Western support-tank?

[Rythm]

I was wondering why no western nation har begun with designing a support-tank? I am thinking along the lines of a BMP-T or Namera. Clearly experiences from both Russia and Israel are similar to those gathered amongst the NATO vís-a-vís Iraq, Afghanistan and to some extent the Balkans. I think there is a certain need for this kind of vehicle. Preferbly a combo of the mentioned vehicles, say a heavily armoured APC built on a MBT chassis but with remote controlled weapons to auguement the MBTs weapons. Like a 30mm cannon, ATGM and at least 2 MGs or AGLs. Together with a small compartment for infantery.

The current IFVs cant really match such a vehicle, even if the german Puma comes close.

What do you think?

[eckherl]

I was wondering why no western nation har begun with designing a support-tank? I am thinking along the lines of a BMP-T or Namera. Clearly experiences from both Russia and Israel are similar to those gathered amongst the NATO vís-a-vís Iraq, Afghanistan and to some extent the Balkans. I think there is a certain need for this kind of vehicle. Preferbly a combo of the mentioned vehicles, say a heavily armoured APC built on a MBT chassis but with remote controlled weapons to auguement the MBTs weapons. Like a 30mm cannon, ATGM and at least 2 MGs or AGLs. Together with a small compartment for infantery.

The current IFVs cant really match such a vehicle, even if the german Puma comes close.

What do you think?

BMP-T and Namera are designed for Urbanized warfare and thats about it, why do you think that current IFVs cannot really match this primative approach, also the BMP-T is used in a entirely different role versus the Namera. BMP-T is used for a fire support vehicle while the Namera hauls infantry around with the biggest weapon planned to be installed at this time being a 50 cal.

[Waylander]

The US rolls more into the direction of the MGS and to upgrade their Abrams with TUSK (But I don't start talking about the missing HE in US inventory).
And many other countries also offer MOUT upgrades for tanks

One should remember that designing a whole new vehicle costs money and such a vehicle also has a logistical footprint.

Upgrading existing platforms with MOUT packages which are fitted when needed are less expensive and when used together with modern IFVs and give you enough punch and protection when being engaged in urban warfare.

Add to this guided and unguided (rocket) artillery, mortar and air support as well as well trained infantry with the weapons needed for MOUT (ARs, LMGs, GPMGs, HMGs, AGLs, shoulder fired bunker busters,...) and you have a force which is enough prepared for urban warfare.

Like a 30mm cannon, ATGM and at least 2 MGs or AGLs. Together with a small compartment for infantery.


In the end this is an IFV and not a special MOUT vehicle.

Thinks like easily adoptable MOUT upgrades for existing vehicles and special ammunition like programmable HEs for tanks, canister rounds, sensor fused ammo for autocannons, bunker busters (like Bunkerfaust) or ATGM warheads (like for Kornet) are the important thinks you need.

[kato]

also the BMP-T is used in a entirely different role versus the Namera. BMP-T is used for a fire support vehicle

As I understand it, the BMP-T isn't even that. It's a sort-of mobile replacement for accompanying infantry, intended to engage targets that the tanks it accompanies are not intended to fight (of course there would still be mechanized infantry alongside, but the BMP-T is intended primarily to fight certain targets that you'd have to dismount troops for regularly).

The Namera is a APC. Simple as that. And has been critized for its pretty high cost (due to being based on a MBT hull). Basically, the Nemera is just a continuation of the Achzarit on a different, better protected hull (Merkava instead of T-55).

The M113 FSV and MRV (M113 with 76mm gun) are sorta what Rhythm is looking for: mixes of IFV and tanks - the other way around though. Or, alternatively, something like the AMX-10PAC90 (fire support / anti-tank variant of AMX-10P with 90mm gun).
Of course these were not intended for MOUT.

[eckherl]

As I understand it, the BMP-T isn't even that. It's a sort-of mobile replacement for accompanying infantry, intended to engage targets that the tanks it accompanies are not intended to fight (of course there would still be mechanized infantry alongside, but the BMP-T is intended primarily to fight certain targets that you'd have to dismount troops for regularly).

The Namera is a APC. Simple as that. And has been critized for its pretty high cost (due to being based on a MBT hull). Basically, the Nemera is just a continuation of the Achzarit on a different, better protected hull (Merkava instead of T-55).

The M113 FSV and MRV (M113 with 76mm gun) are sorta what Rhythm is looking for: mixes of IFV and tanks - the other way around though. Or, alternatively, something like the AMX-10PAC90 (fire support / anti-tank variant of AMX-10P with 90mm gun).
Of course these were not intended for MOUT.

I do not think the Russians really know how they want to use them when needed:D the only benefits that it really offers is the high angle of fire that the cannons offer along with its missile launcher, I was told that it was to accompany infantry into urban areas and used for punching out building structures when resistance was met. We will most likely see more wheeled variant vehicles with tank firepower providing this type of urban support, they are fast and can get through most city streets versus tanks. the Tusk program is just a stop gap to get emergency protection for Bradleys and M1s, wih the introducion of stronger Tandem style warheads most MOUT setups for tanks are already obsolete, as I have mentioned on prior threads the M1s are taking on lessor roles inside of cities.

[Rythm]

What i mean is the combination of a) a vehicle as protected as a MBT (like those i mentioned) but at the same time b) equipped with weaponry like i described. And preferbly with a small (say 4-man) infantery section.

The israelis made good use of the Vulcan AA-gun mounted on M113s during urban fighting in Lebanon in the 1982 campaign. The recent incursion into Lebanon last year showed a clear need for a infantery carrier with the protection of a MBT, hence the large production order of Namera after that.The russians felt the lack of such a vehicle (the Vulcan i mean) in the chechnia campaigns, hence the BMP-T wich is supposed to go in 2 BMP-Ts per one single MBT. The added ATGM on the BMP-T is most likely for bunkerbusting, just as waylander describes.

packing a 105mm or so gun on a wheeled vehicle is something different IMHO. Great for strategic mobility (as long as it still can be transported in a A400M or similar).

Sure, if i could avoid it i wouldnt send tanks into cities at all. But sometimes situations (or orders :rolleyes: ) just dont lets you to play that card.

