IFV v APC [Archive] - Defence Talk Forum

Asstroboy

October 1st, 2007, 08:38 PM

Hi, was bored on the weekend and watched an interesting doco on Discovery on the "Top 10 Infantry Fighting Vehicles". However, instead of the IFV in the conventional sense, the producers mixed APC alongside IFVs. Therefore Bradleys and Warriors were placed 2nd and 3rd, while the good old M113 APC was ranked as the number 1 IFV. What I'd like to know is that is there a strict definition of what is a APC and what is an IFV. Based on my understanding, they are both support vehicles in that they can bring additional infantry and fire power in a battlefield alongside MBTs. APCs are there primarily to bring in the troops (8-10) and is relatively light in terms of armour and firepower (.50 cal in the original M113) whereas the IFV has more firepower and more armour but only limited carrying capcity (3-6) as a result, with the Russian BMP1 as the first example of such vehicles. Can others help me out??
Thanks

Chrom

October 1st, 2007, 09:09 PM

kato

October 1st, 2007, 09:17 PM

The CFE Treaty as far as I know had the only "official" definition ever. The treaty text and protocols for it can be found here (http://www.dod.mil/acq/acic/treaties/cfe/index.htm), for example.

That definition was copied to UN usage, so it should be pretty much considered universal.

According to that definition:

The term "armoured personnel carrier" means an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped to transport a combat infantry squad and which, as a rule, is armed with an integral or organic weapon of less than 20 millimeters calibre.

The "Armoured IFV" definition below should be seen synonymous to "IFV":

The term "armoured infantry fighting vehicle" means an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad, which normally provides the capability for the troops to deliver fire from inside the vehicle under armoured protection, and which is armed with an integral or organic cannon of at least 20 millimeters calibre and sometimes an antitank missile launcher. Armoured infantry fighting vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of armoured infantry or mechanized infantry or motorized infantry formations and units of ground forces.

"Armoured Combat Vehicle" in those two definition is defined as:

The term "armoured combat vehicle" means a self-propelled vehicle with armoured protection and cross-country capability.

(excluding Battle Tanks, which are defined earlier)

So, officially, the only difference is the armament: If it's below 20mm, it's a APC, if it's 20mm and above, it's a IFV.

Number of passengers doesn't count, armour level doesn't count, capability to keep up with tanks doesn't count.

The "Protocol on Existing Types of Conventional Armaments and Equipment" within the CFE Treaty framework (can be found at above link) is also interesting as it presents a list of vehicles sorted into these categories (for all NATO and Warsaw Pacts weapon systems active in 1990).

With regard to that docu, the protocol clearly sets the M113 in the "APC" category, including all basic models of it. However, for example, the NM-135, a Norwegian M113 version mounting a 20mm turret, falls into the "IFV" category in the same protocol.

edit:
Btw, by these definitions, the BMP-1 of course wouldn't have been the first IFV. Post-WW2, the first such vehicle would probably have been something like the Hotchkiss TT6 or the AMX-VCI M-56, both in the mid-50s and armed with 20mm guns.

Asstroboy

October 1st, 2007, 09:49 PM

Thanks Kato, the 20mm rule is certainly interesting. Do you know of the year in which they were defined? Personally, I have difficulty in accepting that mounting a 20mm cannon on a M113 changes its classification from an APC to an IFV, as the M113 was designed as an APC from the start, as opposed to purpose build IFV such as the Warrior and BMP. I hope this isn't an academic discussion, but maybe such definitions need to be updates to keep up with advances in military technology and innovation?
Thanks

kato

October 1st, 2007, 10:22 PM

Thanks Kato, the 20mm rule is certainly interesting. Do you know of the year in which they were defined?

November 19, 1990 was the original signing ;)

Remember that at that point (and for more than another decade...) the "standard" IFVs of NATO (used with a "IFV doctrine") had 20-25mm guns. I mean the Bradley, Marder, and AMX-10P.
The Warrior (with its 30mm gun) was "brand-new", with deliveries only starting 3 years earlier. And the BMP-2 on the Soviet side was also just introduced a few years earlier itself, and was basically just a well-improved BMP-1.

Personally, I have difficulty in accepting that mounting a 20mm cannon on a M113 changes its classification from an APC to an IFV, as the M113 was designed as an APC from the start, as opposed to purpose build IFV such as the Warrior and BMP. I hope this isn't an academic discussion, but maybe such definitions need to be updates to keep up with advances in military technology and innovation?
Well, that depends on what the role of a IFV and a APC entails really.
Within doctrine, the APC doesn't "fight". Its armament is self-defense only, and it generally isn't a platform from which the infantry squad fights - it only serves to transport it into action.
The IFV however provides an actual combat capability - a fire support platform operating with the infantry in combat, and a vehicle that at least somewhat has the ability to fight its way into the mission area (which, no, is not something a APC would ever do).

With me still there?

Now, with regard to armament - you don't mount a bigger gun on a vehicle just because it's bigger/better of course. The NM-135, unlike the original M113, is designed to fight as a IFV. Its operational use is as a IFV as described above.

Now, the 20mm caliber was chosen as the "divisor" because it's the point at which the armament becomes "non-defensive". With a .50cal HMG (or a 14.5mm), you can't really shoot up enemy armoured vehicles, or lend effective penetrating fire to your infantry. Meaning with a vehicle equipped with a HMG you cannot perform the above mission to "fight with the infantry". You can defend yourself, but you can't actively, offensively fight.

With a 20mm gun (and maybe the also mentioned ATGM launcher), you're at the point where you can actually do that. 20mm APDS provides good behind-protection effects in typical infantry combat terrains, and - let's not forget that - 20mm is also "officially" the point where you're allowed to use HE/shrapnel ammunition on the enemy.

Chrom

October 2nd, 2007, 07:10 AM

November 19, 1990 was the original signing ;)

With a 20mm gun (and maybe the also mentioned ATGM launcher), you're at the point where you can actually do that. 20mm APDS provides good behind-protection effects in typical infantry combat terrains, and - let's not forget that - 20mm is also "officially" the point where you're allowed to use HE/shrapnel ammunition on the enemy.

Really, it was much simplier than you think. The definition was given for arms threaty purpose. By that time all IFV's possesed 20+ mm weapon, and all APC just heavy MG's. Now, this "20mm" rule is not true anymore.
The only good definition is by primary function - i.e. if said vehicle is intended to operate on battlefield.

kato

October 2nd, 2007, 08:10 AM

By that time all IFV's possesed 20+ mm weapon, and all APC just heavy MG's. Now, this "20mm" rule is not true anymore.

Name one APC (intended to operate as such on the battlefield) with a 20mm gun.
I dare you :D

Chrom

October 2nd, 2007, 08:54 AM

Name one APC (intended to operate as such on the battlefield) with a 20mm gun.
I dare you :D

Ex. BTR-80A. APC with 30mm gun. It IS APC by primary function. Various M113 modernizations with 20+mm AC also fall in that category.

kato

October 2nd, 2007, 09:30 AM

Ex. BTR-80A. APC with 30mm gun. It IS APC by primary function. Various M113 modernizations with 20+mm AC also fall in that category.

The BTR-80A isn't used in the same function as the standard BTR-80. It's used as a IFV, that is doctrinally as a low-end alternative to BMP-2 as a IFV.

There are the following M113 variants with 20mm guns that i'm aware of:
MICV : IFV (several variants), e.g. NM-135 succeeded by CV9030N
AIFV : IFV (several variants), e.g. YPR765 succeeded by CV9035NL
IAFV V3 : IFV
M163 : SPAAG
M732 : SPAAG

Chrom

October 2nd, 2007, 10:51 AM

The BTR-80A isn't used in the same function as the standard BTR-80. It's used as a IFV, that is doctrinally as a low-end alternative to BMP-2 as a IFV.

There are the following M113 variants with 20mm guns that i'm aware of:
MICV : IFV (several variants), e.g. NM-135 succeeded by CV9030N
AIFV : IFV (several variants), e.g. YPR765 succeeded by CV9035NL
IAFV V3 : IFV
M163 : SPAAG
M732 : SPAAG
BTR-80A is APC by all means. Look at its armor. Noone in the right mind would send it on frontline. M113 - same. Note, you can slap 75mm gun on a bus - it will NOT make said bus an IFV.

kato

October 2nd, 2007, 11:13 AM

BTR-80A is APC by all means. Look at its armor. Noone in the right mind would send it on frontline. M113 - same. Note, you can slap 75mm gun on a bus - it will NOT make said bus an IFV.

"Frontline" is always a relative term. Germany uses the Wiesel in direct infantry support, and its armour is even less than that of a M113. France's AMX-10P IFV had about the same armour level (and weight) as a M113.

Besides, the AIFV/MICV/IAFV are not armored to the same level as the original M113, but far heavier. The original XM701 AIFV for the US Army (not introduced, but exported in similar form as the various AIFVs) weighed nearly twice as much as the M113.

Chrom

October 2nd, 2007, 11:17 AM

"Frontline" is always a relative term. Germany uses the Wiesel in direct infantry support, and its armour is even less than that of a M113. France's AMX-10P IFV had about the same armour level (and weight) as a M113.

