not tank , btr-80 is the first vehicle to face enemy first)
4) why we shouting for more capable fighter jet men? f-7 is doing his job excelently. it can shoot down enemy fighter jet too, it can also be use as ground support roll too.........is not it?

madokafc said:
BD army doesnt have any IFV in their inventory it is? your BTR is just APC rights?

maybe thats what @masud means

yes you are right most of the btr-80 in BD army is just APC not ifv.
what i meant is more fire power does matter. example.......... :coffee:

Nike · Sep 12, 2016

TopCat said:
BD does not have ifv, probably due to riverine terrain. BTR is amphibious and that is the reason they are buying so many of them.

utter rubbish when u talking riverine terrain, Indonesia had more swamps, islets, river than Bd but thats doesnt stop us from fielding IFV since long.

so many IFV had amphibious capability, like ZBD series of China, BMP from Russian, Aslav, mowag piranha, heck even BTR 80A is had IFV capability

masud · Sep 12, 2016

Khan saheb said:
No need of comparison. It's pure waste of time. Want atgm on them? then take it to the workshop and weld some missile rack on the turret. Install FCS for the gunner. Job well done.

even more batter idea............... :enjoy:

Michael Corleone · Sep 12, 2016

masud said:
even more batter idea...............

Atleast they made something. Props for that.

masud · Sep 12, 2016

TopCat said:
BD does not have ifv, probably due to riverine terrain. BTR is amphibious and that is the reason they are buying so many of them.

every BTR body is quiet same the only differance is tarrent/ armament system.

TopCat · Sep 12, 2016

masud said:
every BTR body is quiet same the only differance is tarrent/ armament system.

I dont consider any of the BTR version as IFV.
Here is the real IFV

BMP-2_tracked_armoured_infantry_fighting_vehicle_Russia_Russian_army_defence_industry_military_technology_640_001.jpg

Michael Corleone · Sep 12, 2016

Does it even matter? M4 Sherman was used as IFV in east Germany during ww2!

They had other traditional roles too!

Nilgiri · Sep 12, 2016

Mohammed Khaled said:
Does it even matter? M4 Sherman was used as IFV in east Germany during ww2!

Tanks are a limited substitute for a dedicated IFV in today's warfare especially.

Yes there are anti-personnel tank ammunition, but that means tactically you are following a composite method which may be flexible in some situations but also means you do not get adequate specialisation either. Its best to have guaranteed specialisation and then have the flexbility if required on top of that.

masud · Sep 12, 2016

TopCat said:
I dont consider any of the BTR version as IFV.
Here is the real IFV

Now you jump to BMP series................ :undecided:

when t-15 is intering service you still stick to bmp-2................. :undecided:

Any way if i need to chose a Tracked ifv then i will go for BMP-3. OR CONVERT our btr like this................... :enjoy:

Arthur · Sep 12, 2016

masud said:
1) What make you thought it,s newly built?
2) About our Tank launch atgm missile capability, please provide me the sourch. i am more then happy to see this.
3) The hypothetical scenario i presented is resently exersise by our army , the exersise name is assault river crossing. (first armored thrust is btr-80 not tank , btr-80 is the first vehicle to face enemy first)
4) why we shouting for more capable fighter jet men? f-7 is doing his job excelently. it can shoot down enemy fighter jet too, it can also be use as ground support roll too.........is not it?

yes you are right most of the btr-80 in BD army is just APC not ifv.
what i meant is more fire power does matter. example..........

1. I asked you the question, why play word game? The answer is very simple, UN has imposed a certain level of safety standard for ground vehicles and personal protection gears. To maintain that standard it's easier to deploy new vehicles after a certain period of time rather maintain old ones. And when UN also promises to pay most of the cost over the period of UN service, there is no reason to go for old APC's, UN won't pay as much. And also cuz we didn't order old ones, rather new built ones. Very simple.

2. Just Google the gun systems these tanks use. And don't you watch parades? Why be so lazy? The time you wasted in writing a long post or in Dick measuring, you could have easily done it.

3. There is many factors that would control the real battlefield scenario. Just cuz they tested a scenario, doesn't mean they will do it in real battlefield too. A btr would have to completely stalled to fire an atg, makes them vulnerable to enemy fire. Without considering every factors or odds, pros and cons you can't just draw a conclusion. Trying to win a argument anyway and winning a war is two different thing.

