Jump to content

Best Infantry Vehicle


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Depends on requirements. There was a discussion not long ago comparing various IFVs. Smaller caliber like 20mm or 25mm enables better suppression fire ability and more ammunition for quick fire support. Larger rounds like 35mm or 40mm have stronger punch for dealing with other AFVs or structures but less ammo means less ability to provide suppressive fire. 30mm seems like a balance between the two.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already addressed this a while ago. The whole "TOP 10 MBTs/IFVs/APCs" thing is just nonsense. You can't really pit 2 tanks against each other, or 2 IFVs or whatever, on a flat open surface at short range, and just say the first to destroy the other wins.

What matters is the PROGRAM behind an AFV. If it can quickly and steadily put out effective upgrades and introduce emerging technologies, as well as quickly answer emergency demands, and is smart with the design from the beginning and has a solid schedule, it's going to be a successful AFV, period.

 

Let's take a look at some examples:

1)APS - Israel was the first to introduce APS into service, more than a decade before anyone else. In fact it's still the only one with an APS in service, with 1,000 units ordered. I don't think I need to explain how extremely important that is to an AFV. 10 points to Gryffindor.

2)L55A1 - Although not a revolutionary technology, it's definitely a good thing to have when the T-14 is soon to enter service (yes I know there are delays). There are quite a few countries with tanks already sporting an L55 gun, but Germany seems to be the only one really serious about getting that kinetic edge over its rivals, with not only the L55A1 already entering service, but with work done on an even larger 130mm should it be needed. 5 points to Slytherin.

 

Today, every MBT and IFV serves a bit of a niche role and you cannot, therefore, compare them. You can only compare the programs.

The Bradley program, for example, is not a good one, despite the Abrams being developed quite well. It had changed roles a lot during its lifetime, and has no remaining growth potential in it.

K21 can be torn to pieces by almost any type of weapon, but it's amphibious and that's not something most can do.

The BMD-4M is also extremely lightly armored, but it's there and it brings firepower to the table when most other armies are struggling with even putting anything airborne into service.

Namer has been doing great and is still going great, but it's gone without a turret for more than a decade so it couldn't even fulfill some basic IFV missions.

 

 

If you want to know what IFV is best for the US, that's probably going to be the Lynx KF41 because it can get to 50 tons, its growth potential is still untapped, and it meets more requirements than anyone else. Ask me to recommend something for Japan, though, or Israel, or Germany, or France, and I might give you some completely different answers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

M113. It was an armoured box that could carry a lot and conduct an amazing amount of different tasks, along with providing a fleet of specialized vehicles of a common ancestry. With the MTLB following close behind and also the BTR-50

Edited by Colin
Link to post
Share on other sites

M113. It was an armoured box that could carry a lot and conduct an amazing amount of different tasks, along with providing a fleet of specialized vehicles of a common ancestry. With the MTLB following close behind and also the BTR-50

I agree here, the basic chassis of the m-113 had a massive adaptability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

M113. It was an armoured box that could carry a lot and conduct an amazing amount of different tasks, along with providing a fleet of specialized vehicles of a common ancestry. With the MTLB following close behind and also the BTR-50

I agree here, the basic chassis of the m-113 had a massive adaptability.

 

 

Sometimes I think one of the most difficult challenges for a military industrial complex is scaling an M-113 up 20%.

 

Metaphorically speaking.

Edited by Burncycle360
Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on requirements. There was a discussion not long ago comparing various IFVs. Smaller caliber like 20mm or 25mm enables better suppression fire ability and more ammunition for quick fire support. Larger rounds like 35mm or 40mm have stronger punch for dealing with other AFVs or structures but less ammo means less ability to provide suppressive fire. 30mm seems like a balance between the two.

There is also the 100mm&30mm combo of the BMP-3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Though small cannon become a little inefficient as the HE rounds cannot have a high filler mass share. At some point it becomes better to just use a smaller caliber and solid shot, which also removes the problem of dual feeds etc. Eg.14.5mm is probably better than 20mm for this reason. And on the other side, there is a case for going larger such that airbursting munitions can be effectively deployed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Airburst munitions are insanely expensive - think of 3,000.- EUR per round, irrespective of caliber. So if your standard "dispose of one squad" shot series is fired, 15,000.- ... ka-ching!

Also, no training practice rounds for this ammo type (at least at no cost savings, it's all the programmable timer fuze). Good for simulation guys like me, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Though small cannon become a little inefficient as the HE rounds cannot have a high filler mass share. At some point it becomes better to just use a smaller caliber and solid shot, which also removes the problem of dual feeds etc. Eg.14.5mm is probably better than 20mm for this reason. And on the other side, there is a case for going larger such that airbursting munitions can be effectively deployed.

When firing into buildings even a little bit of HE effect is better than none.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Though small cannon become a little inefficient as the HE rounds cannot have a high filler mass share. At some point it becomes better to just use a smaller caliber and solid shot, which also removes the problem of dual feeds etc. Eg.14.5mm is probably better than 20mm for this reason. And on the other side, there is a case for going larger such that airbursting munitions can be effectively deployed.

When firing into buildings even a little bit of HE effect is better than none.