Besides, the AIFV/MICV/IAFV are not armored to the same level as the original M113, but far heavier. The original XM701 AIFV for the US Army (not introduced, but exported in similar form as the various AIFVs) weighed nearly twice as much as the M113.

USA sometimes used its HUMVEE on the frontline... doesnt mean it is intendend in that role.
So, lets put it stright: you point is what EVERY vehicle with 20+mm gun is IFV? And EVERY vehicle with less than 20mm gun - APC?

kato

October 2nd, 2007, 11:35 AM

USA sometimes used its HUMVEE on the frontline... doesnt mean it is intendend in that role.
So, lets put it stright: you point is what EVERY vehicle with 20+mm gun is IFV? And EVERY vehicle with less than 20mm gun - APC?

My point is that every infantry-carrying vehicle with less than a 20mm gun is only used in a doctrinal APC role (transport/self-defense only), while infantry-carrying vehicles with 20+mm guns are used in a doctrinal IFV role (actively fighting/infantry fighting from it).

It's really a egg-or-chicken-first situation. The armament is mounted in order to provide appropriate firepower in a certain role, and vehicles are used in a certain role because they have the armament for this role. See what i'm getting at?

Chrom

October 2nd, 2007, 02:22 PM

My point is that every infantry-carrying vehicle with less than a 20mm gun is only used in a doctrinal APC role (transport/self-defense only), while infantry-carrying vehicles with 20+mm guns are used in a doctrinal IFV role (actively fighting/infantry fighting from it).

It's really a egg-or-chicken-first situation. The armament is mounted in order to provide appropriate firepower in a certain role, and vehicles are used in a certain role because they have the armament for this role. See what i'm getting at?
No, your point is wrong. BTR-80A is still APC - i repeat, NOONE want it to fullfill same role as BMP. Same could be said about M113 upgrades. Of course, in EMERGENCY case BTR-80A will provide better firesupport and will live longer on battlefield. However, this doesnt mean what in NORMAL case it will go with tanks / infantry / IFV's.

There is a strong trend worldwide to equip EVERY 10+t vehicle with heavy weapon - i.e. 30+ cannons and ATGM's. This, however, doesnt meant what APC is history. No. It is just standards for IFV/APC was shifted.

Example: Average WW2 tank had less firepower, mobilty, protection, weight than modern IFV like PUMA or BMP-3. This DOESNT make PUMA a tank. It is still IFV. 70 years are gone - and now to call something a "tank" you need completely different properties than in WW2 time.

kato

October 2nd, 2007, 09:19 PM

70 years are gone - and now to call something a "tank" you need completely different properties than in WW2 time.

Umm, no. You don't. A tank is defined by its role, not its armament. The Scimitar, or the Stormer are still (light) tanks in today's definition. And that's despite "only" carrying a clip-loaded 30mm quickfire gun similar to pre-WW2 tanks.
There is a distinct (pretty good) definition for a "battle tank" (min 16.5 tons, 360°-traversable gun over 75mm, primary role as tank), but that's not the definition of a "tank" itself. That has stayed the same since pre-WW2 times.

Similarly, a IFV is defined by its role. Its armament, armor, whatever is secondary, but it allows a straight reverse definition by applying a "potential role" based on those values. See ... well, about any of my previous posts.

Of course, in EMERGENCY case BTR-80A will provide better firesupport

An APC is not intended to deliver fire support at all. In case you're wondering, the BTR-80A was defined as a IFV under CFE as of 1997 in the updated protocol on existing types (http://www.dod.mil/acq/acic/treaties/cfe/protocols/poet_update.htm#aifv).

There is a strong trend worldwide to equip EVERY 10+t vehicle with heavy weapon - i.e. 30+ cannons and ATGM's.
Holy shit, no there's not. This is a trend that's pretty much only followed by manufacturers in ex-Soviet states (Russia, Ukraine primarily) who call their resulting IFVs "Armored Personnel Carriers".

If you look at "recent" (post-Cold-War) systems by other manufacturers, you'll find that in pretty much all cases APCs will meet the CFE definition.
As examples look around the German GTK Boxer, Canadian Bison ISC, Chinese ZSD89, Finnish Patria AMV in the APC configs (e.g. in the Polish Army as Rosomak-1), the Pandur II in the APC config, the Fiat Type 6614, the Swedish Bv-206... hell, even the Israeli Achzarit, or the Namer.

And yes, all these vehicles could mount heavier weapons, and sometimes are introduced in such variants too - but then they are explicitly called Armoured (Infantry) Fighting Vehicles, not Armoured Personnel Carriers.

Asstroboy

October 2nd, 2007, 09:48 PM

Ok guys, I am getting a fair ideas now in answer to my original question. Chrom, funny you mentioned the HMVEE, because in that same doco, the HMVEE is acutally listed at 10th as the best IFV, even though it's standard weapon is a .50 cal HMG. As far as I am concerned, it's an oversized Jeep and a versatile platform for medivac, ATGM carrier etc but not a APC and definitely not an IFV (according to Kato :D ).
This debate is getting a bit theortical now for my liking. But judging a vehicle based on its design intent (ie. primary role function), and its veratility as a platform for other functions (ATGM carrier, troop insertion, fire support etc) would be a good start but the lines quickly blurrs from there.
Regardless of all those, each vehicle has its function and role in the battlefield (and remember they vary from traditional WW2 style front line assult to urban warfare a la Iraq) and each is suited to that particular battlefield and mission.
The point I am trying to make is that each weapons designer is developing their weapons based on those parameters and the ability for their platform to grow based on needs of the above.
cheers.
PS: we all know just how authoritive and factual those Discovery docos are !!! :-)

miket

October 3rd, 2007, 04:31 AM

Could the Israeli Merkava be rated as a "super" IFV? as it has a weapon greater than 20 mm and carries troops. ???

kato

October 3rd, 2007, 08:11 AM

Could the Israeli Merkava be rated as a "super" IFV? as it has a weapon greater than 20 mm and carries troops. ???

No, because carrying infantry isn't its primary purpose. It therefore has the definition of "battle tank" applying to it.

Waylander

October 7th, 2007, 10:37 AM

Very good posts Kato. :)

One should always remember that the Merkava is not intended to act as an IFV. The space in the back is normally used for spare ammo, for tranpsortin g soldiers on short distances, critical (med)evacs, etc.

It is not like the Merks are driving around with a reduced squad in their back all the time.
It is an additional feature and one should look at it with Israels special situation in mind.

Their doctrin knows no IFVs (Which IMHO bite them in their a** during the Lebanon campaign).
They concentrate on heavy protection and have a decent need for lots of heavy protected transport space not only in their traditional warfare role but also in the uncounted guerilla war actions of the last decade.

Making Israel an example for anything is always very difficult especially when talking about IFVs.

kato

October 7th, 2007, 11:41 AM

The space in the back is normally used for spare ammo, for tranpsortin g soldiers on short distances, critical (med)evacs, etc.

And this little feature where Merkavas are employed as dug-in stationary defense guns, and the space in the back is used for loading from outside :D

eckherl

October 7th, 2007, 11:48 AM

Name one APC (intended to operate as such on the battlefield) with a 20mm gun.
I dare you :D

How about Saurer 4K 4FA-G2. :)

Waylander

October 7th, 2007, 11:53 AM

And this little feature where Merkavas are employed as dug-in stationary defense guns, and the space in the back is used for loading from outside :D

Or to evacuate wounded and fallen tankers in case of a üenetration in these dug in positions.

Having a nice (relatively) big door at the back is defenitely a nice feature for operating the tank in general and not only for the mentioned tasks.

Just think about not having to climb up and down the tank all the time... :D

eckherl

October 7th, 2007, 12:03 PM

Or to evacuate wounded and fallen tankers in case of a üenetration in these dug in positions.

Having a nice (relatively) big door at the back is defenitely a nice feature for operating the tank in general and not only for the mentioned tasks.

Just think about not having to climb up and down the tank all the time... :D

If you can get past the pallet of ammunition strapped in place.

Waylander

October 7th, 2007, 12:05 PM

eckherl

October 7th, 2007, 12:12 PM

Hopefully most of the ammo has been used.

In the end trying to get to the wounded guys through the backdoor is defenitely better than trying to rescue them over the turret while a heavy Syrian assault is rolling to you position... ;)

Agreed - this is one of the many good things making the Merkava series one of the best defensive battle position tanks that is out there, hold the line and let your air and artillery assets disrupt the main attacking forces.

kato

October 7th, 2007, 12:15 PM

How about Saurer 4K 4FA-G2. :)

German language doesn't differentiate between IFV and APC, Schützenpanzer is really in use for both (though Transportpanzer can be in use for some APCs including the Saurer in the .50cal-armed variant).

The 4K 4FA-G2 (aka MK66/SPz) was used as command vehicle / IFV in Austrian PzGren units.
Typical composition for a platoon was two MK66/SPz (with 20mm) for platoon commander and platoon sergeant, and three üSMG/SPz (with .50cal) for the three infantry squads of the platoon. The MK66/Spz carried the commander, comm team, as well as half the heavy weapons squad of the platoon (one anti-tank team, one sniper). Later on, the third APC was skipped, and its troops split on the two command IFVs.