[Chrom]

I do not think the Russians really know how they want to use them when needed:D the only benefits that it really offers is the high angle of fire that the cannons offer along with its missile launcher, I was told that it was to accompany infantry into urban areas and used for punching out building structures when resistance was met. We will most likely see more wheeled variant vehicles with tank firepower providing this type of urban support, they are fast and can get through most city streets versus tanks. the Tusk program is just a stop gap to get emergency protection for Bradleys and M1s, wih the introducion of stronger Tandem style warheads most MOUT setups for tanks are already obsolete, as I have mentioned on prior threads the M1s are taking on lessor roles inside of cities.

You are quite not right here. While indeed BMP-T is not proved in combat, the intendend role is pretty clear. Proposed composition is 1 BMP-T for 2 tanks. This will be standard structure in mechinized regiments. BMP-T is indeed intendend as replacement for infantry and light protected IFV's. They main advantage is multi-channel weapon and weapon capable of supressive fire. Tank gun is not very effective at that - it have very limited ammo load and low ROF. Sure, future tanks might (or not) get BMP-T-like abilities like multichannel and extended weapon options. But current tanks dont have these abilities, and here BMP-T have distinct advantages in many situations.
Not only for Urban combat. In ANY situation where you might encounter enemy infantry or lightly protected targets.

[eckherl]

You are quite not right here. While indeed BMP-T is not proved in combat, the intendend role is pretty clear. Proposed composition is 1 BMP-T for 2 tanks. This will be standard structure in mechinized regiments. BMP-T is indeed intendend as replacement for infantry and light protected IFV's. They main advantage is multi-channel weapon and weapon capable of supressive fire. Tank gun is not very effective at that - it have very limited ammo load and low ROF. Sure, future tanks might (or not) get BMP-T-like abilities like multichannel and extended weapon options. But current tanks dont have these abilities, and here BMP-T have distinct advantages in many situations.
Not only for Urban combat. In ANY situation where you might encounter enemy infantry or lightly protected targets.

They are intended to operate with two tanks in a urban environment, I thought this was supposed to take the place of a tank, you said it yourself that tank capabilities in this type of environment is limited, I would think that they would use them the other way around, with infantry. also are you stating that Russia will be using them in open terrian settings.

[eckherl]

What i mean is the combination of a) a vehicle as protected as a MBT (like those i mentioned) but at the same time b) equipped with weaponry like i described. And preferbly with a small (say 4-man) infantery section.

The israelis made good use of the Vulcan AA-gun mounted on M113s during urban fighting in Lebanon in the 1982 campaign. The recent incursion into Lebanon last year showed a clear need for a infantery carrier with the protection of a MBT, hence the large production order of Namera after that.The russians felt the lack of such a vehicle (the Vulcan i mean) in the chechnia campaigns, hence the BMP-T wich is supposed to go in 2 BMP-Ts per one single MBT. The added ATGM on the BMP-T is most likely for bunkerbusting, just as waylander describes.

packing a 105mm or so gun on a wheeled vehicle is something different IMHO. Great for strategic mobility (as long as it still can be transported in a A400M or similar).

Sure, if i could avoid it i wouldnt send tanks into cities at all. But sometimes situations (or orders :rolleyes: ) just dont lets you to play that card.

If you are looking at a vehicle that can carry around four ground pounders and have effective firepower then all you have to do is look at the Merkava. With more advanced hand held weapons getting into the hands of a potential advesary I do not see a reasoning to go with a tank hull for protection, IDF started this trend due to access to outdated/captured vehicles that could not go toe to toe with modern MBTs, Russia and Ukraine both have designs with no takers so far. That 105mm gun that the U.S Army is lugging around is doing a pretty good job along with the Stykers, casualties and vehicle losses are down in urbanized settings.

[eckherl]

@ Rythm

Here is some of Ukraines design concepts.

[Waylander]

I also don't see the need for MBT like protection.
One doesn't have to worry that much about protection against heavy KE penetrators when talking about fighting a MOUT operation.
Protection against CE weapons is the key and that hopefully covers as much of a vehicle as possible.
Just using a MBT hull isn't going to save your day. Such a hull would need MOUT upgrades just like a normal tank hull due to it being vulnerable on the sides and rear.

A Puma for example which is build from the start with an all around threat of CE weapons in mind has a better side and rear protection than a plain normal Leo hull.

And a special vehicle like the BMP-T is so substitute for real infantry in my eyes.
Yeah, it has some nice firepower but sometimes you just need the mech infantry to go out on foot and do their job. Some surpressive fire (ok a lot of surpressive fire...:D ) and blowing holes into buildings is not the answer to everything hence I do wonder about the idea of replacing traditional mech inf with it.

Maybe because it is cheaper...

[Rythm]

I see such a vehicle as a supplement to current vehicles. Of course you cant ditch the PanzerGrenadiere all together, nor can you ditch the MBTs 120mm weapon for certain targets. The vehicle i propose would be filling the void between these two. Rapid-fire autocannons for heavy suppresive fire, AGLs for indirect suppresvie fire (and also to be able to lay suppressive fire in a second direction at the same time as the 30mm pounds a different angle), ATGMs for bunkerbusting. Rebro radios could be interesting to fit inside too in a urban scenario. All heavily armoured.

The Puma is the nearest choice, but it lacks AGLs and ATGMs. ATGMs can be retofitted as per specifications (Eurospike MR?), but is it at all possible to retofitt a H&K 40mm AGL on say a remote weapon station? And preferably a 7.62mm MG on a KMW remote station covering the rear. Also i do think that the Puma would need additional frontal armor for this kind of operation (MOUT/FIBUA), but this can too, as i understand it, be retofitted.

[Waylander]

What out there is going to take out a Puma frontally?

A Kornet?
A 105mm KE?

And the Puma is going to get Eurospike. Integration will (hopefully...) be ready when fielding of the Puma starts.

But once more the ammo is more important. What do I get from 2x30mm what I don't get from one.

And one can use a MG4 or MG3 out of the vehicle while mounted. Not to talk of the already integrated remote controlled grenade launcher in the back of the Puma.
A seperate RWS on the back of an IFV is IMHO not feasible.

And the Eurospike needs a better warhead suited for MOUT.

[kato]

What out there is going to take out a Puma frontally?
A Kornet?
A 105mm KE?

76-90mm should do the trick too, probably. Of course, we're talking vehicle weapons at that point.

With infantry opponents, a handful of ATGM systems, maybe a few recoilless rifles and such. Pricier stuff than the current standard, anyway.