 

Yes but when firing into buildings being able to penetrate the walls (inc. those with sandbagging behind them etc.) is more important than a somewhat improved effect from any shots you can get through an opening. And 20mm HE will not be able to get through that much. But it is a bit of a moot point as very few vehicles have anything in the 20mm range and everyone seems to agree that there is a huge gain in capability going to 30mm.

 

Edited by KV7
Link to post
Share on other sites

First country to introduce APS in tanks was the Soviet Union, who installed them in T-55AD used by Naval Infantry..

 

And it was a failed project. Although there were reports of them intercepting a couple RPGs in combat, those systems were still very limited, dangerous, and cost a lot, so were not sufficiently cost effective. This is what's called "technological immaturity".

I don't think installing an APS then dumping it for 40 years can be considered a success. You can throw all sorts of tech into the battlefield to experiment, and actually get some positive results. But it doesn't mean the tech is mature enough for combat. The Trophy was essentially the first APS to enter service as a final product and not as an experiment, and instead of dumping it, they bought more and installed it on even more types of vehicles.

But all this debate is really beyond the point, which is that the program behind the AFV is what determines its success. Not how it fares in a 1v1 competition.

 

M113. It was an armoured box that could carry a lot and conduct an amazing amount of different tasks, along with providing a fleet of specialized vehicles of a common ancestry. With the MTLB following close behind and also the BTR-50

Basically every IFV and APC today is somewhat of an armored box that can do a LOT of things. In fact, most do it better than the M113, MTLB, and BTR-50, because some applications require high weight capacity, which those vehicles lack.

The only advantage of the M113 is that it's dirt cheap. That's it. But when advanced electronics started reaching AFVs, the equation changed. It was no longer dirt cheap = shitty vehicle || ultra expensive = capable vehicle.

With advanced electronics came system synergies* that flipped the curve. If during WW2 you could, for example, buy an AFV with Y capabilities at X price, or an AFV with 2Y capabilities at 4X price, then today you can buy an AFV with Y capabilities at X price, or 4Y capabilities at 2X price.

 

If that gives you a headache, then it basically means that piling up expensive capabilities on an AFV can actually make it even more cost effective if done right. That was not true, and even the opposite, at the time the M113 was made.

 

System synergy = the effect an addition of one feature has on other features, making the total more than the sum of the parts.

For example, take away the BMS of only a single tank platoon. What the BMS does is it gives you a significant boost of situational awareness, and that's it. The platoon will immediately start under-performing in other criteria as well. They'll be less mobile because they'll be making more stops to scan their surroundings. They'll have reduced firepower because now there's no visual representation. And their now reduced confidence affects their overall performance in their general duties.

 

That is why we no longer see equivalents of the M113 in service, and why most users are rushing to replace it with something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Though small cannon become a little inefficient as the HE rounds cannot have a high filler mass share. At some point it becomes better to just use a smaller caliber and solid shot, which also removes the problem of dual feeds etc. Eg.14.5mm is probably better than 20mm for this reason. And on the other side, there is a case for going larger such that airbursting munitions can be effectively deployed.

Experience from Balkan wars, especially Kosovo is that any HE capability, no matter how limited is better that best solid shot.

Typical house here has 20-30cm thick reinforced concrete basement walls (IIRC old building code required 20cm if you wanted to have basement, 25cm in earthquake prone areas), good luck with 14.5mm going through it. Only solution was HE through windows or something powerful enough to flatten whole thing. Hence 20mm ACs and AGLs were found way more useful than 12.7/14.5mm.

 

Somewhat typical example - note that basement is fully done from a reinforced concrete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Toyota Hilux fitted with the Infantry Fighting Package deserves to be in the conversation.

 

Its systemic integration has the advantage of being baked into the global civilian auto repair chain.

 

Toyota recommends premium fuel use in this configuration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And it was a failed project. Although there were reports of them intercepting a couple RPGs in combat, those systems were still very limited, dangerous, and cost a lot, so were not sufficiently cost effective. This is what's called "technological immaturity".

I don't think installing an APS then dumping it for 40 years can be considered a success.

 

I don't think it should be considered a failed project. Original Drozd got developed into Drozd-2 but USSR first ran out of money and then collaped. Back in the 90s was offered with T-80U in an improved version, so it wasn't really "dumped".

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And it was a failed project. Although there were reports of them intercepting a couple RPGs in combat, those systems were still very limited, dangerous, and cost a lot, so were not sufficiently cost effective. This is what's called "technological immaturity".

I don't think installing an APS then dumping it for 40 years can be considered a success.

 

I don't think it should be considered a failed project. Original Drozd got developed into Drozd-2 but USSR first ran out of money and then collaped. Back in the 90s was offered with T-80U in an improved version, so it wasn't really "dumped".

 

Developed into Drozd-2, yeah, but itself was dumped. None used those T-55AD after that, and 40 years later there is not a single AFV with an APS in service in Russia. First to use one is the Armata family which unfortunately made it far too specialized and limited, but we don't know when it will even enter service.

Had it been anything but a failure, it would have been transferred (at little to no cost) to T-72/80/90 tanks as-is, because it was already mostly a standalone system.

Again, it was an experiment. You can't call it a system in actual service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had it been anything but a failure, it would have been transferred (at little to no cost) to T-72/80/90 tanks as-is, because it was already mostly a standalone system.

Again, it was an experiment. You can't call it a system in actual service.

 

And how do you plan to transfer them if they ended up in Ukraine after collapse of the USSR?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...