Operational use was pretty much identical to IFVs in other armies. Also shown by its direct succession by the Ulan (ASCOD) IFV.

And yes, i had to look that up :D

Waylander

October 7th, 2007, 12:19 PM

In the end I have to admit that I don't know were the difference is between a TPz and a MTW? :o :unknown

Is there a reason for different names?

kato

October 7th, 2007, 12:43 PM

In the end I have to admit that I don't know were the difference is between a TPz and a MTW? :o :unknown

Is there a reason for different names?

Afaik the M113 is only called MTW when used in the APC role?
While the TPz means the entire Fuchs family.

Plus, you can probably blame that they switched doctrines inbetween.

The MTW was introduced during Heeresstruktur 2 and was probably called that to properly differentiate MTW-equipped (light) PzGren units from SPz-equipped (heavy) PzGren units.
The TPz was introduced around the switch from Heeresstruktur 3 to Heeresstruktur 4 to transport equipment primarily, and not at all in any PzGren units.

eckherl

October 7th, 2007, 12:49 PM

German language doesn't differentiate between IFV and APC, Schützenpanzer is really in use for both (though Transportpanzer can be in use for some APCs including the Saurer in the .50cal-armed variant).

The 4K 4FA-G2 (aka MK66/SPz) was used as command vehicle / IFV in Austrian PzGren units.
Typical composition for a platoon was two MK66/SPz (with 20mm) for platoon commander and platoon sergeant, and three üSMG/SPz (with .50cal) for the three infantry squads of the platoon. The MK66/Spz carried the commander, comm team, as well as half the heavy weapons squad of the platoon (one anti-tank team, one sniper). Later on, the third APC was skipped, and its troops split on the two command IFVs.

Operational use was pretty much identical to IFVs in other armies. Also shown by its direct succession by the Ulan (ASCOD) IFV.

And yes, i had to look that up :D

So Austria does differentiate between the 50 cal and 20 mm versions. :)

Waylander

October 7th, 2007, 12:54 PM

Afaik the M113 is only called MTW when used in the APC role?
While the TPz means the entire Fuchs family.

Plus, you can probably blame that they switched doctrines inbetween.

The MTW was introduced during Heeresstruktur 2 and was probably called that to properly differentiate MTW-equipped (light) PzGren units from SPz-equipped (heavy) PzGren units.
The TPz was introduced around the switch from Heeresstruktur 3 to Heeresstruktur 4 to transport equipment primarily, and not at all in any PzGren units.

There are different MTW versions like MTW KRKW (San). And they are still called MTW.
So I would think that the switch from Heeresstruktur 2 to Heeresstruktur 3 could be a good explaination. :)

kato

October 7th, 2007, 01:15 PM

So Austria does differentiate between the 50 cal and 20 mm versions. :)

To Austria, the .50cal version is a "IFV with downgraded armament", sorta :p:
Both are called Schützenpanzer (IFV), one of them with üSMG (.50cal M2), the other with the MK66 (20mm gun).

There's actually a reason for that. Austria originally did plan a IFV with built-in armament in a turret (20mm gun). Original requirements were for a IFV with a 20mm gun, space for an infantry squad, fully tracked with mobility close to MBTs, armoured against 20mm from the frontal arc.

However, the planned armament wasn't available at the time (or not cheap enough?). So they built them without in 1961-1963. Simple hatch, .50cal M2 on a pintle mount behind a armour shield. The 20mm version only came about in a further batch five years later.

eckherl

October 7th, 2007, 01:28 PM

To Austria, the .50cal version is a "IFV with downgraded armament", sorta :p:
Both are called Schützenpanzer (IFV), one of them with üSMG (.50cal M2), the other with the MK66 (20mm gun).

There's actually a reason for that. Austria originally did plan a IFV with built-in armament in a turret (20mm gun). Original requirements were for a IFV with a 20mm gun, space for an infantry squad, fully tracked with mobility close to MBTs, armoured against 20mm from the frontal arc.

However, the planned armament wasn't available at the time (or not cheap enough?). So they built them without in 1961-1963. Simple hatch, .50cal M2 on a pintle mount behind a armour shield. The 20mm version only came about in a further batch five years later.

Thanks - it was a good challenge for you though:D

lobbie111

October 15th, 2007, 03:10 AM

gf0012-aust

October 15th, 2007, 03:22 AM

well the US and Australian LAV-25's were originally intended to carry a small 4 squad reconnaissance team but these were scrapped in place of more fuel and ammo storage just like the Merkova, to me I don't see why its necessary for the Merkova to be able the transport infantry, if you have wounded you get a helo or an ambulance APC variant to pick them up and the MBT's continue on....

The israelis have a requirement for getting troops in and out of the battlefield as safely as possible - it fits within their doctrine. Their doctrine is unique per se in some areas.

You just can't call up medivac etc, at the drop of a hat - you need to have the spare and avail resources to to that, or you need to be able to triage as much as possible while extra support comes. The Israelis have always been big on soldier protection as they're lean on human resources

In terms of the 20mm and .50 cal debate, instead of having one type mix it up a little different horses for different courses.

Why? both calibres don't necessarily have a capability overlap. - and you need to be able to place them effectively on the platform to be able to use them as well.

lobbie111

October 15th, 2007, 03:28 AM

No...No...No thats not what i was saying, what I'm saying is basically if you cant fit in a 20mm put in a .50, although the ammo capacity is reduced when you have a 20mm and why waste ammo on a squad of infantry that your pursuing with your 20 when you can pull out your 50, a 20mm would be more reserved for light Armour and the 50. infantry, and yeah i see how that works for israeli's limited manpower etc. but for someone like America where they usually make extensive use of helo's and the like

gf0012-aust

October 15th, 2007, 03:34 AM

No...No...No thats not what i was saying, what I'm saying is basically if you cant fit in a 20mm put in a .50, although the ammo capacity is reduced when you have a 20mm and why waste ammo on a squad of infantry that your pursuing with your 20 when you can pull

Capacity is reduced? You actually have a broader selection of 20mm rounds than 50's. Are you talking volume of rounds or capability of rounds?

the issue of calibre directly relates to capability expectations for that platform.

its also an issue of available real estate, and an issue of access. if you try and turn the top deck into an all singing all dancing gunmount, then sooner rather than later you end up with restricted capability as there's only so many people who can get up and operate them concurrently anyway.

either that, or I am completely missing your point.

lobbie111

October 15th, 2007, 03:39 AM

gf0012-aust

October 15th, 2007, 03:45 AM

yeah you are missing my point.

I was talking about the volume of ammunition you can carry with the different calibers and how your not going to waste precious 20mm rounds on a squad of infantry when you can use the other vehicles more plentiful 50. cal

(I am well aware of the fact that there are more than 200 rounds carried by a 20mm cannon, I am more referring to sustained operations without a resupply anytime soon)

but calibre of weapon is also going to denote what type of unit that weapon is in, and the type of unit then starts to denote mission and tasking issues. sustained ops means a different platform mix within the force structure.

at that point its a logistics and a training issue... ;)

lobbie111

October 15th, 2007, 03:51 AM

Simon9

October 15th, 2007, 09:10 AM

My point is that every infantry-carrying vehicle with less than a 20mm gun is only used in a doctrinal APC role (transport/self-defense only), while infantry-carrying vehicles with 20+mm guns are used in a doctrinal IFV role (actively fighting/infantry fighting from it).

That's a bit of a generalisation... I think the problem word is "doctrinal." :) If you look at something like the Australian M113s, they are, doctrinally, APCs. But also in the doctrine they can be used as IFVs, advancing WITH the infantry during attacks, providing fire support. There's even a part of the doctrine on using the M113s to assault through the position alone, and drop the infantry either on top of, or beyond, the objective to mop up.

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, just pointing out that, as with just about all things military, the lines can and do blur. Obviously nobody would WANT to be advancing in contact with M113s when they could have Bradleys, but some armies don't get the choice. ;) Just because a vehicle is unsuitable for a certain role does not, unfortunately, mean it won't be pressed into that role. The Australian Army, for one, has sort of mashed the APC and IFV concepts together, out of necessity.

Though perhaps with the new "Hardened and Networked Army" that will soon change...

gf0012-aust

October 15th, 2007, 09:17 AM

Kind of, in the Iraq the Americans utilized their brigades of Lavs where all either had 25mm, .50 cals or Mk19 grenade launchers and they pressed on until they reached Baghdad without resupply obviously because it only took them two weeks.

So yeah i see your point the question is do you see mine

What relevance has the Thunder Run got in your argument when it included multiple Abrams as part of that high speed entry?

You just can't pick out a historical example like the Thunder Run and extrapolate it to an Australian scenario. Different tactics and doctrine for a local event.

We have fundamentally the same fitouts, but our local doctrine is different to the US Army. If you want to see an example of difference between the way we operate with similar equipment, then look no further than Convoy management in Iraq.

Simon9

October 15th, 2007, 09:28 AM

What relevance has the Thunder Run got in your argument when it included multiple Abrams as part of that high speed entry?

You just can't pick out a historical example like the Thunder Run and extrapolate it to an Australian scenario. Different tactics and doctrine for a local event.

