APC or IFV

1. A lite tank with a low velocity 105mm (tank rounds are cheaper than missiles)
   
   
2. A heavy wheeled vehicle like the Centauro B1
   
   
3. An Russian Terminator with two auto cannon and missiles
   
   
4. A wheeled APC with 20mm auto cannon and some missile
   
   
5. A vehicle like the German Lynx
   
   
6. Or just use the standard IFV as is
   
   So the question is what should such a vehicle (be it a light tank or some other form of fire support vehicle) be? Not necessarily just for the US 82nd Airborne but other (US & foreign) Light Infantry forces.
   
   Light units do not want to be around tanks. Tanks make lots of noise and attract too much attention defeating of Light Infantry's asset- that being stealth.
   
   
   Any ideas or suggestions?
   

There have been many articles published recently regarding the US Army wanting a new light tank for Light Infantry forces. Most have concentrated on the primary requirement being a replacement for the M551 Sheridan (which was retired without replacement in 1997) for the 82nd Airborne. Let’s ignore the fact that this vehicle is for airborne troops, since I’m suggesting a support vehicle for lite infantry.

So the question is what should such a vehicle (be it a light tank or some other form of fire support vehicle) be?

1. A lite tank with a low velocity 105mm (tank rounds are cheaper than missiles)
   
   
2. A heavy wheeled vehicle like the Centauro B1
   
   
3. An Russian Terminator with two auto cannon and missiles
   
   
4. A wheeled APC with 20mm auto cannon and some missile
   
   
5. A vehicle like the German Lynx
   
   
6. Or just use the standard IFV as is
   
   So the question is what should such a vehicle (be it a light tank or some other form of fire support vehicle) be? Not necessarily just for the US 82nd Airborne but other (US & foreign) Light Infantry forces.
   
   Light units do not want to be around tanks. Tanks make lots of noise and attract too much attention defeating of Light Infantry's asset- that being stealth.
   
   
   Any ideas or suggestions?

Click to expand...

Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) 1. Purpose. To provide information on MPF. 2. The MPF requirement for all IBCTs. a. Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) lack the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) capability necessary to defeat enemy prepared positions, destroy enemy armored vehicles, close with the enemy through fire and maneuver, and ensure freedom of maneuver and action in close contact with the enemy. IBCTs require protected, long range, precision direct fire capability to defeat enemy prepared positions, bunkers and armor threats in order to ensure freedom of movement and action during offensive operations or defeat attacking enemy during defensive operations. Without MPF, IBCTs that confront defending enemies in restrictive or urban terrain often have no option but to transition to defense and apply overwhelming indirect fire or air support. b. IBCTs require improvements in mobility, protection and firepower to enable combined arms maneuver against projected threats which will likely emulate the adaptations of recent opponents while capitalizing on emerging technologies. These enemies will pursue their objectives avoiding what they perceive as U.S. military strengths. They will employ a mix of regular and irregular forces and techniques and will include both state and non-state actors. They will use sophisticated capabilities that increasingly challenge the IBCT, and demand that the IBCT have an MPF system to fight their way through long-range weapons fire and gain physical contact with hard to find opponents to maintain freedom of maneuver for light infantry. In complex environments where enemies intermingle with the population, MPF protection and precision firepower allow Soldiers to take greater risks to secure the population by permitting them to hold fire until the enemy reveals its hostile intent. 3. MPF in A2/AD operations. a. Army Strategic Planning Guidance 2013 mandates “the Army must ensure forces are capable of Joint entry operations” 1 . XVIII Airborne Corps lacks an MPF capability to provide offensive direct fires for Infantry units conducting GRF (Global Response Force) Joint, forcible entry operations in A2/AD environments. TCM IBCT briefed MPF as a high risk gap to the VCSA during the TCM-IBCT CPR on 29 July 13. MG Nicholson briefed MPF as a top GRF gap during the MCoE (Maneuver Center of Excellence) Warfighter Conference on 11 September 13. b. Proliferation of air defense and long-range indirect fire systems require airborne 1 Army Strategic Planning Guidance 2013, dated 7 February, 2013 2 forces to execute forcible entry from “offset drop zones,” 2 assemble outside the range of enemy threats and move rapidly overland to the decisive point of the operation. Historically XVIII Airborne Corps has tasked organized an Armored/Mech company team to the DRF (Division Ready Force) for insertion by air-land. Given potential adversary A2/AD capabilities, this concept does not provide an MPF capability in time to retain or exploit the initiative; as it fails to provide MPF support on the drop zone, during movement to the decisive point of the operation (enemy airfield) or during the assault to seize the airfield. c. There are no systems currently supporting airborne IBCTs with a capability comparable to MPF. At times this lack of capability can force units in contact to go from M-16 to F-16. Joint fires lack the precision of direct fires thereby increasing risks of collateral damage. Deployment distances may prevent attack and reconnaissance by aviation assets, such as the AH-64 or OH-58D, during the critical initial stages of A2/AD operations. These platforms also have limited station time and are vulnerable to air defense and ground fires. ATGM systems, such as the M966 TOW ITAS and Javelin have limited mobility, no protection and a slow rate of sustained fire. An MPF capability is required to mitigate this critical warfighting gap; failing to do so will introduce an unacceptable level of risk into the execution of GRF Joint, forcible entry operations. d. With no current air droppable MPF capability we risk losing the initiative in future A2/AD operations3 . Currently, dismounted Infantry formations encountering machine gun fire are forced to conduct a movement to defense. The tank was invented to defeat machine guns in World War I; this lesson is still relevant today. The ability to provide precision fires against prepared positions and bunkers, pivot steer and overcome obstacles such as burning vehicles like those encountered in Mogadishu, make tanks the premier vehicular system for urban operations. 3. Way ahead. MPF ICD (Initial Capabilities Document) has completed TRADOC and DA One-Star staffing and received ARCIC Director Validation. MPF ICD AROC (Army Requirements Oversight Council) is scheduled for October 2014.

