IFV v APC

[kato]

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]

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............

Regards,

BUG

And thats a good two cents worth Bug.

 

[eckherl]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUsgZZeJqhE"]YouTube - CV9040[/ame]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Simply well put.

 

[Chrom]

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]

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

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

 

[eckherl]

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

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]

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]

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]

Yeeehaw.

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

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

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]

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]

M113a3/4

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.