We have fundamentally the same fitouts, but our local doctrine is different to the US Army. If you want to see an example of difference between the way we operate with similar equipment, then look no further than Convoy management in Iraq.

I don't know where he's going with the Iraq comparison either but I do agree with the fundamental idea - there is merit in the idea of mixing calibres, particularly for the Australian Army which might conceivably have less opportunity to re-supply than the US Army, particularly if operating over long distances within Australia.

Actually that's probably the reason they mixed the .30 and .50 cals on the M113s in the first place. I can't think why else they'd put two ballistically dissimilar weapons side by side in the same turret.

Aussie Digger

October 15th, 2007, 09:30 AM

I don't know where he's going with the Iraq comparison either but I do agree with the fundamental idea - there is merit in the idea of mixing calibres, particularly for the Australian Army which might conceivably have less opportunity to re-supply than the US Army, particularly if operating over long distances within Australia.

Actually that's probably the reason they mixed the .30 and .50 cals on the M113s in the first place. I can't think why else they'd put two ballistically dissimilar weapons side by side in the same turret.

For situations where the 50cal cannot be fired, ie: in built up areas, where civilians are a concern.

In Somalia the 30cal was fired more often than the 50 from all reports...

Plus there's the practical issue that for many years Army didn't operate a BFA for the 50cals and if they wanted to fire a gun during an exercise scenario it was a 30cal or nothing...

Simon9

October 15th, 2007, 09:44 AM

For situations where the 50cal cannot be fired, ie: in built up areas, where civilians are a concern.

In Somalia the 30cal was fired more often than the 50 from all reports...

Plus there's the practical issue that for many years Army didn't operate a BFA for the 50cals and if they wanted to fire a gun during an exercise scenario it was a 30cal or nothing...

Yeah I bet the 30 was fired more in a place like Somalia. Not that a 30's going to have much trouble punching through walls in regional Somalia I suppose.

A 2/14 trooper I spoke to many years ago (on my first combined arms weekend!) told me the 50 cal was intended more for vehicles, and the 30 cal for infantry.

gf0012-aust

October 15th, 2007, 09:47 AM

but I do agree with the fundamental idea - there is merit in the idea of mixing calibres, particularly for the Australian Army which might conceivably have less opportunity to re-supply than the US Army, particularly if operating over long distances within Australia.

I'm not saying that its not an option, I'm saying that its an issue of relevance and available real estate on the platform. There are practicality issues depending on the platform, and more importantly re the tasking.

I guess its easier to probably explain if an example is used. eg an LRDP recce group will have a different fitout than a strike group - eg the former may well have a Mog in tow for basic provisioning etc so has the luxury of carting about extra rounds and mixed rounds as they will RTB after every LR event. Force structure (as such) is different.

and unless I'm confused, the original calibre mix re this discussion was 20mm and 50cal, so I've been arguing around the issue of that calibre mix rather than 50cal and 30cal.

Aussie Digger

October 15th, 2007, 10:05 AM

Yeah I bet the 30 was fired more in a place like Somalia. Not that a 30's going to have much trouble punching through walls in regional Somalia I suppose.

A 2/14 trooper I spoke to many years ago (on my first combined arms weekend!) told me the 50 cal was intended more for vehicles, and the 30 cal for infantry.

Yep, pretty much.

30cals were extremely good guns in my opinion IF, you could actually get good working parts for the gun.

If you managed to do this, they certainly used to "hum" when operating well...

Why they weren't replaced with MAG-58's 15-20 years ago though is beyond me. Same as the MG3's on the Leopards. The expense of operating these different guns, when they offered little to no capability benefit over a MAG-58 astounds me.

The 30cal's for instance still use "canvas belts" for their ammunition for crying out loud...

As for the "punching through walls". I expect you're correct, though the over-penetration is not going to be anything like that of a 50 cal...

lobbie111

October 15th, 2007, 11:59 PM

Simon9

October 16th, 2007, 01:44 AM

It wouldn't be hard to modify a mag 58 to the .30 standard would it? just change the sepcifications of the components but why are we discussing putting another caliber into the mix? the 7.62 is good enough for urban situations isn't it?

Mate I think you need to start reading posts a bit more carefully. :)

Nobody is talking about replacing the MAG 58 with the .30 cal. The old M113s had both a .50 cal AND a .30 cal side by side in the turret. And the Leopards had MG3s.

We were just saying that there's no reason why we needed to have three separate GPMGs in service on our armoured vehicles when they could have been standardised with the MAG 58. And certainly no need to have two separate calibres.

AGRA

October 16th, 2007, 01:59 AM

.30-06 is the original form of 7.62x51mm NATO. All that happened in the development of 7.62 was more modern and powerful powder was used allowing the shortening of the case by under 1cm. The South African Army and other users converted the .30 Browning MG to fire 7.62x51. That would have been an ideal option for Australia. Wouldn't have changed performance an iota but standardised on one type of ammo and belt/links.

As for the MAG-58 it was originally only an interim weapon in the Australian Army. Up until 1990ish the M60 was our standard GPMG. MAG-58s were only on issue to the ODF or 3 Bde because the M60s were clapped out and high field maintenance 'pigs'. After the introduction of the F89 Minimi to replace the M60 more MAG-58s were issued for the SFMG role.

At this time the infamous M113 turret replacement project was underway. In 1993 it was seen as being just around the corner so the old .30 Brownings could solider on. Of course its now 2007 and we will be lucky to have the new turret in service within a year.

The MG3s were a great gun and came with the tanks. Again the MAG-58 standard issue didn't really arrise until the mid 1990s when the Leopard AS1 was due for replacement my a new wheeled light tank. Things have since changed and our current MBT comes with M240s as standard MGs.

Of course while looking the same as the MAG-58 on the outside the M240 is not quite parts common. But we had this problem before with both imperial built L7s and metric built MAGs all comprising the fleet we call MAG-58. So what's that argument about standardising?

buglerbilly

October 16th, 2007, 02:10 AM

Nah I want them changed, all of them changed, to an 8.6mm/.338 Lapua MAGNUM round! Now that would punch holes thru' a wall............:D :rolleyes: :D

Chauvel

October 16th, 2007, 02:25 AM

whats with T5C
Chauvel:unknown

AGRA

October 16th, 2007, 03:19 AM

Nah I want them changed, all of them changed, to an 8.6mm/.338 Lapua MAGNUM round! Now that would punch holes thru' a wall............:D :rolleyes: :D

.338 is a great round but not useable for MGs. The casing isn't tapered enough to actually be extracted by an automatic mechanism. However the current taper has been considerable modified in an attempt to make it more MG friendly. But you really would need an entirely new shell casing to make it work.

But in the same way 8.6mm is much better than 7.62mm and 12.7mm for sniping so would it be better for MG action. H&K developed a 9mm sniper round in the 80s with this in mind.

lobbie111

October 16th, 2007, 03:32 AM

It would be more cost effective now to use the 7.62 because obviously cheaper costs and the infrastructure is there but in the future could we see the 8.6mm?

Aussie Digger

October 16th, 2007, 07:56 AM

Simon9

October 16th, 2007, 08:34 AM

Of course while looking the same as the MAG-58 on the outside the M240 is not quite parts common. But we had this problem before with both imperial built L7s and metric built MAGs all comprising the fleet we call MAG-58. So what's that argument about standardising?

What's the difference in parts between the L7s and MAGs, other than the stocks? I've used both - in the same weapons lessons, no less - and haven't noticed any difference in the internal parts, and there is certainly no difference in procedure. But I'm not an armourer and haven't been in DFSW so maybe I haven't noticed (down for the DFSW course in November, but I don't like my chances of getting on it, they're always well oversubscribed!)

But I would hardly compare the L7 and MAG to the difference between the MAG and the .30 cal.

At least our M113AS1's wouldn't be using canvas belts anymore... :D

Speaking of the replacement M113 turret, does anyone know if a MAG-58 or M240, for that matter, could be mounted on a flex-mount on the M113AS3/4 turret?

The reason for this is the same issue mentioned before about using 12.7mm machine guns in built up areas, against non-armoured targets or personnel...

I am aware that "hatch down" is the preferred method of operating in our more heavily protected bucket, that might arrive at some point in the future, unless Labor follow through to the ultimate conclusion with their latest defence criticisms, however the design has specifically eliminated a second lower calibre weapon capable of operation from within the turret.

How has the requirement changed? Surely light infantry, militia etc, doesn't require 12.7mm ball ALL the time?

I've wondered this myself, I figured it was an issue of the all the optics and electronics of the new turret, vis-a-vis the old manually operated turret, the fire control system of which consisted of tracer rounds.

If anything the requirement for under-armour 7.62 is increased in the current strategic environment.

Chino

October 16th, 2007, 11:56 AM

BTR-80A is APC by all means. Look at its armor. Noone in the right mind would send it on frontline. M113 - same. Note, you can slap 75mm gun on a bus - it will NOT make said bus an IFV.

So, any conclusions so far? Is the 75mm-equipped bus a APC or IFV?:unknown

Here's my opinion of traditional definition of an IFV...

I remember that back in the day, the M2 Bradley was the first western IFV. Its definition: - a heavily-armed tracked troop carrier that can keep up with the M1 Abrams. (M113 was considered too slow.)

The M2 IFV was also tracked so that it has the same cross-country abilities as the M1.

And to further add weight to justify the term "IFV", the M2 had six firing ports to allow the infantry troopers inside the IFV to fight without dismounting.

And thus - Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

...

One reason the US did not call the M113 an IFV because most were phased out of service as soon as the M2 Bradley became available. And the US also did not upgrade the M113 as much as say Israel or Singapore - both of whom have continued to work on their stock of M113 to the point where they are little different from IFV.

So IMO it is correct to call the M113 an IFV.

But the role of the IFV were never much different from that of the APC: get the troops there, and provide fire support for the troops along with the tanks. The firing ports in the M2 Bradley

,,,

So in conclusion, I feel the traditional definition of an IFV should remain: a tracked vehicle, high performance, well-armoured, heavy armament up to 90mm, ability to carry a section of mounted troopers with or without vehicle-mounted weapons that some of the troopers can operate.

eckherl

October 16th, 2007, 01:22 PM

So, any conclusions so far? Is the 75mm-equipped bus a APC or IFV?:unknown

Here's my opinion of traditional definition of an IFV...

I remember that back in the day, the M2 Bradley was the first western IFV. Its definition: - a heavily-armed tracked troop carrier that can keep up with the M1 Abrams. (M113 was considered too slow.)

The M2 IFV was also tracked so that it has the same cross-country abilities as the M1.

And to further add weight to justify the term "IFV", the M2 had six firing ports to allow the infantry troopers inside the IFV to fight without dismounting.

And thus - Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

...

One reason the US did not call the M113 an IFV because most were phased out of service as soon as the M2 Bradley became available. And the US also did not upgrade the M113 as much as say Israel or Singapore - both of whom have continued to work on their stock of M113 to the point where they are little different from IFV.

So IMO it is correct to call the M113 an IFV.

But the role of the IFV were never much different from that of the APC: get the troops there, and provide fire support for the troops along with the tanks. The firing ports in the M2 Bradley

,,,

So in conclusion, I feel the traditional definition of an IFV should remain: a tracked vehicle, high performance, well-armoured, heavy armament up to 90mm, ability to carry a section of mounted troopers with or without vehicle-mounted weapons that some of the troopers can operate.

The Bradley was not the first true designed IFV, that title would have to go to the Russian BMP and German Marder with the U.S and Britian following suite with the Bradley and Warrior. Also the U.S never intended for the M113 to be a IFV.

kato

October 16th, 2007, 06:29 PM

The Bradley was not the first true designed IFV, that title would have to go to the Russian BMP and German Marder with the U.S and Britian following suite with the Bradley and Warrior. Also the U.S never intended for the M113 to be a IFV.

He said Western. Bradley came in '81, AMX-10P in 1972, Marder in '71 - production deliveries for each, development started around 10-12 years ealier in all cases. So, yeah, Marder was the first Western IFV.

The first production series AIFV aka M113A1 PI (with firing ports and 25mm gun) competed against the Bradley in the early 70s and lost; the first production vehicles of the AIFV were the Dutch YPR-765 sometime after '75.

But the role of the IFV were never much different from that of the APC: get the troops there, and provide fire support for the troops along with the tanks.
An APC does not provide fire support, other than perhaps "opportunity fire" . It's role in combat - if at all - is similar to that of a MG in a Cold War NATO doctrine defense line; that is, placed to cover peripheral sectors not covered by the infantry itself, not central to it in any way.

AGRA

October 16th, 2007, 07:29 PM

The difference between the L7 and the MAG is that all the parts are built to different tolerances. The L7 parts are measured in inches and the MAG parts in metric. So you need two sets of parts and tools to support the weapons. From an armourers point of view - apart from training - they might as well be two different MGs. The M240 is measured in inches as well.

The Tenix turrent on the M113AS4 is designed to operate either the M2HB QCB 12.7mm or a MAG type MG. Changing between the two is something the crew can do by themselves (ie no armourer needed). The Army's requirement did not include a 40mm AGL at the time so you would be hard pressed to fit in such a weapon unless it had a smaller exterior profile than a M2HB - which is unlikely.

eckherl

October 16th, 2007, 07:36 PM

He said Western. Bradley came in '81, AMX-10P in 1972, Marder in '71 - production deliveries for each, development started around 10-12 years ealier in all cases. So, yeah, Marder was the first Western IFV.

The first production series AIFV aka M113A1 PI (with firing ports and 25mm gun) competed against the Bradley in the early 70s and lost; the first production vehicles of the AIFV were the Dutch YPR-765 sometime after '75.

An APC does not provide fire support, other than perhaps "opportunity fire" . It's role in combat - if at all - is similar to that of a MG in a Cold War NATO doctrine defense line; that is, placed to cover peripheral sectors not covered by the infantry itself, not central to it in any way.

Yes we tested a couple of proto types and that was the extent of it, even though the Netherlands bought in to the project, it was doomed with the U.S Army due to the armor configeration and suspension, a 50 caliber machine gun will punch holes in to it.

barra

October 16th, 2007, 07:53 PM

Sorry, wrong thread

Chino

October 16th, 2007, 08:59 PM

An APC does not provide fire support, other than perhaps "opportunity fire" . It's role in combat - if at all - is similar to that of a MG in a Cold War NATO doctrine defense line; that is, placed to cover peripheral sectors not covered by the infantry itself, not central to it in any way.
What?

An APC's job is to cover "peripheral sectors" in a defense line? I don't know what you are talking about, with all due respect.

...

An assault role is where the APC and its armoured infantry is most suited. Why would you deploy an APC in a defense role?

In real battles - in the IDF for example - the M113 and even the M3 Halftrack provided fire support for the dismounted infantry before they dismount and continue to provide fire after the troops dismounted.

Often, the M113 and Halftracks advances alongside the dismounted troops.

In Vietnam, the M113 tracks of all the Allied services does the same for the dismounted troops.

Whether the fire they are providing is called "opportunity fire" or otherwise is mere semantics.

eckherl

October 16th, 2007, 09:25 PM

What?

An APC's job is to cover "peripheral sectors" in a defense line? I don't know what you are talking about, with all due respect.

...

An assault role is which is where the APC and armoured infantry is most suited. Why would you deploy an APC in a defense role?

In real battles - in the IDF for example - the M113 and even the M3 Halftrack provided fire support for the dismounted infantry before they dismount and continue to provide fire after the troops dismounted.

Often, the M113 and Halftracks advances alongside the dismounted troops.

In Vietnam, the M113 tracks of all the Allied services does the same for the dismounted troops.

Whether the fire they are providing is called "opportunity fire" or otherwise is mere semantics.

After contact is made all available weapons systems are brought to bear on the enemy, including crew served weapons found on APC`s. NATO tactics are no different from this and the engagement terrian will dictate on how you will use your vehicles. A APC can be useful for providing suppressive fire from over watch positions to support your infantry. IDF has not seen the benefits from needing a true IFV, their philosophy is to use tanks to engage anything that a 50 caliber cannot effectively take out, also they are pretty much set up for defensive type tactics.

Simon9

October 17th, 2007, 12:40 AM

The difference between the L7 and the MAG is that all the parts are built to different tolerances. The L7 parts are measured in inches and the MAG parts in metric. So you need two sets of parts and tools to support the weapons. From an armourers point of view - apart from training - they might as well be two different MGs. The M240 is measured in inches as well.

Right, well add that one to the list too. :) So from a parts and tools point of view, the Australian Army has in the last few years been operating FOUR different GPMG weapons in the MG3, MAG, L7 and .30 cal.

AGRA

October 17th, 2007, 12:53 AM

Ahh how about five? Add the M240Ds on the Chinooks - Black Hawks have MAG-58s (either RO L7s or FNH MAGs) - but the CH-47s have US Army standard.

Its systematic of the hopelessly chaotic and ad hoc Army - hello leadership anyone?

Waylander

October 17th, 2007, 07:26 AM

What?

An APC's job is to cover "peripheral sectors" in a defense line? I don't know what you are talking about, with all due respect.

...

An assault role is where the APC and its armoured infantry is most suited. Why would you deploy an APC in a defense role?

In real battles - in the IDF for example - the M113 and even the M3 Halftrack provided fire support for the dismounted infantry before they dismount and continue to provide fire after the troops dismounted.

Often, the M113 and Halftracks advances alongside the dismounted troops.

In Vietnam, the M113 tracks of all the Allied services does the same for the dismounted troops.

Whether the fire they are providing is called "opportunity fire" or otherwise is mere semantics.

It is something totally different to provide cover with the GPMG or .50cal of a APC or with the weapons range of a true IFV (20mm+, GPMG, possible ATGMs, coupled with optics, TIs, new stabilization,...).

In the end the firepower of an APC is really not able to do much more than self defence or some surpressive fire.
A real IFV brings much more to the table and is able to deliver it with much more accuracy over greater distances and with better low visibility fighting capabilities.

As Eckherl said when contact is made you use every weapons you have. And when there is a need for vehicles accompanying your infantry and you just have M113s you use M113s.
Those vehicles are pressed into roles they don't fit into or in which they don't perform equally to the vehicles developed for exactky this kind of operations.