A seperate RWS on the back of an IFV is IMHO not feasible.

*cough*
We had that, actually. Original Marder. Ditched with A1 or A2 upgrade, because it was seen as pretty much useless, and the top hatches were redesigned with that upgrade anyway, iirc.
Was a MG3 in a small RWS operated by the troops in the back. Probably one of the first RWS systems too. There's a few pics floating on the internet.

The grenade launcher system to clear out the back is still something we've seen little of. I mean, yeah, it's been shown mounted there. Effects? Range? Exact Payload? Nothing released.

[Rythm]

how about multiple rounds? In MOUT this is a very realistic scenario.

No, i dont see any point in twin 30mm cannons. I never said i did either.

I didnt know there was a remotecontrolled AGL on the Puma! is it the H&K one? from your post i reckon it is in the chassis? got a pic?

A seperate RWS for the AGL would allow simultainious fire on two different targets, like suppresive fire down two different streets.

[eckherl]

how about multiple rounds? In MOUT this is a very realistic scenario.

No, i dont see any point in twin 30mm cannons. I never said i did either.

I didnt know there was a remotecontrolled AGL on the Puma! is it the H&K one? from your post i reckon it is in the chassis? got a pic?

A seperate RWS for the AGL would allow simultainious fire on two different targets, like suppresive fire down two different streets.

Ah - actually the whole turret is unmanned on the Puma, @Kato was referring to the early Marders that had a remote controlled MG on the top rear of the vehicle.

[kato]

I didnt know there was a remotecontrolled AGL on the Puma! is it the H&K one? from your post i reckon it is in the chassis? got a pic?


It's not a AGL. It's a six-shot trainable grenade launcher mounted - offset to the side - above the rear compartment door. Pics of the launcher here (http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Puma/puma7.jpg), here (http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Puma/puma16.jpg) and here (http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/img/Puma_Munster_2_gr.jpg).
The launcher can swivel around in that mount to protect the entire rear arc, and fires 76mm HE-FRAG rounds, supposedly to a range of around 50-100 meters. Its purpose is to "clear" the back of the vehicle so you can dismount troops.

And as automatic grenade launchers go - the MK30/2 using airbursting AHEAD-principle ammunition is far superior to that. In a RWS, a 40mm AGL is pretty restrictive - they're usually munitioned to use only a single 32-round belt, meaning you'll pretty much be out of ammunition within 10 bursts at most.

[Waylander]

76-90mm should do the trick too, probably. Of course, we're talking vehicle weapons at that point.

With infantry opponents, a handful of ATGM systems, maybe a few recoilless rifles and such. Pricier stuff than the current standard, anyway.


*cough*
We had that, actually. Original Marder. Ditched with A1 or A2 upgrade, because it was seen as pretty much useless, and the top hatches were redesigned with that upgrade anyway, iirc.
Was a MG3 in a small RWS operated by the troops in the back. Probably one of the first RWS systems too. There's a few pics floating on the internet.

The grenade launcher system to clear out the back is still something we've seen little of. I mean, yeah, it's been shown mounted there. Effects? Range? Exact Payload? Nothing released.

I just mentioned the Kornet and 105mm because I wanted to show that normal threats in MOUT environments are not of this category.
Just as you said we are talking about full size ATGMs and heavy vehicle mounted weapons.

There is no point in armoring an IFV much more than a Puma especially for MOUT were one needs to look at size and weight more than in the open and as I said before the Puma offers better protection during a MOUT environment than even a normal MBT hull.

About the RWS. I remember having see pictures of this remote controlled MG. During this discussion I had more a modern RWS in mind and this would defenitely not be practical on the back of an IFV.

Multiple impacts should be no problem as long as they hit no weak points. If a weapon doesn't penetrate the armor of a vehicle one can literally fire dozens of rounds onto it. It is not very likely that a shot hits exactly the same spot again.
Multiple impacts for sure have a higher possibility of hitting a weak spot.
But in the end one has a good chance to survive in a vehicle which is armored enough to withstand current MOUT threats even when facing a barrage.

If one really needs an fire from the back one can position 2 soldiers in the backdoor which has a special position in which it provides a firing position for the squad.

[Rythm]

so, if one would somehow fit a RWS with an AGL with ample storage for ammo, next to the main turret of a Puma, you would pretty much have what i desire? Except for the frontal arc armour wich possibly could be added thru bolt-on armour?

[Waylander]

But such an RWS would seriously restrict the firing arc of the main turret.
IMHO this is not worth the additional AGL.

And why do you want extra frontal armor?

The Puma already seems to be the best protected IFV out there and because of that it weights more than 41 tons in the C version. More than other IFVs out there.
Against what threats do you want to armor it? Heavy ATGMs? Heavy vehicle mounted guns?

Keep in mind that this is hardly achieved by modern MBTs so there is no way one can armor an IFV in a reasonable way without making it ultra heavy and even more expensive.

Some more points should be considered.
The Puma already scratches the price tag of a modern western MBT.
And it features a passive protection system (MUSS) against ATGMs and one might add an active one in the future which it is already wired for but for (AWiSS).

[Rythm]

Not if you can put it low enough so that the main turret can traverse over it (albeit limiting the downward angle). Perhaps put it on the forward deck or something. I´m no engineer but im certain it is doable.

I always want extra armour. My life may depend on it one day after all. If weight goes beyond MLC50, and one has to label it something different than an IFV, thats fine by me. The price would of course be very high. But that, at this stage, doesnt interest me. I want to know if it is doable and why noone has done it (except for the BMP-T and to a lesser extent the Namera).

I mean, if two armies who recently have seen a lot of MOUT decide to bring in MBT-level armour on lighter vehicles (to some extent this also applies to recent US vehiclemodifications, altough they havent gone all the way yet), then this might be a lesson worth considering, exploring and perhaps even make a prototype of those ideas.

[Waylander]

Not if you can put it low enough so that the main turret can traverse over it (albeit limiting the downward angle). Perhaps put it on the forward deck or something. I´m no engineer but im certain it is doable.


Have you seen how big an RWS with something like a .50 cal or an AGL is?
Take things like the Stryker or Fennek ones as an example.
http://www.kmweg.de/produkte/fennek.jpg
http://www.army.mil/features/strykeroe/stryker-(front-view).jpg

They are not small. And one has to add the controls in the inside. The back of an IFV is already very cramped for a squad in full gear.