Click to expand...

1. A lite tank with a low velocity 105mm (tank rounds are cheaper than missiles)
   Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
2. A heavy wheeled vehicle like the Centauro B1 Stryker M1128 Mobile Gun system Already in Us service
3. An Russian Terminator with two auto cannon and missiles US made Vehicle Only Apply There is no way a Russian vehicle could stand a chance of even entering. European vehicles of a capability set similar to the BMPT.
4. A wheeled APC with 20mm auto cannon and some missile 20mm Cannon fire is to light for defeating bunkers or armor.
5. A vehicle like the German Lynx Lynx is to heavy for air drop as intended for MPF
6. Or just use the standard IFV as is wants here is a large cannon in the 105mm or better There is a Separate requirement for a Troop vehicle.
   Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Israel’s Ministry of Defense unveils new Eitan wheeled armored personnel carrier

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Russia Develops BT-3F Amphibious Tracked APC for Naval Infantry

Russia's Tractor Plants Concern is developing a new amphibious tracked armoured personnel carrier (APC) called the BT-3F, a defence industry source told IHS Jane's . The new APC is intended for the use by naval infantry/marine units.

"The Tractor Plants Concern is finishing the designing of the BT-3F APC in order to exhibit its demonstrator at the Army 2016 military-technical forum outside Moscow in September 2016. The vehicle may partially replace the BTR-80 APC of Russia's Naval Infantry. We suppose that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) will take a close look on the new vehicle at the forum," the source said.

He said that the BT-3F APC has a combat weight of 18.5 tonnes, a crew of three, and can carry 14 soldiers. "The vehicle is armoured at Level 4 STANAG 4569, providing all-round protection against 14.5x114 mm bullets fired from a KPVT heavy machine gun at a 200 m distance. The hull of BT-3F has a length of 7,000 mm, a width of 3,300 mm, and a height of 3,000 mm. The APC is powered by a diesel engine [of 500 hp] that provides a road speed of 70 km/h, a swimming speed of 10 km/h, and a power-to-weight ratio of 26.7 hp/t. The BT-3F has an operational range of 600 km," the source added.

The BT-3F is based on the chassis of the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). As a result "the serial production and massive deliveries of the BT-3F APCs to the Russian Armed Forces can be established in the shortest time possible, due to the high level of interchangeability between the carrier and the BMP-3 IFV," the source claimed.

The new vehicle is currently armed by a DPV-T remote controlled weapon station (RCWS) fitted with a 7.62x54 mm PKTM Kalashnikov machine gun. However, "The APC can be integrated with all types of remote turrets developed by the Russian defence industry, including those armed with 12.7 mm 6P49 Kord machine gun and 14.5 mm KPVT machine gun, as well as 30 mm AG-17A and 40 mm AG-40 automatic grenade launchers," the source said.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

FORBIN said:

A new Eitan



View attachment 29583 View attachment 29584

Click to expand...

Miragedriver said:

Wow! 35 tons. That will limit some of its operational use (expecially off road). Good hp to weight ratio.

Click to expand...

kwaigonegin said:

Not really .. unless they plan on exporting it which is highly doubtful

just like the Merkavas, Namers (which are all huge) etc, the IDF's design requirements are not so much focus on exportability, air mobility and/or terrain.

Click to expand...