Look at HUMVEES for example. During the OEF units used the open top version without any armor (Not even with doors) as a fast assault vehicles due to a shortage of armored HUMVEES as well as AMTRACs like IFVs.
Both worked but not as good as a more specialized vehicle would have done.

kato

October 17th, 2007, 08:18 AM

In the end the firepower of an APC is really not able to do much more than self defence or some surpressive fire.

That's sorta what I was aiming at. The effective role of the APC is to stay behind, and - on opportunity - provide some limited backup firepower from it's retreated position (suppressive, peripheral cover). The APC is not suited to actively combat other infantry; that's what its infantry is for after all.

In more recent German doctrine, the APC is progressively switching to a "homebase" role - carrying the hubs for the infantry battlefield coordination systems (FAUST on Fuchs currently in JgBtl 292), or - with the Boxer - also carrying the 40mm AGL that backs the infantry as a company-level indirect fire asset for ranges between those of the organic GL and the battalion-level mortars.
Of course that is in light of the Bundeswehr having different - separate - vehicles (with the Wiesel) to provide direct fire support to infantry; their armament actually compares closely to that of a IFV.

An IFV has a completely different battlefield role.

Chino

October 17th, 2007, 11:36 AM

It is something totally different to provide cover with the GPMG or .50cal of a APC or with the weapons range of a true IFV (20mm+, GPMG, possible ATGMs, coupled with optics, TIs, new stabilization,...).

Erm... how is firing a 20mm or a GPMG in support of your dismounted infantry two "TOTALLY DIFFERENT" things?

One is bigger, better... but totally different?

Chino

October 17th, 2007, 11:58 AM

That's sorta what I was aiming at. The effective role of the APC is to stay behind, and - on opportunity - provide some limited backup firepower from it's retreated position (suppressive, peripheral cover).

No, I don't think you and Waylander are "sorta" saying the same thing.

Earlier you insisted the APC was something to put on a defense line.

And no, in combat, the APC is not supposed to retreat to "peripheral cover" either - whatever that means.

No the APC is not supposed to stay behind either. If that's the case, why not the troops just take a bus to somewhere near the front? Why need an APC if that thing is not going into the fight?

The APC is not suited to actively combat other infantry; that's what its infantry is for after all.

That the APC is not well-suited no one is disputing. In fact, this is why the IFV was developed to REPLACE the APC. But before the IFV was available, or in armies that still field only APCs, they both do the same job. The IFV does it better.

An IFV has a completely different battlefield role.

No. The IFV has improved capabilites over the APC it replaces. But its job is nearly the same, take the infantry into the fight together with the MBTs. Dismount the infantry to assault enemy positions and provide fire support ALONGSIDE the dismounted troops.

...

When my older brother was serving as a vehicle commander with the SAF black berets, his M113 track had only one Browning 50cal HMG.

Now, we have mounted all manner of weapons onto our fleet of (700?) upgraded M113s including an OWS Bushmaster 25mm chain gun. Others have the 40/50 turret which is a 40mm AGL couple with a CIS 50 HMG with dual feed anti-armour SLAP and normal ammo.

So are they APC or IFV?

Or are the 2 the same? With one being the improvement over the other?

grndpndr

October 17th, 2007, 12:49 PM

+1,take a look at the m113a3/a4 seris of apcs/IFVs if you want to further the confusion.Wieght might be a better defenition.In fact the M113 series is now classified as an APc depending on degree of uparmoring and armament or an IFV but more heavily armed and armored,suprisingly enough the old battle taxi has alot of valuable life left in it including the capability of being transported and air delivered by C130s 2each by air drop or lapes giving the airborne US forces similar capabilitys to what the russ and chin have had for some time.The 82nd is a decade behind rus and chin airborne forces.As it stands the 82nd as air dropped has virtually NO mobility whereass the soviets and chin will run circles round the eighty deuce.

Chrom

October 17th, 2007, 01:17 PM

Waylander

October 17th, 2007, 01:18 PM

Erm... how is firing a 20mm or a GPMG in support of your dismounted infantry two "TOTALLY DIFFERENT" things?

One is bigger, better... but totally different?

Ok on the one hand you have the APC.
The best description for it would be battletaxi.
You give the infantry a transport asset which provides them with protection during the transport to their dismount point.
Most APCs field either a GPMG or HMG with AGLs becoming more and more common.
These days also RWS appear on APCs.
This weapon is supposed to give the APC the ability for self protection as well as a limited fire support capability.

Especially the term "battletaxi" brings it to the point.
You bring your infantry to their dismount point. There you cover the squad with the onboard weapon.
You are defenitely not able to use an APC with such a weapon in a serious way in a fast mechanized battle. There it is also "just" a battletaxi even when it accompanies tanks.

Lets take the M113 as an example and a normal mixed company.
2 tank platoons, 1 infantry platoon and the normal stuff which is also attached.
Even when the M113s accompany the tanks, and so ios squeezed into another role, they are not able to participate effectively in a mounted mechanized battle.
They are still battletaxis carrying the infantry while waiting for the order to dismount them.

On the other hand you have a real IFV.
It can participate actively and effective during a mounted mechanized engagement.

And while things like RWS and AGLs added some advantages to the possible weapons of an APC, stabilized gun systems, modern FCS, TIs, ABM ammo, etc have done this even more for IFVs.

And the difference between getting fire support from a real IFV with GPMG, autocannon and ATGMs and from an APC is easy.

While the APC is limited to one weapon and usually one kind of ammo the IFV offers better penetration against armored targets (Up to tanks with the ATGMs) and against buildings, has a much better target aquisition (optics, TIs), a better range (Due to the weapons and optics), more ammo options (AP(FS)DS, HE, ABM,...), fire on the move and a better situational awareness without compromising the ability of using the GPMG for surpressive fire.

All this comes with a certain price and these days using APCs in the role of IFVs is more related to money shortage than to anything else.

kato

October 17th, 2007, 07:35 PM

Chino

October 17th, 2007, 10:27 PM

Chino

October 17th, 2007, 10:41 PM

I've worked with Fuchs APCs in the Bundeswehr, and trust me, i wouldn't want to be in one under fire. Any kind of fire. They really knew why they uparmored it (MSA) for Kosovo. The US RoE for the same vehicle is "on contact, TC fires burst from GPMG or smoke while vehicle breaks contact and withdraws" (the German RoE are somewhat different).

The APC is not used anywhere close to where it's endangered other than by suddenly popping up threats. The dismount points for light infantry are commonly between 2 and 3 km from the infantry target, for good reason. The APC covers the infantry group until the group moves out of its own protection envelope (i.e. max to outside the maximum weapon range of the enemy), or it withdraws to a pre-secured "safe zone". At this point, other vehicles or systems - if available - take over the fire support / protection role for the infantry. Simple as that.

The IFV, opposed to that, dismounts its infantry at a closer range to target, then accompanies the infantry into the fight and provides fire support for them. Also, don't forget that the primary role of the IFV in mixed mechanized groups is to accompany and protect MBTs. The infantry is primarily there to combat enemy infantry threatening your own MBTs, within a high-intensity combat environment.

When you have time, look up some accounts of M113 in battle in Israel and Vietnam. And then tell me if they retreated to a safe distance "2 to 3km" from the front.

If troops were dropped off 3km from the front and then the APC bug off, why in the hell would we need an APC? Why not just take a truck or a bus?

I'm from the infantry and we get dropped off by trucks 3km from the front.

But the APC goes to the battlefield. And APC's in the old days were designed to fight alongside MBT - no different from IFV. Just that the MBT at that time were the M48 Patton and M60 series.

...

But like I'd been trying to say to Waylander and you, no one is comparing the APC and IFV and saying the APC is just as good or better.

The M113 sucked big time, which is why IFV was developed to overcome these shortcomings.

The APC is an old concept, and the IFV is its replacement.

But BEFORE the IFV was invented, the APC was all we had and it took people into the battlefield, not 2 to 3 km away.

And that's why it is called a "BATTLEFIELD TAXI". 2 to 3km away where people aren't shooting at each other is not called a "battlefield".

eckherl

October 18th, 2007, 01:02 AM

APC IS the armored bus. It dont need any weapon at all. Useally it still have one - just for opportunity fire. The line between APC and IFV is quite blurred - but i define them by roles. IFV is intendend to actively participate in front-line combat, keeping up with tanks or even taking central role in attack / defence. It IS intended to be exposed to direct enemy fire.

APC is only intended to carry troops up TO frontline. It didnt intended to be under direct enemy fire - by design. Sure, in desperate case APC might be send to frontline under direct enemy fire. But so is HUMVEE or even unarmored Chevrolet Avalanche.

Armored personnel carriers do not need some type of crew served weapon, you could of used the excuse that they are at least good for anti aircraft defense. No where does it state that a APC is just used to carry their human cargo to the FEBA line and just drop them off, there use is defined into taking soldiers into battle and provide support. Yes we have evolved into vehicles that we can fight in while under armor, one of the great primary benefits of IFVs, with the change in air land battle tactics it was important to provide a vehicle that could contribute in a offensive posture with tanks and provide for example purposes overwatch and screening actions, you guys most likely will think that I have gone insane but expect to see more wheeled vehicles serving in this type of role and what will you call them.:D

buglerbilly

October 18th, 2007, 01:24 AM

To be honest, I believe distinctions like APC or IFV are pretty much redundant or getting to be redundant.