I don't see the benefits are big enough to restrict the firing arc of the turret, raise the price and making the room for the squad smaller.

I always want extra armour. My life may depend on it one day after all. If weight goes beyond MLC50, and one has to label it something different than an IFV, thats fine by me. The price would of course be very high. But that, at this stage, doesnt interest me. I want to know if it is doable and why noone has done it (except for the BMP-T and to a lesser extent the Namera).


It is fine that you want extra armor and don't care if it goes beyoind MLC50 (IMHO more MLC60...) but you haven't addressed the problems a bigger size and a bigger weight cause in an urban environment (narrow streets, bridges,...).

And you can't ask the question why nobody else does it without considering this and the higher price. This is an important part of the answer to this question.

And there have already been opinions in Israel that the Namera is an expensive piece of equipment for hauling infantry around while fielding a .50cal peashooter.

I mean, if two armies who recently have seen a lot of MOUT decide to bring in MBT-level armour on lighter vehicles (to some extent this also applies to recent US vehiclemodifications, altough they havent gone all the way yet), then this might be a lesson worth considering, exploring and perhaps even make a prototype of those ideas.

Yeah the russians have seen a lot of MOUT but before they had BMP-2 (and now 3) to ride their infantry into the thickes urban environment. Do you want to enter a MOUT environment with a vehicle which is possibly penetrated on the sides by a .50cal?

The problem of the Israelis is that they really like their HAPCs but they don't have the MBT hulls anymore to build a HAPC with surplus hulls. So they have to use a Merkava hull.
Making it a much more expensive HAPC than the ones before. For sure it gives your infantry very good protection, but the armament is little more than self defense.

[Rythm]

I have to apologize at this point, waylander. I dont know how i can bring my points over to you more clearly than i have done so far. Sorry.

And no, this is not intended as a flame, so please dont take it as such.

[Waylander]

I haven't taken it as a flame.
Sorry, if I sounded a little bit rough.

Let's say it is because we are no native speakers and the others wouldn't be happy about us speaking german. ;)


I see were you are heading and what your ideas are.
I just wanted to show were IMHO the problems are and what the reasons are for not many countries doing it.

I see the benefits of a heavily armored urban fighting vehicle with enough room for a squad and plenty of firepower for an urban environment.

IMHO these benefits just don't outweight the disadvantages of such a vehicle.

[Chrom]

They are intended to operate with two tanks in a urban environment, I thought this was supposed to take the place of a tank, you said it yourself that tank capabilities in this type of environment is limited, I would think that they would use them the other way around, with infantry. also are you stating that Russia will be using them in open terrian settings.

For urban operations compostions might be changed to 2 BMP-T for 1 tank. And yes, they will be used everywhere, included open terrain. Or do you think what enemy infantry doesnt exist in open terrain? Also, while BMP-T is called "IFV" it is in fact differs from most IFV's in the sence what crew is not expected to dismount, but rather stay inside like in tank and control various weapon.

[Chrom]

Just using a MBT hull isn't going to save your day. Such a hull would need MOUT upgrades just like a normal tank hull due to it being vulnerable on the sides and rear.

A Puma for example which is build from the start with an all around threat of CE weapons in mind has a better side and rear protection than a plain normal Leo hull.

And a special vehicle like the BMP-T is so substitute for real infantry in my eyes.
Yeah, it has some nice firepower but sometimes you just need the mech infantry to go out on foot and do their job. Some surpressive fire (ok a lot of surpressive fire...:D ) and blowing holes into buildings is not the answer to everything hence I do wonder about the idea of replacing traditional mech inf with it.

Maybe because it is cheaper... BMPT-likes vehicles is not expected to be sub-par to MBT in armor or firepower. It is projects like Israel Akhzarit instilled such wrong perception. Russian aproach is different - BMP-T is expected to have completely new hull, on par with future MBT. While protection against CE is indeed more important currently - but very same is also true for MBT!!! As you propose to use MBT in urban fighting and infantry-heavy enveronmet... Understand, BMP-T due to its role facing EXACTLY same threats as MBT.

BMP-T is not intended to COMPLETELY replace infantry in all situations - only in some sututuations, while taking major part of infantry work in others.

[eckherl]

For urban operations compostions might be changed to 2 BMP-T for 1 tank. And yes, they will be used everywhere, included open terrain. Or do you think what enemy infantry doesnt exist in open terrain? Also, while BMP-T is called "IFV" it is in fact differs from most IFV's in the sence what crew is not expected to dismount, but rather stay inside like in tank and control various weapon.

Chrom - I do not see the point in using this vehicle in conjunction with MBTs, it has ample firepower to support ground pounders in a urban setting does it not, in all cases it should be better. I am fully aware that the five man crew is to fight while under armor, for use in open terrian you could of at least given me the excuse that it can engage slow moving helicopters, this vehicle does have a rather limited stabilization system to use in open terrian.

[Chrom]

Chrom - I do not see the point in using this vehicle in conjunction with MBTs, it has ample firepower to support ground pounders in a urban setting does it not, in all cases it should be better. I am fully aware that the five man crew is to fight while under armor, for use in open terrian you could of at least given me the excuse that it can engage slow moving helicopters, this vehicle does have a rather limited stabilization system to use in open terrian.

This vehicle in any case offers much better anti-infantry capabilities than plain MBT. Enemy infantry is one of the main threats on the current battlefield, even for MBT. As such, it makes sense to replace MBT with something what is is better in anti-infantry role.
Even in open terrain 2+ km shots are rarery needed, especially against small targets (btw, wasnt your presented argument about moslty sub-2km ranges even in tank combat?). At such 1-2km ranges generally the weapon is ok.
Either way, infantry at 2+ km range is much less dungerous and could be dealt with usuall stuff like artillery, aviation, ATGM's and tank guns.

Also, keep in mind - however bad is BMP-T, the naked infantry with puny M-16 is much, much, much weaker!

Ok, lets name logical chain why modern army NEED BMP-T like vehicle:

1. MBT need support - it cant operate alone. Note - this is accepted by ALL specialists. MBT CAN'T do many things well.
2. Support -> infantry + ifv
3. Infantry is VERY fragile, VERY slow, and VERY weak in firepower
4. Current IFV also quite fragile, some of them cant move with tanks, some of them have weak weapon
5. We need vehicle what can support MBT.
6. This vehicle should be: protected as MBT, move over difficult terrain as MBT, have enouth firepower to replace IFV's and infantry in support role.
7. BMP-T conception - here we are!