4. Arguments and logic is a two face sword. You can debate to win, I can too. But as I said earlier it's pointless. So just agree to disagree for now.

masud said:
even more batter idea...............

Utter rubbish by the rebels. But again if it serves the purpose it was built by the militias to serve, who the hell are we to laugh? Modern tank's, IFV's, APC's everything is getting f*ck*d by the anti armour in Syria everyhour. Actually inforces some of my points. It's not the machine only, it's the man behind the machine too. No guaranty that btr 4 will be ready to fire when 'coincidentally' a tank appears before them out of nowhere. Hell I have seen pictures, where a atgm blowed up a T 90 tanks jamming system when it was turned off. So much for being a advanced system, when the soldiers are not upto the standard.

masud · Sep 12, 2016

Khan saheb said:
1. I asked you the question, why play word game? The answer is very simple, UN has imposed a certain level of safety standard for ground vehicles and personal protection gears. To maintain that standard it's easier to deploy new vehicles after a certain period of time rather maintain old ones. And when UN also promises to pay most of the cost over the period of UN service, there is no reason to go for old APC's, UN won't pay as much. And also cuz we didn't order old ones, rather new built ones. Very simple.

2. Just Google the gun systems these tanks use. And don't you watch parades? Why be so lazy? The time you wasted in writing a long post or in Dick measuring, you could have easily done it.

3. There is many factors that would control the real battlefield scenario. Just cuz they tested a scenario, doesn't mean they will do it in real battlefield too. A btr would have to completely stalled to fire an atg, makes them vulnerable to enemy fire. Without considering every factors or odds, pros and cons you can't just draw a conclusion. Trying to win a argument anyway and winning a war is two different thing.

4. Arguments and logic is a two face sword. You can debate to win, I can too. But as I said earlier it's pointless. So just agree to disagree for now.

1) how many time i need to say those are the same btr-80 what will use in armored formation?
are you sure those are only for un mission not for active combat duty?

2) sir your Dick measuring statement make me disrespect-full about you......... :angry:

3) do you know, how a tactics work?, how a tactrics perfected? what does mean an exercise?

4)plz read previous post.

#3252
i told you that i may be wrong,

#3255
but you want to argue with me , are not you?

Khan saheb said:
1. I asked you the question, why play word game? The answer is very simple, UN has imposed a certain level of safety standard for ground vehicles and personal protection gears. To maintain that standard it's easier to deploy new vehicles after a certain period of time rather maintain old ones. And when UN also promises to pay most of the cost over the period of UN service, there is no reason to go for old APC's, UN won't pay as much. And also cuz we didn't order old ones, rather new built ones. Very simple.

2. Just Google the gun systems these tanks use. And don't you watch parades? Why be so lazy? The time you wasted in writing a long post or in Dick measuring, you could have easily done it.

3. There is many factors that would control the real battlefield scenario. Just cuz they tested a scenario, doesn't mean they will do it in real battlefield too. A btr would have to completely stalled to fire an atg, makes them vulnerable to enemy fire. Without considering every factors or odds, pros and cons you can't just draw a conclusion. Trying to win a argument anyway and winning a war is two different thing.

4. Arguments and logic is a two face sword. You can debate to win, I can too. But as I said earlier it's pointless. So just agree to disagree for now.

Utter rubbish by the rebels. But again if it serves the purpose it was built by the militias to serve, who the hell are we to laugh? Modern tank's, IFV's, APC's everything is getting f*ck*d by the anti armour in Syria everyhour. Actually inforces some of my points. It's not the machine only, it's the man behind the machine too. No guaranty that btr 4 will be ready to fire when 'coincidentally' a tank appears before them out of nowhere. Hell I have seen pictures, where a atgm blowed up a T 90 tanks jamming system when it was turned off. So much for being a advanced system, when the soldiers are not upto the standard.

are not it,s you khan shaheb "who is arguing with me about having ATGM is no problem" only having machine gun is enough for you and you if atgm needed then you want to weld it in tarrent just like that.!
sir do you know what is combat rady means? do you know what disester can happen without combat radyness. i gave you one example?
in First Chechen War (battle of grozny) probable more then 200+ T -80 tank was destroyed by simple rpg-7, because in hurry russian tank comanders forget to install reactive armour or they were not fitted with explosive inserts before the start of the operation (T-80BV).

MEN AND MACHINE BOTH MATTERS of course it is, no dought about it. Then why you NOT giving them the best machine which we can easyly afford?

for those who think i am just a blafer or a dick measur...................... :smokin: