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 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 ) 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 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 ) 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... ) 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, here and here.
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).