Jump to content

Best Infantry Vehicle


Recommended Posts

There are 2 cheaper and more effective routes IMO:

 

1)Standardize all vehicles in a platoon and up to battalion levels so that all APCs will have a turret (IFV) that gives them the firepower they need. Creating an anti-tank vehicle would be possible and even advised, but that's only really relevant for light infantry formations using wheeled vehicles.

 

2)Add firepower when needed via tanks. Such units can be added organically to infantry units.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Some are getting hung up on nomenclature. An APC in this context is the boxy layout with more protected volume designed to carry dismounts and their stuff. Whether it has a pintle MG or a remote weapon station is a function of funding and purpose. ... For me, the FSV does that job in a more optimized manner and it allows the APCs to be more infantry centric, providing them with mobility, logistics and protected movement to where they can to their infantry thing.

HOW does your FSV do its job "in a more optimized (sic) manner"? In what way are APCs currently denied to be "infantry centric"? In what way does an IFV not provide mobility, logistics and protected movement (note that you listed mobility twice)? How does an IFV deny dismounted soldiers to "do their infantry thing"?

 

Will we leverage synergies by pairing mutually supporting complementary services for a paradigm shift that disrupts the incumbent infantry processes? Can we develop infantry solutions with agile methods for a faster time to market?

Let me fetch my cards for a round of bingo while we're at it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if someone else is bankrolling your Army.

 

So you want your nebulous FSV concept to take the role of light tanks, so you can do without MBTs?

Fair enough, but then let's be open about it. You're not looking for an optimal combined arms package, but rather want a budget "non-heavy" formation. Every state will try to set up its own army within the constraints of ist national economy and tax revenue base. But then we leave the realm of "what's best for the infantry" and enter the realm of "what's best for my budget". And even then I think you're better off with an IFV combined with a light tank that shares a common chassis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some are getting hung up on nomenclature. An APC in this context is the boxy layout with more protected volume designed to carry dismounts and their stuff. Whether it has a pintle MG or a remote weapon station is a function of funding and purpose. ... For me, the FSV does that job in a more optimized manner and it allows the APCs to be more infantry centric, providing them with mobility, logistics and protected movement to where they can to their infantry thing.

HOW does your FSV do its job "in a more optimized (sic) manner"? In what way are APCs currently denied to be "infantry centric"? In what way does an IFV not provide mobility, logistics and protected movement (note that you listed mobility twice)? How does an IFV deny dismounted soldiers to "do their infantry thing"?

 

Will we leverage synergies by pairing mutually supporting complementary services for a paradigm shift that disrupts the incumbent infantry processes? Can we develop infantry solutions with agile methods for a faster time to market?

Let me fetch my cards for a round of bingo while we're at it.

 

A suitable firing position for infantry is not always the same as that for the IFV. Eg. the cost of dismounting the infantry into some buildings might be having the AFV stuck in some little village backstreet with very limited field of fire. But then you have an expensive vehicle with lots of firepower doing little. Of course you can then pull the IFV back to a better position, but then it loses contact with the infantry squad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.50 is inferior to anything throwing even tiniest quantities of HE.

AGLs are good, but have own issues (no wall penetration except by using HEAT, which is reducing amount of HE thrown at enemy).

There is a reason that even before IFV mania there were vehicles with 20mm ACs (HS-30 Lang, Swedish one etc).

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Some are getting hung up on nomenclature. An APC in this context is the boxy layout with more protected volume designed to carry dismounts and their stuff. Whether it has a pintle MG or a remote weapon station is a function of funding and purpose. ... For me, the FSV does that job in a more optimized manner and it allows the APCs to be more infantry centric, providing them with mobility, logistics and protected movement to where they can to their infantry thing.

HOW does your FSV do its job "in a more optimized (sic) manner"? In what way are APCs currently denied to be "infantry centric"? In what way does an IFV not provide mobility, logistics and protected movement (note that you listed mobility twice)? How does an IFV deny dismounted soldiers to "do their infantry thing"?

