APC or IFV

Interesting table comparing the advantages of tracked versus wheeled:

Route Flexibility: Tracked vehicles

Cross Country Mobility: Tracked vehicles

Traction on Slopes: Tracked vehicles

Road Speed: Wheeled vehicles

Logistics: Wheeled vehicles

Operational Costs: Wheeled vehicles

Gross vehicle weight, Volume, & Payload: Tracked vehicles

Maneuverability/Turning Radius: Tracked vehicles

Transportability: Wheeled vehicles

Weight Growth Potential: Tracked vehicles

Gap & Obstacle Crossing: Tracked vehicles



I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

TerraN_EmpirE said:

In the Vietnam war American troops field troops fitted M113's with secondary MG's so the main commanders mount with it's M2 .50 Cal was backed by two M60 Machine guns. as long as the infantry remained mounted those weapons were a fair option but if the infantry dismounted the fire power dropped.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking more of a dedicated, direct fire upport vehicle based on a regular APC. One or more ( depending on the mission) of these supporting a mounted patrol. When the infantry has to dismount, those vehics take an overwatch position. And only a reduced number of troops from this vehicle dismounts with special supporting weapons (DMR, small ATGM with multi-purpose warhead).
If you're chassie is somewhat modular, you can decide on the priority:
Volume of fire with a .50cal + 40mm grenade launcher on a remote weapons station, + two MMG (maybe an M134 just for the heck of it )
Or firepower with a turreted 30mm cannon, although that would probably eat into crew compartment space.

ATGM mounted systems on APC and IFV hulls have been around for a number of years. as fire support systems though they have limitations particularly there cost. Each shot of a modern ATGM is several Grand. Gun systems are Far Cheaper per shot can carry a larger supply of rounds between reloads and can offer a wider range of attack options.

Click to expand...

So we're basicly in agreement here. At best there could be simple wire guided missiles. I think I've seen a vid of a MILAN being launched from a Dingo 2.

Now Airborne Forces outside of Nato have options for IFV's The BMD-1 form Russia for example. it packs the same 73mm gun as the BMP-1 packed a crew of 2 +4 scouts and was followed by the stretched version the BTR-D APC which crammed in a 3+10 man capacity. Airborne Fighting vehicles have more or less been ignored by the West. Instead the hull weights of APC's were kept intentionally low to allow transport by C130 Class transports.
Adding fire power in the form of a turret mounted cannon ignored, The M551 Sheridan being more the exception but it was thin skinned and battle a HMG could pierce it's Aluminum hull.

Click to expand...

That's another particular point of interest to me. The actual lightness of soviet IFVs paired with much greater firepower than on their western counterparts. All the soviet designs were below 20t, but mounting heavy cannons or even guns and ATGMs. It brings a lot of firepower in an initial wave. But even light forces can inflict casualties, IF they manage to evade the powerfull attack.
However, the russians learned the hard way that in slow / urban conflict, those light vehicles become death traps. Which explains the BMPT and BTR-T vehicles. Heavily armored IFVs with an almost insane weapons fit.
On the protection side emulating the israeli Namer idea, though they use much lighter weaponry. I'd like to see something like that on a surpluss Leo 2 hull.

Miragedriver said:

I’m a big supporter of wheeled vehicles and could go on in infinitude, as there are others here at the forum that could take the opposing point of view (that what I enjoy is the exchange of Ideas). Back on topic, wheeled vehicles is a much lighter mechanized force and improve an army's capabilities for rapid power projection across strategic distances. They also provide the army with three important issues, those being Operational mobility, tactical mobility and strategic mobility.

Click to expand...

Same goes for me. Ideally, there could be something like light mech & heavy mech forces I guess. But that double could be too expensive, and to be on the safe side, the full up, tracked IFVs would probably my choice if I had it, but had to decide between the two.
However, in standard motorized infantry units, a few of their APCs armed with a 30mm gun turret would be awsome fire support.

Scratch said:

That's another particular point of interest to me. The actual lightness of soviet IFVs paired with much greater firepower than on their western counterparts. All the soviet designs were below 20t, but mounting heavy cannons or even guns and ATGMs. It brings a lot of firepower in an initial wave. But even light forces can inflict casualties, IF they manage to evade the powerfull attack.
However, the russians learned the hard way that in slow / urban conflict, those light vehicles become death traps. Which explains the BMPT and BTR-T vehicles. Heavily armored IFVs with an almost insane weapons fit.
On the protection side emulating the israeli Namer idea, though they use much lighter weaponry. I'd like to see something like that on a surpluss Leo 2 hull.