Both Iraq AND Afghanistan are leading developments away from "normal" demarkation between what one vehicle does versus what another vehicle does.

We now have or are about to have, are wheeled armoured vehicles with 30mm cannon and ATGM's in a RWS. Nobody previously would have called ANY wheeled armoured vehicle an IFV they were always seen as a cheaper, quicker-on-the-highway APC.

Perhaps one needs to consider the turret, remote or not, as being the defining factor for whether its an APC or an IFV.

Perhaps one shouldn't actually be bothered what one calls it! ;)

To me such definitions smack of the 1960's and are rapidly becoming irrelevant as vehicle design advances and armour becomes far more capable.

My two cents worth............:D

Regards,

BUG

AGRA

October 18th, 2007, 02:15 AM

BUG is right. The distinction between infantry and armour is also being reduced. The US Army groups all mechanised infantry and tank units into single battalions.

You have mounted and dismounted combatants and the dismounted can fight from mounted and the mounted can dismount. Its part of the Australian Army’s basic cavalry CONOPs that if more can be achieved out of the vehicle the driver and commander will dismount. Usually the gunner will stay aboard to protect the vehicle. The three man crew of an ASLAV-25 is issued with at least one F88 GLA (M203) 40mm. In the past AFV crews were rarely issued with more than pistols.

Further even the Israelis are moving towards more firepower for their APCs. The demands of urban warfare have shown that MG and even HMG armament is not enough for APCs. Because of line of sight constraints in urban battles means each vehicle may be the only vehicle able to bring a weapon to bear on the target. While they will only equip each unit’s anti-tank troops with new APCs with 30mm guns and ATGMs (like a traditional IFV) the other APCs will have AGLs and explosives firing weapons. One thing about urban battle line of sight constraints is the targets are close so you don’t need a long range weapon like a 30mm gun.

Chino

October 18th, 2007, 07:14 AM

In the early days (1980s) before proliferation of AGLs, many IDF tanks had a 60mm mortar mounted on the tank turret. This is for the tank commander to use.

This was commonly seen on IDF tanks in the Lebanese invasion.

In the confines of Beirut, the mortar covered places the main gun cannot.

...

Another interesting fact about IDF tanks is that the commander will usually have access to a 50cal.

This is not the case for many other armies. The German Leopard series usually came armed only with a MG3 GPMG for the TC.

Chino

October 18th, 2007, 07:32 AM

One thing about urban battle line of sight constraints is the targets are close so you don’t need a long range weapon like a 30mm gun.

There was an article I read about 25mm in MOUT urban combat.

The author insists an MBT's main gun is more effective in demolishing hiding places in MOUT and called the Bradley's armament a pea shooter.

I don't fully agree with him but there is this famous video of a Bradley firing its 25mm into the second storey of a house in Fallujah.

Very fierce series of small explosions but it was not impossible that whomever was hiding inside survived. (Eventually, they fired a TOW missile into the house. But only in US army you can expend one TOW to kill one sniper.)

Actually, both the tank cannon and the 30mm gun aren't the most suitable.

While the tank gun is great, its elevation is too limited for high-rise targets.

And the 25 or 30mm can punch neat holes into armour and concrete but still needs a very near hit to effectively kill a human.

In the instance described in the Fallujah video, the AGL would be the most useful thing to have. After an AGL has lobbed several shells into a house, I would feel secure to send the section in as whomever inside, even if not injured, would be severely concussed or deaf.

kato

October 18th, 2007, 07:43 AM

The author insists an MBT's main gun is more effective in demolishing hiding places in MOUT and called the Bradley's armament a pea shooter.

Lemme guess... the author was Sparky? Mike Sparks?

... no wonder how this thread is going.

eckherl

October 18th, 2007, 08:10 AM

eckherl

October 18th, 2007, 08:15 AM

Lemme guess... the author was Sparky? Mike Sparks?

... no wonder how this thread is going.

Good old Sparky, at least we are not paying too much attention to him, tanks are playing a smaller role in Iraq in urbanized settings with the Strykers taking over the duties in patroling and convoy escorting.

eckherl

October 18th, 2007, 08:20 AM

There was an article I read about 25mm in MOUT urban combat.

The author insists an MBT's main gun is more effective in demolishing hiding places in MOUT and called the Bradley's armament a pea shooter.

I don't fully agree with him but there is this famous video of a Bradley firing its 25mm into the second storey of a house in Fallujah.

Very fierce series of small explosions but it was not impossible that whomever was hiding inside survived. (Eventually, they fired a TOW missile into the house. But only in US army you can expend one TOW to kill one sniper.)

Actually, both the tank cannon and the 30mm gun aren't the most suitable.

While the tank gun is great, its elevation is too limited for high-rise targets.

And the 25 or 30mm can punch neat holes into armour and concrete but still needs a very near hit to effectively kill a human.

In the instance described in the Fallujah video, the AGL would be the most useful thing to have. After an AGL has lobbed several shells into a house, I would feel secure to send the section in as whomever inside, even if not injured, would be severely concussed or deaf.

And where is Iraq any different than Grozny for urban weapons effect, one should look at what the Russians are designing for a ultimate urbanized fighting vehicle.

Chino

October 18th, 2007, 08:47 AM

Lemme guess... the author was Sparky? Mike Sparks?

... no wonder how this thread is going.

Ah, you have emerged from "peripheral cover".

Please refrain from flame baiting. If you have nothing useful to add - you know what you can do.

Chino

October 18th, 2007, 08:58 AM

And where is Iraq any different than Grozny for urban weapons effect, one should look at what the Russians are designing for a ultimate urbanized fighting vehicle.

And your point being?

Chino

October 18th, 2007, 09:26 AM

Good old Sparky, at least we are not paying too much attention to him, tanks are playing a smaller role in Iraq in urbanized settings with the Strykers taking over the duties in patroling and convoy escorting.

Mike who?

The article I read was talking about the Bradley - not Stryker.

Read before making blind assumptions.

Ryttare

October 18th, 2007, 10:17 AM

And the 25 or 30mm can punch neat holes into armour and concrete but still needs a very near hit to effectively kill a human.

That depends pretty much on what ammunition to use. Here is a video on the different amminition for the CV9040:
YouTube - CV9040

Especially the Bofors 3P is interesting in the context. Granted, the 40mm ammunition is a bit bulky, but with that kind of effect you don't need to shoot that much. For supressive fire a machine gun is better and the CV9040 has several.

Waylander

October 18th, 2007, 10:39 AM

Waylander
You are preaching to the converted as far as the IFV being better is concerned.

And I think you completely missed the point of what I am saying.

Let me try it another way:

The IFV is the natural evolution of the APC. They both do/did the same job but the IFV came along later and take the role further.

As to your point about "Battlefield Taxi", I have addressed that in my reply to Kato. You are mislead by the word "Taxi" as it sounds very un-combat. But you clearly don't understand what is a "Battlefield". It is the place where people get shot at and shoot back.

No they do/did not the same job. An APC just cannot do the job an IFV can do.
You totally missed the point I tried to make when talking about armament.
It is right that in the past and now there are/were countries where APC accompanied tanks. This is due to not being able to give the troops an IFV or due to different doctrines (Israelis for example).
But that you accompany tanks with infantry in APCs doesn't mean that they are used in the same way like IFVs simply due to the fact that they cannot do it.
With an APC you cannot really attack enemy forces during a mech battle. You just lack the weapons, range and optics (And in newer days the FCS) do do this.
So they really just carry the infantry until the fast mechanized phase of the battle ends and the infantry dismounts. From then on they can accompany the infantry and while they are able to provide some fire support against enemy infantry most APCs lack the armor to take much enemy fire.
The only APCs which are really designed to take much enemy fire are HAPCs but they too lack the armament.

- APCs mostly lack the armor which enables them to take enemy fire like IFVs are intended to do. HAPCs are something different.
- APCs lack the armament, range, optics and FCS to even come close to covering a wide range of targets. They are virtually limited to attacking infantry and light cover/vehicles.
- The role of an IPC in a mechanized battle shrinks to a passive role while an IFV actively participates in a mech battle. This is the most important difference.

BTW, you are right that I never experienced real combat (and I am glad about it) but indicating that I have no idea of how a mechanized battle works and how a battlezone looks like in that battle is wrong. Point.

Another interesting fact about IDF tanks is that the commander will usually have access to a 50cal.

This is not the case for many other armies. The German Leopard series usually came armed only with a MG3 GPMG for the TC.

That is not only interesting for the IDF tanks.
The russians use 14.5mm for a long time on their tanks, the US also use a .50cal and the French have a .50cal as a coax.
Having something else than GPMGs and main gun on tanks is nothing specialy reserved for the Israelis.

As a last point.
Taking the current focus on MOUT and patrol operations as the end of warfare is the wrong approach.
It is an important part but taking solely examples from current MOUT operations doesn't display completely what is needed on a modern battlefield and ignores other important facts.
MOUT is just too different from other forms of combat environments.

eckherl

October 18th, 2007, 12:18 PM

And your point being?