 

Will we leverage synergies by pairing mutually supporting complementary services for a paradigm shift that disrupts the incumbent infantry processes? Can we develop infantry solutions with agile methods for a faster time to market?

Let me fetch my cards for a round of bingo while we're at it.

A suitable firing position for infantry is not always the same as that for the IFV. Eg. the cost of dismounting the infantry into some buildings might be having the AFV stuck in some little village backstreet with very limited field of fire. But then you have an expensive vehicle with lots of firepower doing little. Of course you can then pull the IFV back to a better position, but then it loses contact with the infantry squad.

This goes into the realm of doctrine. Is the main drawback of an IFV its crew's mentality? Once they get a big gun and missiles they'll think they're more on a hunt for targets than a mode of transportation for its infantry.

 

In a sense, yes, but only if the crew are usually undisciplined.

 

On the flipside, there's the unlocked but untapped potential of an IFV. You give it more capabilities and firepower - you unlock new potential. Not using it to its full potential would be a waste.

 

So a lot depends on how you operate your IFV, with what mentality. And that's a function of training and discipline. It's really up to instructors to find a balance in the force. So you can blame certain armed forces for improper use of IFVs, but you can't blame the tech and concept.

 

Besides, even bulkier tanks are doing excellent in tight urban areas, and new AFVs are getting better adapted to urban fighting all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the cost of dismounting the infantry into some buildings might be having the AFV stuck in some little village backstreet with very limited field of fire.

In which case you're no worse off than with an APC.

But in those cases where you can have a great battleposition, the APC won't be able to exploit its potential like an IFV could.

 

It's a sour grapes fallacy to argue that you don't need a certain capability because you might not always be able to use it. The alternative is much worse, needing to grow a capable gun under time pressure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One option is to have a 'advance/defense in depth' doctrine. The APC/IFV move forward and dismount rifle squads ~ of 8 men. The FSV with heavier weapons dismounts smaller support weapon teams ~ 4 men ideally some hundreds of meters behind the rifle squads. In the advance the former will close to rifle range while the latter provide fire support and overwatch.

Edited by KV7
Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of any infantry carrier is to move enough infantry with the needed gear to where they have to take or hold. The carriers purpose is to reduce attrition and fatigue of the infantry as they move up to execute their mission. (My apologies for not using buzzwords). When you only have 6 dismounts per track, your infantry has already suffered attrition by organizational fiat. Adding more vehicles to achieve the desired lift and you just compound the matter. When your infantry is weak by design, the carrier will have to do the hard work and the infantry then essentially supports the vehicle.

 

Hence the APC, which prioritizes the infantry and their role. On a class 25/30 vehicle, I'd definitely like to see at least 8 dismounts and ideally 10 with 2 basic crew (driver + commander). In terms of Doctrine, the dismount element will have responsibilities for vehicle maintenance and operation, although to a lower level. Much in the same way that the crew has to be able to fight with their section. 10 dismounts allows for either a large basic section or an 8 man section +attached team.

 

The APC armament should primarily be for self-protection and suppression of the enemy at the dismount point. The main destructive fires are handled by FSVs which will have much heavier weapons and better protection.

 

The mounting point for any weapon station should support different units interchangeably with the same controls and UI. On the low end, something like a BS-61 with HMG, on the high end something like Epoch. I would definitely look at integrating whatever standard ATGM onto the modules if it doesn't break the bank. For me Epoch is a lot, maybe too much. Something smaller with one sight head and a light autocannon (literally, like a 2A72) with coax and a launch rail would be preferable.

 

Self-screening is pretty much a given but I would definitely look at having smoke projectors that can screen further out to say 300m to screen the target during dismount and preparation for assault. I can imagine some sort of smoke mortar tube with either a bigger kicker charge or a rocket sustainer.

 

If you like bigger cannon, the FSV is for you. 57mm with 180 rounds at 220rpm cyclic.

 

ETA:- Best means different things to different people. For me it is the vehicle you can afford to procure and operate. In some cases it might be a Landcruiser.