Of course, BMP-T is not ideal, it have many deficiences - but it is first of such kind, the conception will be developed and rewoked.

[eckherl]

This vehicle in any case offers much better anti-infantry capabilities than plain MBT. Enemy infantry is one of the main threats on the current battlefield, even for MBT. As such, it makes sense to replace MBT with something what is is better in anti-infantry role.
Even in open terrain 2+ km shots are rarery needed, especially against small targets (btw, wasnt your presented argument about moslty sub-2km ranges even in tank combat?). At such 1-2km ranges generally the weapon is ok.
Either way, infantry at 2+ km range is much less dungerous and could be dealt with usuall stuff like artillery, aviation, ATGM's and tank guns.

Also, keep in mind - however bad is BMP-T, the naked infantry with puny M-16 is much, much, much weaker!

Ok, lets name logical chain why modern army NEED BMP-T like vehicle:

1. MBT need support - it cant operate alone. Note - this is accepted by ALL specialists. MBT CAN'T do many things well.
2. Support -> infantry + ifv
3. Infantry is VERY fragile, VERY slow, and VERY weak in firepower
4. Current IFV also quite fragile, some of them cant move with tanks, some of them have weak weapon
5. We need vehicle what can support MBT.
6. This vehicle should be: protected as MBT, move over difficult terrain as MBT, have enouth firepower to replace IFV's and infantry in support role.
7. BMP-T conception - here we are!

Of course, BMP-T is not ideal, it have many deficiences - but it is first of such kind, the conception will be developed and rewoked.

This vehicle was designed specifically for urban and mountain warfare, lessons learn from past experiences from both type of scenarios, do not get me wrong, you know that I like this vehicle for what it was specifically designed to do, if Russia feels that they need additional infantry support other than what a BMP 2 or 3 will give along with MBT support in open terrian then they will most certainly use them, I just do not see the need for it in that type of scenario.

[Rythm]

But wouldnt it be best to combine the concepts of BMP-T and Puma?

Would i be the companycommander of such a vehicle, especially during MOUT, i would love to be able to kick out my squads and let them clear some types of targets. like trenches and buildings i want to keep intact.

[Waylander]

@Rythm
And how do you want to squeeze the infantry sqaud into a BMP-T?
And say exactly what a BMP-T offers what a Puma doesn't offer?
What can 2x30mm do what a lonely can't do and what do 4xATGMs do what 2xATGMs can't do.

@Chrom
Your argument that current IFVs are too fragile is too far fetched. What does a BMP-T offers when it comes to protection against enemy handheld weapons what a Puma doesn't offer?

And about the capabilities of a BMP-T while operating with tanks instead of infantry.
A BMP-T cannot enter a little village and search it or enter heavy wood while the whole combined arms force needs to secure this heavy wood because of the intention to cross a passage or to secure a barrier (like mines).
The dismounted infantry of an IFV can.

[Rythm]

@Rythm
And how do you want to squeeze the infantry sqaud into a BMP-T?
And say exactly what a BMP-T offers what a Puma doesn't offer?
What can 2x30mm do what a lonely can't do and what do 4xATGMs do what 2xATGMs can't do.


I said:

But wouldnt it be best to combine the concepts of BMP-T and Puma?

Would i be the companycommander of such a vehicle, especially during MOUT, i would love to be able to kick out my squads and let them clear some types of targets, like trenches and buildings i want to keep intact.

earlier i wrote:

so, if one would somehow fit a RWS with an AGL with ample storage for ammo, next to the main turret of a Puma, you would pretty much have what i desire? Except for the frontal arc armour wich possibly could be added thru bolt-on armour?

and

What i mean is the combination of a) a vehicle as protected as a MBT (like those i mentioned) but at the same time b) equipped with weaponry like i described. And preferbly with a small (say 4-man) infantery section.

also

I see such a vehicle as a supplement to current vehicles. Of course you cant ditch the PanzerGrenadiere all together, nor can you ditch the MBTs 120mm weapon for certain targets. The vehicle i propose would be filling the void between these two. Rapid-fire autocannons for heavy suppresive fire, AGLs for indirect suppresvie fire (and also to be able to lay suppressive fire in a second direction at the same time as the 30mm pounds a different angle), ATGMs for bunkerbusting. Rebro radios could be interesting to fit inside too in a urban scenario. All heavily armoured.

The Puma is the nearest choice, but it lacks AGLs and ATGMs. ATGMs can be retofitted as per specifications (Eurospike MR?), but is it at all possible to retofitt a H&K 40mm AGL on say a remote weapon station? And preferably a 7.62mm MG on a KMW remote station covering the rear. Also i do think that the Puma would need additional frontal armor for this kind of operation (MOUT/FIBUA), but this can too, as i understand it, be retofitted.

and also

No, i dont see any point in twin 30mm cannons. I never said i did either.

and finally

Like a 30mm cannon, ATGM and at least 2 MGs or AGLs. Together with a small compartment for infantery.

Now, i really hope this once and for all answers those questions you keep repeating. If not, PM me and i can expalin it in german for you :D

[Waylander]

I see what you want.
You want the eierlegende Wollmilchsau. ;)

This is exactly the problem.
Build a vehicle which is protected frontally like an MBT, features heavy all around protection against MOUT threats, fields numerous weapons (autocannon, ATGMs, some MGs and AGLs in RWS) and is able to transport infantry. Do you also want it to be well motorized?

Such a vehicle is going to be big, heavy, expensive and it is goint to have problems with the firing arcs of the turret and the different RWS.

The arguments I gave for staying with infantry in IFVs was often directed to Chrom and the concept of BMP-T which replaces infantry. I think I made this clear with marking to whom my comments are directed.

The arguments I gave for why such a vehicle you envision is not practicable were IMHO also clearly marked.

Those being:
- price
- weight
- size
- difficult weapon mounts

I know what you said.
But still you haven't adressed these problems. You keep saying what you envision for such a vehicle without facing the problems.

When I say it is going to be expensive you say you don't care for price. When I say that such a heavy armor is going to cause problems and ask why such a vehicle needs that much armor you answer that one can't have enough armor.
When I mention the problems in an urban environment caused by size and weight you don't adress it at all.
When I say that a modern RWS interferes with turret operations you just say that you want RWS with AGLs.
When I say that instead of a RWS one can use the firing platform provided by the half closes backdoor for handheld weapons (MG 3/4, (A)G36, PzFst3,...) you don't adress it.

As I said before. I see were you are heading for but as I said before there are certain disadvantageds which outweight the advantages of such a vehicle.

If you still think that I don't understand you just PM me, as you said, and explain it to me in german.

[eckherl]

@Rythm
And how do you want to squeeze the infantry sqaud into a BMP-T?
And say exactly what a BMP-T offers what a Puma doesn't offer?
What can 2x30mm do what a lonely can't do and what do 4xATGMs do what 2xATGMs can't do.

@Chrom
Your argument that current IFVs are too fragile is too far fetched. What does a BMP-T offers when it comes to protection against enemy handheld weapons what a Puma doesn't offer?

And about the capabilities of a BMP-T while operating with tanks instead of infantry.
A BMP-T cannot enter a little village and search it or enter heavy wood while the whole combined arms force needs to secure this heavy wood because of the intention to cross a passage or to secure a barrier (like mines).
The dismounted infantry of an IFV can.


Exactly - you still need infantry on the ground to clear out a town, where the BMP-T would come in handy is if the dismounts stumbled on a choke point, thus the reason for the design. A Puma would give good armor protection with a cannon that has a good high angle of engagement, also you can use it for all battlefield scenarios be it defensive, offensive and urban support. I find it hard to believe that the German army did not take all these factors into consideration when they accepted it for service.

[Chrom]

This vehicle was designed specifically for urban and mountain warfare, lessons learn from past experiences from both type of scenarios, do not get me wrong, you know that I like this vehicle for what it was specifically designed to do, if Russia feels that they need additional infantry support other than what a BMP 2 or 3 will give along with MBT support in open terrian then they will most certainly use them, I just do not see the need for it in that type of scenario.

SPECIFICALLY is a bit wrong perception. It is just what in urban warfire tank ineptness became more aparrent. We can also say what BMP-3 was specifically designed for "urban and mountain warfare" with Afganistan lessons learned...
Again, BMP-3 cant be compated to BMP-T - the protection level differs considerably. However good is BMP-3 it still cant take a hit from enemy MBT or even good ATGM. So, to prevent losses, it will be forced to drive behind MBT's and take other countermesures which would affect its effectivity on battlefield. Obviously, this is also true for open terrain - mainly becouse there are no such thing as "open terrain" especially when we speak about hiding infantry.

[Chrom]

@Rythm
And how do you want to squeeze the infantry sqaud into a BMP-T?
And say exactly what a BMP-T offers what a Puma doesn't offer?
What can 2x30mm do what a lonely can't do and what do 4xATGMs do what 2xATGMs can't do.
BMP-T is not IFV. It is TANK. Tank designed to combat other threats than enemy MBT's. While BMP-T weapon is still not ideal - currently it have separate FCS for crewmembers and all its weapon could be used simulatiously. It is still much better than Puma or any other IFV what can usually employ only 1 weapon at time.


@Chrom
Your argument that current IFVs are too fragile is too far fetched. What does a BMP-T offers when it comes to protection against enemy handheld weapons what a Puma doesn't offer?
First, even against RPG's and ATGM's PUMA (and other IFV's) cant compete with tanks. PUMA might be able to withstand 70x-style RPG - but 90x RPG will almost certainly penetrate it even frontally. Same for ATGM's. And why you forget enemy tanks? Or do you think enemy infantry will be without tanks? And enemy tanks will be without infantry?
Again, any other IFV will be easy target for enemy tanks, forcing IFV's to take cover, distance, etc and greatly reduce its "support" to tanks. BMP-T will be able to withstand some hits. That is why it will be used even in "open" terrain.


And about the capabilities of a BMP-T while operating with tanks instead of infantry.
A BMP-T cannot enter a little village and search it or enter heavy wood while the whole combined arms force needs to secure this heavy wood because of the intention to cross a passage or to secure a barrier (like mines).
The dismounted infantry of an IFV can.

This will be still a job for infantry - enter every wooded house. But cover tanks while they are driving throu a city, road or swamp - is a job for BMP-T. Cover infantry while it enters wooden house - is a job for BMP-T.

BTW, about weight: Oddly, BMPT-T weights about as much as up-urmored PUMA.

[kato]

one can use the firing platform provided by the half closes backdoor for handheld weapons (MG 3/4, (A)G36, PzFst3,...) you don't adress it.

...

wait, what? see highlight.

[Waylander]

Did I made a mistake?
The Panzerfaust 3 (or Bunkerfaust in a MOUT scneario) can be used there. At least I have seen it being used from the top hatches of a Marder so I don't think it is not possible to use it from the firing platform which is formed when the Puma partially opens its backdoor.

[kato]

Did I made a mistake?
The Panzerfaust 3 (or Bunkerfaust in a MOUT scneario) can be used there. At least I have seen it being used from the top hatches of a Marder so I don't think it is not possible to use it from the firing platform which is formed when the Puma partially opens its backdoor.

The Panzerfaust 3 still has quite a backblast. If the Puma partially opens its backdoor, this would suggest to me that the soldiers are still standing inside the vehicle somehow. Meaning either the backblast goes straight inside the vehicle, or washes off some surface directly behind the soldiers (definitely not the 0.8m safety distance to the back).

From the top hatches of a Marder - of course no problem. Our recon guys trained that from the top hatches of their Fuchs too, at least theoretically.

[Waylander]

I don't find the picture now (got a new notebook and so I have to get my archive in order...) but for me it looked like the guys looking out at the back have the space to use a PzFst3.

But maybe I have a wrong picture in my head.

Edit:

There it is I found it.
http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/6528/puma5av4.th.jpg (http://img466.imageshack.us/my.php?image=puma5av4.jpg)

For me it looks like one can use the PzFst3 there.

BTW, on the PSM side one can read that there will also be a hatch on top for the squad.
I just haven't seen pictures of this so far of people using it or a top view of the Puma..
Should be the hole on the right end of the top hull armor which one can see on this picture.
http://www.psm-spz.com/downloads/puma_9_gr.jpg

[Rythm]

@waylander, i sent you a PM.

[Rythm]

Miscommunications solved. Back on topic :D

Those being:
- price
- weight
- size
- difficult weapon mounts

As I said, im more interested in a proof-of-concept at this stage. However, the Namera comes with a pricetag of merely 700K $. Granted, with the modifications i prosed so far that price would quickly jump up, but still stay within an acceptable price-range (at least for me :D ).

The weight wouldnt be that high. A Puma "C" weighs in at 42t, A M-1A2 SEP TUSK at 69t. The propsed vehicle would come in somewhere between these. Since it mainly would be used in MOUT and thereby mainly be used on roads or hard-packed surfaces i dont see a direct problem there either. Of course, traversing bridges and similar would be a problem on most occasions, but same goes for tanks and to a lesser extent a Puma "C".

The width of the vehicles are similar as goes hight of them. Both the Puma "C" and Leo 2A4 are 3,7m wide and the Namera is 3,72. Height is a mere 2,35 for the namera, and 3m for both Puma "A" and Leopard 2A5 (turretroof on all). So size wouldnt be an issue when comparing these vehicles in their current version. Granted, a Namera with proper weaponry would be higher.

Weapons mounts.Yes i understand your position on this, and it is indeed a tricky one. But as i said earlier: if one would use the turret of the Puma and then mount the AGL in a tightly designed RWS and place it on the foredeck (on the engine basicly) this would still allow the mainturret to traverse 360 degrees with lesser downward angle at 12 o'clock, at the same time allowing the AGL to bear fire at about 140-190 degrees to the front. A much smaller RWS with a MG (like the KMW FWT100 on the ARV Büffel) on the back would cover the rear area in a nice way without restricting the mainturret too much. Or as you mentioned waylander, fire it thru a backdoor firingport.

---

And yes, i really really want more armour than Puma "C" gives. What if one would encounter a S-60 mounted on a truck, that would ruin the Puma-crews day pretty much.

I mean we all know (or should know) why MBTs arent prefered in Urban warfare, yet the israelis and russians both came to the conclusion that you need MBT-level armour in MOUT. Arguebly these nations have the most experience of MOUT presently. I think its important to explore further the reasons and solutions they had instead of rely on expreinces gained long ago. Battlefields change over time after all. And while its true that one shouldnt disregard old truths, one shouldnt be hesistant to explore new angles either.

Also, while you are quite right that the proposed vehicle is a can-do-all-but-fly like the original Marder, the Israelis have had mutliple RWS on several vehicles for quite some time now. Obviously they came to a different conclusion based on their experiences in the 80s and 90s, than the germans did in the 60s. What are the differences made that so drastically changed the two solutions?

[eckherl]

Miscommunications solved. Back on topic :D



As I said, im more interested in a proof-of-concept at this stage. However, the Namera comes with a pricetag of merely 700K $. Granted, with the modifications i prosed so far that price would quickly jump up, but still stay within an acceptable price-range (at least for me :D ).

The weight wouldnt be that high. A Puma "C" weighs in at 42t, A M-1A2 SEP TUSK at 69t. The propsed vehicle would come in somewhere between these. Since it mainly would be used in MOUT and thereby mainly be used on roads or hard-packed surfaces i dont see a direct problem there either. Of course, traversing bridges and similar would be a problem on most occasions, but same goes for tanks and to a lesser extent a Puma "C".

The width of the vehicles are similar as goes hight of them. Both the Puma "C" and Leo 2A4 are 3,7m wide and the Namera is 3,72. Height is a mere 2,35 for the namera, and 3m for both Puma "A" and Leopard 2A5 (turretroof on all). So size wouldnt be an issue when comparing these vehicles in their current version. Granted, a Namera with proper weaponry would be higher.

Weapons mounts.Yes i understand your position on this, and it is indeed a tricky one. But as i said earlier: if one would use the turret of the Puma and then mount the AGL in a tightly designed RWS and place it on the foredeck (on the engine basicly) this would still allow the mainturret to traverse 360 degrees with lesser downward angle at 12 o'clock, at the same time allowing the AGL to bear fire at about 140-190 degrees to the front. A much smaller RWS with a MG (like the KMW FWT100 on the ARV Büffel) on the back would cover the rear area in a nice way without restricting the mainturret too much. Or as you mentioned waylander, fire it thru a backdoor firingport.

---

And yes, i really really want more armour than Puma "C" gives. What if one would encounter a S-60 mounted on a truck, that would ruin the Puma-crews day pretty much.

I mean we all know (or should know) why MBTs arent prefered in Urban warfare, yet the israelis and russians both came to the conclusion that you need MBT-level armour in MOUT. Arguebly these nations have the most experience of MOUT presently. I think its important to explore further the reasons and solutions they had instead of rely on expreinces gained long ago. Battlefields change over time after all. And while its true that one shouldnt disregard old truths, one shouldnt be hesistant to explore new angles either.

Also, while you are quite right that the proposed vehicle is a can-do-all-but-fly like the original Marder, the Israelis have had mutliple RWS on several vehicles for quite some time now. Obviously they came to a different conclusion based on their experiences in the 80s and 90s, than the germans did in the 60s. What are the differences made that so drastically changed the two solutions?

Thats really nice that you and Waylander have cleared your mis communication issue:) Heres a little tid bit for you, the M1A2 SEP Tusk weighs in alot heavier than what you have stated. Stock M1A2 SEP is at 69 tons.

[Rythm]

got a wight on the TUSK?

[kato]

And yes, i really really want more armour than Puma "C" gives. What if one would encounter a S-60 mounted on a truck, that would ruin the Puma-crews day pretty much.


Ask yourself just how likely that is though - that would be a big truck (a S-60 weighs 4.6 tons dry), and your forces should have at least enough in previous intelligence reports to make this a prime artillery/airstrike target.

The Puma C armour is armoured well enough against about anything possibly encountered short of a HACV, MBT or dedicated tank hunter.

Here (http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/bw_spz_marder_1a1a-01.jpg) is a picture of a Marder 1A1 with the RWS MG on the back deck, btw.

Development of Marder 1:

A0 - original model; weight 28.2 tons (MLC30); main armament 20mm, coaxial 7.62mm, RWS 7.62mm, two ball firing port mounts for troops each side
A0 (no mod number) - Milan ATGM added; troops reduced by one to 6 for 4 reserve ATGMs
A1 - dual feed for 20mm gun
A1A - A1 with nightfighting capability (IR system)
A2 - new IR system for Milan and gunner, new comm system, RWS removed
A3 - uparmored, weight 33.5 tons (MLC37); side stow baskets, firing ports removed, coaxial MG moved to other side of turret; two top hatches covered
A4 - command version, different comm system
A5 - uparmored, weight 37.4 tons (MLC42); internal and external rearrangements; improved cooling system, improved drive gear.



For comparison of MLC: Puma is MLC48. This is a somewhat important number, as, outside of the German "main lines", ie in rural areas, a lot of small bridges are laid out for maximum MLC50 (stemming from building during the times when M47/M48 were the standard tanks in the Bundeswehr).

[kato]

Stock M1A2 SEP is at 69 tons.

Err, depends on the tons.

Stock M1A2 SEP weighs 69.54 short tons, ie ~139,000 lbs, ie 63.1 metric tons.

... and no, that's not the M1A1, before anyone starts. The baseline M1A1 weighed 130,800 lbs.

[eckherl]

Err, depends on the tons.

Stock M1A2 SEP weighs 69.54 short tons, ie ~139,000 lbs, ie 63.1 metric tons.

... and no, that's not the M1A1, before anyone starts. The baseline M1A1 weighed 130,800 lbs.

Err - that would depend on the combat load layout, the amount of heat rds versus sabot. M1A1 would weigh in at 67 (metric) tons with traditional combat load layout.

[eckherl]

got a wight on the TUSK?

Add 2 metric tons, if going with the belly armor package then you need to add 1.5 additional metric tons on top of the 2 metric tons.

[eckherl]

Sh_t I hate it when I respond without my first cup of coffee, yes Kato you are correct with the weight issue, @Rythm use short tons to the Tusk upgrade package.

[Waylander]

The weight wouldnt be that high. A Puma "C" weighs in at 42t, A M-1A2 SEP TUSK at 69t. The propsed vehicle would come in somewhere between these. Since it mainly would be used in MOUT and thereby mainly be used on roads or hard-packed surfaces i dont see a direct problem there either. Of course, traversing bridges and similar would be a problem on most occasions, but same goes for tanks and to a lesser extent a Puma "C".

The width of the vehicles are similar as goes hight of them. Both the Puma "C" and Leo 2A4 are 3,7m wide and the Namera is 3,72. Height is a mere 2,35 for the namera, and 3m for both Puma "A" and Leopard 2A5 (turretroof on all). So size wouldnt be an issue when comparing these vehicles in their current version. Granted, a Namera with proper weaponry would be higher.

Streets tend to be not that stable when one has to deal with streets in less developed countries. And one of the reasons why traditional tanks are not that well liked in urban warfare scenarios is not only because of their focussing on frontal armor, comparable small gun elevation and less usefull weapons package but also because they tend to have problems with streets and bridges. Raising the weight above MLC50 (With the proposed armor even more) is not going to solve these problems. The Puma is already a heavy beast.
If you have a really heavy MOUT vehicle instead one can't decide to send it in where tanks can't go because it weighs nearly the same.

Weapons mounts.Yes i understand your position on this, and it is indeed a tricky one. But as i said earlier: if one would use the turret of the Puma and then mount the AGL in a tightly designed RWS and place it on the foredeck (on the engine basicly) this would still allow the mainturret to traverse 360 degrees with lesser downward angle at 12 o'clock, at the same time allowing the AGL to bear fire at about 140-190 degrees to the front. A much smaller RWS with a MG (like the KMW FWT100 on the ARV Büffel) on the back would cover the rear area in a nice way without restricting the mainturret too much. Or as you mentioned waylander, fire it thru a backdoor firingport.


Nobody wants to put a RWS in front of the turret. The resulting restriction in downward angle is going to bite you in the a** when you are in a hull down position.

I can maybe live with the idea of a port for a RWS with a GPMG on the backdeck which can be added if an urban operation is planned.
The problem is that a RWS with a HMG or AGL is going to be bigger. Compare a GMW with a MG3.
And IMHO such an RWS is going to be too big and is going to restrict the turret in backwards directed operations too much.

The Grenadiers were happy when the MG3 on the Marder disappeared. The controls were too big for the already very crouched interior.

The possibility of encountering a s-60 or something like that has already been adressed well by Kato. Protection against RPGs, middle calibre weapons, mines/IEDs and artillery shrapnel has to be enough. Add to this passive and active protection systems against ATGMs and IMHO you have as much protection as one needs.

I mean we all know (or should know) why MBTs arent prefered in Urban warfare, yet the israelis and russians both came to the conclusion that you need MBT-level armour in MOUT. Arguebly these nations have the most experience of MOUT presently. I think its important to explore further the reasons and solutions they had instead of rely on expreinces gained long ago. Battlefields change over time after all. And while its true that one shouldnt disregard old truths, one shouldnt be hesistant to explore new angles either.

Also, while you are quite right that the proposed vehicle is a can-do-all-but-fly like the original Marder, the Israelis have had mutliple RWS on several vehicles for quite some time now. Obviously they came to a different conclusion based on their experiences in the 80s and 90s, than the germans did in the 60s. What are the differences made that so drastically changed the two solutions?

The Israelis also use modified M113s. One can hardly name this MBT like protection.

And the russians had two possible solutions to their problems.
Their BMPs are just too lightly armored for MOUT.
So they could desing a whole new vehicle or use existing hulls for one.
With the financial problems of the russian army there remained only one solution...

The Israelis have always been some kind of special. They never fielded some kind of IFV but only (H)APCs.
A big part of the answer to this is also money. Fielding an APC (Even when modified and upgraded) is still much cheaper than fielding an advanced IFV.
You can see this in the discussion about the Namera being already too expensive. If 750.000$ scratches the limit of your budget one doesn't even need to think about fielding a modern IFV.

Fielding other modern equipment like tanks, fighters, etc. has always been a bigger priority than this.

[Waylander]

Thats really nice that you and Waylander have cleared your mis communication issue:rolleyes:

Just the wrong smiley or was this ironic?

[eckherl]

Just the wrong smiley or was this ironic?

Wrong smiley, motor skills suck without that first cup of java.:)

[Waylander]

Aaah, these adicted people all the time... ;) :D