My point is that you will not see too many tanks in Iraq punching holes into walls, may be on very rare occasions.

eckherl

October 18th, 2007, 12:23 PM

Mike who?

The article I read was talking about the Bradley - not Stryker.

Read before making blind assumptions.

oh I read it, no blind assumptions on my part, auto cannon and 50 caliber is the way to go with all the ammunition selections that are available, you will not see too many Bradleys moving about in built up areas either. again I can agree and relate to what Kato and Waylander have expressed in their opinions along with yours, Waylander has had the honor to serve in his tank branch in Germany and does have experience working with infantry support in true IFVs, vehicles with the title of being able to keep up with tanks and fight while under armor, drop off dismounts on the occasion that a town or choke point needs to be cleared out. This is the justification that Germany and the U.S use for keeping IFVs around and rightfully so. APC (battle taxis) thats the military slang that we use for them Chino has been given the secondary roles for logistical and maintenance support in both of our countries, I think that Germany may still use them for combat engineer vehicles, we still do. Even though alot of countries have done away with the older model APCs like for example the tin can M113s, oops! thats another military slang name Chino that we use for it there are alot of countries that still have to depend on them to carry the fight to their opponent. For future smaller scale battles you wil pretty much see ground forces set up into two major categories, combined mixed smaller sized battle groups and then you will also see the mechanized heavies that Waylander and myself have experienced and worked with, and we most likely will see both vehicle models around for quite awhile yet. I can respect your opinions Chino because they are valid, but you need to respect the opinions of Kato and Waylander also instead of trying to piss them off because you do not agree with everything that they may say, please tone down your comments and remember that this is a friendly debate/discussion.

eckherl

October 18th, 2007, 12:25 PM

That depends pretty much on what ammunition to use. Here is a video on the different amminition for the CV9040:
YouTube - CV9040 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUsgZZeJqhE)

Especially the Bofors 3P is interesting in the context. Granted, the 40mm ammunition is a bit bulky, but with that kind of effect you don't need to shoot that much. For supressive fire a machine gun is better and the CV9040 has several.

Simply well put.

Chrom

October 18th, 2007, 01:53 PM

And where is Iraq any different than Grozny for urban weapons effect, one should look at what the Russians are designing for a ultimate urbanized fighting vehicle.

Expending 1 ATGM for each sniper - i think it is absolutely no problem for most modern long-developed armies. This includes USA, Russia, most leading European nations, China, etc. Basicaly, any nation which have a stock of relatively old ATGM's which should be expended anyway. Moreover, in limited war scenario even using modern ATGM's will not make any army bancrupt. ATGM's are quite cheap actually these days, compared to some aviation and CM things.

Russian vehile is a step in the right direction without a doubt, a new concept. Of course, in is only initial attempt to test conception and will be severy modified after evaluation.

P.S. I dont think any russian tanks carried 14.5mm gun.
P.P.S. It is probably time when we should differentiate APC and heavy APC like Akhazarit.

Waylander

October 18th, 2007, 02:01 PM

Ah shit, got confused with 14.5mm Doshka and 12.7mm NSVT... :o

Sorry for that but my point about other weapons than GPMGs and main guns on other than IDF tanks stays valid. :)

eckherl

October 18th, 2007, 02:18 PM

Ah shit, got confused with 14.5mm Doshka and 12.7mm NSVT... :o

Sorry for that but my point about other weapons than GPMGs and main guns on other than IDF tanks stays valid. :)

Isn`t the 50 caliber on the Merkava used for counter sniper fire.

grndpndr

October 18th, 2007, 03:02 PM

In dontv know if this was addressed adequately.as was said the apc evolved into the IFV.The M113 evolved into the m113a3/4 Gavin an IFV if there ever was one but light enough to be air dropped in large quantities in a ready reaction role with substantial firepower though lighter on armor protection than the bradley and it ilk.But then again its 1/2 or lss the weight and with the automotive improvements it can keep up with the abrams.60mph on hard surface roads and after being fied on your M113 wont be let stationary with burning rubber roadwheels.

Cost has also come up as an important issue for th us as well not just third world armies.apparently theres not enough cash for an airborne new design variant for airborne use let alone equip a needy 82nd with a viable mechanised optoin for ready reaction like potential future enemys have inplace as ogf now.Completely mechanized air dropped abn ready reaction forces.IMO a real failing for this supposed new army with mobility/rapidity as a core component.

If anyones missed the capabilitys of the gavin and its kind id reccomend a read on the subject they appear to be an excellent option with cash as it is.

Just for ny own edification why would the US armys best and brightest comntinue to field an "armored SUV" when the far superor gavin in terms of firepower and protection coiuld be had for less than an uparmored hunvee?
it defies this mans thought process.

know why the airborne was static in thier positions north of bagdad during the invasion? The airborne had NO armored manuever vehicles to combat any potential armored adversarys!!They encounterd if they advanced.They were basically
ineffective except as a potential bocking force and without ANy armor or manuverability would have been sitting ducks shoud a mech brigade attacked
them unless our air force had decmated the attacking enemy.W/o the airborne could have easily ben flanked and routed/destroyed in place.

W/o some sort of air droped armor the airbornes an anachronism unless some specialized mountain/jungle ops etc.

basicaly te gavin is armord against 12.7mm on the sides 14.5 frontally and with both composite armor and interior spall shielding and the anti-rpg pre det birdcage, substantial automotive improvements and really an awesom combination of firepower
available.The opposition is the BMP3/4 and serious op it is,100mm cannon also firing at rockets as well as some equipped with 30mm cannon as well as the usual assrtment of Mgs etc.Im sure bth also have stabilized turetts and fir suppession sytems.Both capable of lapes and traditional air rpped except the word is the rus paras ride thier BMPs nto the grnd and roll away.Bad ass

swerve

October 18th, 2007, 06:44 PM

In dontv know if this was addressed adequately.as was said the apc evolved into the IFV.The M113 evolved into the m113a3/4 Gavin ...

There is no such thing as an APC or IFV named the "Gavin". A former US serviceman name Mike Sparks has engaged in an internet, e-mail & letter-writing blitz, under his own & many assumed identities, to attempt to get the name "Gavin" adopted for the M113, but he has been officially knocked back, many times. He is a sad obsessive who has a peculiar emotional attachment to the M113. He has set up websites on which numerous people with oddly similar writing styles (you've guessed it) rave about the superiority of the M113 to "deathtrap TRUCK Strykers", etc., in peculiar syntax, with odd use of capital letters & in strange colour schemes.

The same man promotes the idea of paratroopers with folding small-wheeled cross-country bicycles . . .

If you're Mike, please go away.

Waylander

October 18th, 2007, 06:48 PM

Yeeehaw.

Mechanized air assault now!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahem, didn't we talk about sparky some posts ago? :D

It is not named Gavin. One can make fun of this name and use it in an ironic way but it is defenitely NOT the name of the M113!

BTW, we don't have an bring back the 8" thread... ;)

Edit: 3 minutes, just 3 minutes faster... :-(

kato

October 18th, 2007, 07:26 PM

I think that Germany may still use them for combat engineer vehicles, we still do.

Germany has two original APCs in use: M113 and Fuchs.

The few hundred remaining M113, afaik, are now only used as: Artillery Observer vehicle, Artillery Fire Control vehicle, Artillery Radar carrier, Mortar Carrier, Ambulance, Command/C3 vehicle (M577), Mine Launcher (M548).
The Fuchs is in use as: Combat engineer group carrier, APC (with JgBtl 292, and other units), NBC recon vehicle, radar carrier, air-defense C3 vehicle, ECM/Jammer carrier, ATGM carrier (in infantry bats).
The Boxer, the replacement for both in theory, has so far been ordered as:
Command Vehicle, Ambulance, APC.

Additionally, the Dingo 1 and Dingo 2 are occasionally classified as "armoured transport vehicle" (same classification as Fuchs), and have replaced the Fuchs in some "light" secondary roles.

grndpndr

October 18th, 2007, 09:30 PM

My apologys for using the nickname gavin derived from several sources should you bother to research the M113a3/4. combatreform and global security.Are these and the dozen others Mikes sites?
My attitude may be slanted toward the airborne services since I served with the 193 inf brigade 3/5 A Co (ABN)in the CZ and the 82nd abn 1/508 csc
long befoe the sheridan was retired leaving the 82nd w/o any armor whatever even that POS.Anyway your combined attitude stinks ,the damn generals of the internet who have no room for other opinons on thier site.
Get out of the armchair fellas and do some damn research before trashing a newcomer and accusing him of someone hes not.

To save you the effort of any reasearch i will repeat this from the 'dictionary of modern war' luttwak and Kohl .".derivative of the m113 ..is the armord fighting vehicle (AIFV)...an m113a2 with additional applique armor,a cut down troop compartment and sloping sides...the AIFV has a power operated turret with a 25mm cannon and five firing ports.The Dutch ordered 850in '75'...'81 belgium ordered 850
In addition the israelis used a similar verson, the australians with a saladin armord turret.This things no damn joke and has ben continuosly upgraded so i fail to see the humor in the weapon or mechanized airborne warfare,the chinese nor the rusians share you glee.Do some GD research prior to trashing anothers posts generals.