Edited by Simon Tan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah you are right. The AGL really needs to be scaled up to 60mm or so for that to work. Which is probably a nice idea anyway as it starts to be possible to use it like an automatic mortar. But to go back to the OP, this is a solution that works better for an FSV with plenty of internal volume.

Edited by KV7
Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of any infantry carrier is to move enough infantry with the needed gear to where they have to take or hold. The carriers purpose is to reduce attrition and fatigue of the infantry as they move up to execute their mission. (My apologies for not using buzzwords). When you only have 6 dismounts per track, your infantry has already suffered attrition by organizational fiat. Adding more vehicles to achieve the desired lift and you just compound the matter. When your infantry is weak by design, the carrier will have to do the hard work and the infantry then essentially supports the vehicle.

 

Hence the APC, which prioritizes the infantry and their role. On a class 25/30 vehicle, I'd definitely like to see at least 8 dismounts and ideally 10 with 2 basic crew (driver + commander). In terms of Doctrine, the dismount element will have responsibilities for vehicle maintenance and operation, although to a lower level. Much in the same way that the crew has to be able to fight with their section. 10 dismounts allows for either a large basic section or an 8 man section +attached team.

 

The APC armament should primarily be for self-protection and suppression of the enemy at the dismount point. The main destructive fires are handled by FSVs which will have much heavier weapons and better protection.

 

The mounting point for any weapon station should support different units interchangeably with the same controls and UI. On the low end, something like a BS-61 with HMG, on the high end something like Epoch. I would definitely look at integrating whatever standard ATGM onto the modules if it doesn't break the bank. For me Epoch is a lot, maybe too much. Something smaller with one sight head and a light autocannon (literally, like a 2A72) with coax and a launch rail would be preferable.

 

Self-screening is pretty much a given but I would definitely look at having smoke projectors that can screen further out to say 300m to screen the target during dismount and preparation for assault. I can imagine some sort of smoke mortar tube with either a bigger kicker charge or a rocket sustainer.

 

If you like bigger cannon, the FSV is for you. 57mm with 180 rounds at 220rpm cyclic.

 

ETA:- Best means different things to different people. For me it is the vehicle you can afford to procure and operate. In some cases it might be a Landcruiser.

Completely agree here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of any infantry carrier is to move enough infantry with the needed gear to where they have to take or hold. The carriers purpose is to reduce attrition and fatigue of the infantry as they move up to execute their mission. (My apologies for not using buzzwords). When you only have 6 dismounts per track, your infantry has already suffered attrition by organizational fiat. Adding more vehicles to achieve the desired lift and you just compound the matter. When your infantry is weak by design, the carrier will have to do the hard work and the infantry then essentially supports the vehicle.

 

Hence the APC, which prioritizes the infantry and their role. On a class 25/30 vehicle, I'd definitely like to see at least 8 dismounts and ideally 10 with 2 basic crew (driver + commander). In terms of Doctrine, the dismount element will have responsibilities for vehicle maintenance and operation, although to a lower level. Much in the same way that the crew has to be able to fight with their section. 10 dismounts allows for either a large basic section or an 8 man section +attached team.

 

The APC armament should primarily be for self-protection and suppression of the enemy at the dismount point. The main destructive fires are handled by FSVs which will have much heavier weapons and better protection.

 

The mounting point for any weapon station should support different units interchangeably with the same controls and UI. On the low end, something like a BS-61 with HMG, on the high end something like Epoch. I would definitely look at integrating whatever standard ATGM onto the modules if it doesn't break the bank. For me Epoch is a lot, maybe too much. Something smaller with one sight head and a light autocannon (literally, like a 2A72) with coax and a launch rail would be preferable.

 

Self-screening is pretty much a given but I would definitely look at having smoke projectors that can screen further out to say 300m to screen the target during dismount and preparation for assault. I can imagine some sort of smoke mortar tube with either a bigger kicker charge or a rocket sustainer.

 

If you like bigger cannon, the FSV is for you. 57mm with 180 rounds at 220rpm cyclic.

 

ETA:- Best means different things to different people. For me it is the vehicle you can afford to procure and operate. In some cases it might be a Landcruiser.

So your only problems with IFVs is that you've never heard of overhead remotely controlled turrets?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of any infantry carrier is to move enough infantry with the needed gear to where they have to take or hold. The carriers purpose is to reduce attrition and fatigue of the infantry as they move up to execute their mission.When you only have 6 dismounts per track, your infantry has already suffered attrition by organizational fiat.

 

But you also want them to arrive, so the question is how lethal you expect the combat to be which in turn dictates to protection level.

 

 

Hence the APC, which prioritizes the infantry and their role. On a class 25/30 vehicle, I'd definitely like to see at least 8 dismounts and ideally 10 with 2 basic crew (driver + commander).

 

You demand 20...24m³ of protected volume and a 25...30t vehicle, if I understand you right. That's doable, but not significantly beyond an M113's protection level, just so that we're clear about this. If the enemy doesn't have much more than MGs are sporadic RPGs that may work out. But you are limiting your operational options right there, with such a concept.

 

 

The APC armament should primarily be for self-protection and suppression of the enemy at the dismount point. The main destructive fires are handled by FSVs which will have much heavier weapons and better protection.

 

What's your armament limit for the purpose of "self-protection"?

If you could have decent armament on your APC while keeping the dismount strength and staying within your weight limits, whatever the merits of this selection may be, why would you deny the APC to have that armament?

Why do you protect a fire support vehicle, but not your infantry in the APC?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon's point expands significantly on mine, I think. There is a doctrinal split here, between using a single vehicle that ends up being a compromised dog's breakfast weighing 35-45 tonnes, and two vehicles one being an APC and the other a FSV, which might be brought in at a lighter weight class.

 

Or in the example of Ajax, all of heavy, compromised for space and two vehicle variants roughly matching the roles above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Flensburger puts 3+8-12 into 14.5m3 with their G5 WARAN APC on a GVW of 26.5 tons with a further growth of 8.5 tons. What is not clear is what you get exactly for the 26.5 tons but it looks like a basic HHS applique that will probably be rated against 14.5mm AP at 200m (total WAG). The design seems to have been optimized for protection against mines/IED.

 

I'm using this as an example because they actually give a usable volume to GVW. It's actually quite a neat little vehicle and describes the APC idea quite well.

 

You could build Class 70 APCs that could soak ATGMs and sabot but they would be prohibitively expensive to procure and to run. Not having enough tracks is also an operational limitation.

 

For most countries Class 25/30 is about as heavy as they can afford in useful numbers. A reasonable level of ballstic protection would be autocannon/RPG resistant and active systems to degrade ATGMs. I would be very concerned with trying to push forward carriers against known ATGM threats as a matter of course.

 

The APC simply has more volume to be protected and to do that, you use up more mass. You also have to haul the dismounts and all their gear. Armament is at the bottom of the pecking order. The infantry is protected at the expense of armament in both mass and cost. I did describe what I thought the upper end would look like, light autocannon+co-ax+atgm launch rail. The last should be shared with the infantry.

 

The fire support vehicle by definition has to be used more aggressively and hazard enemy fire to perform its role. It should therefore be better protected and this is easier to achieve because the protected volume is smaller and it does not reserve any mass for dismounts and their equipment.

 

Again my apologies for not being able to communicate effectively.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the cost of dismounting the infantry into some buildings might be having the AFV stuck in some little village backstreet with very limited field of fire.

In which case you're no worse off than with an APC.

But in those cases where you can have a great battleposition, the APC won't be able to exploit its potential like an IFV could.

 

It's a sour grapes fallacy to argue that you don't need a certain capability because you might not always be able to use it. The alternative is much worse, needing to grow a capable gun under time pressure.

Of course it is better to have a cannon and sophisticated FCS than not. But the modernization of existing mech infantry units involving replacing older APC with modern IFV in order to add a useful secondary capability is a luxury if you still have many units equipped with older equipment.

Edited by KV7
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...