Same goes for me. Ideally, there could be something like light mech & heavy mech forces I guess. But that double could be too expensive, and to be on the safe side, the full up, tracked IFVs would probably my choice if I had it, but had to decide between the two.
However, in standard motorized infantry units, a few of their APCs armed with a 30mm gun turret would be awsome fire support.

Click to expand...

Russian Armor post World war 2 has typically remained light. Even there top tanks the T90 is a light 52 ( Short Tons, Note I try to use short tons. ) compare that the the Leopard 2 which is 68 short tons.
Now as stated there does seem to be a shift happening in APC/IFV series. this is materializing in the form of the HEAVY ACP/IFV based on Tank hulls with the full protection of a MBT but fitted to carry infantry. the Israelis are pioneers in this concept. but there are limitations for it. The Israelis have never had to fight in a expeditionary war, All of there battles save for a few small SF Raids were in there regional zone normally against there Neighbors who have all at one time or another tried to wipe them from the face of the earth. the resulting vehicles therefore tip the scales as heavy weights 38 tons for the BTR-T,44 tons for the Achzarit,60 tons for the Namer. Both the Us and Russians have now flirted with this class of IFV and APC in the ( thankfully Canceled ) 80 ton US GCV program and the Russian "Armata" Universal Combat Platform Kurganets-25 IFV under development
The other school of thought is the conventional mindset based around medium weight vehicles that can be adapted via up armor kits. the CV90, FRES SV, SPz Puma, Turkish Tulpar, Polish PL-01, Bradley life extention ect ect...
Finally there is the concept of the Expeditionary based Vechcle family.
This model can be seen to a limited degree in
and expanded in the caancelled
now when combined with a heavier tactical lifter like the A400M a medium weight family complete with Medium tank like the CV90120T this could create a Expeditionary force model. That is a Rapid reaction force intended to to be deployed anywhere in the world in a opening of conflict timeline to in essence kick down the door, to be followed up with heavier more conventional forces.

Right now the biggest changes I think are Coming to the IFV and APC is the Hybrid drive system, IR stealth systems and potentially long term the potential for Rail guns.

Hey Gunny What have you gotta say on this subject?
[video=youtube_share;s5PmUy2RN2Q]http://youtu.be/s5PmUy2RN2Q[/video]

I have had a preference for wheeled APCs and IFVs ever since I first saw an OT-64 and a BTR-60. Yes, I know that I am dating myself. Even though I am bias in my preference, I do recognize that tracked vehicles have their place and are needed on the battlefield to: keep up with the tanks; operate in a majority off-road environment and to accommodate APC & IFV larger than 30 tons.

With that said. If I had to ride in on an older APC I would take an M113 over a BTR-60 or an OT-64



In honor of Popeye bottling has stopped for the week and labels are at half mast

Personally I would agree. BTR-60 has such a short hull that head room alone would justify that assessment. although a ot-64 interior is closer to resonable to a human height.

Personally I think 30 short tons is the best spot to build a base line APC/IFV hull. IT's just light enough to fit in a lifter like the A400M, AN70, Kawasaki C-2 or similar class lifter well still being heavy enough at base line to protect the troops from incoming fire up to IFV guns as well as having up to 10 Short tons to then tailor the vehicle to mission needs. that means you can have a 6 ton IFV turret, a 5 ton Self propelled Mortar system, and 10 tons for a 155mm howitzer or 120mm light tank variant.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Personally I would agree. BTR-60 has such a short hull that head room alone would justify that assessment. although a ot-64 interior is closer to resonable to a human height.

Personally I think 30 short tons is the best spot to build a base line APC/IFV hull. IT's just light enough to fit in a lifter like the A400M, AN70, Kawasaki C-2 or similar class lifter well still being heavy enough at base line to protect the troops from incoming fire up to IFV guns as well as having up to 10 Short tons to then tailor the vehicle to mission needs. that means you can have a 6 ton IFV turret, a 5 ton Self propelled Mortar system, and 10 tons for a 155mm howitzer or 120mm light tank variant.

Click to expand...

For an offensive strike against an enemy army, tracked heavy armored is the way to go as roads can easily be destroyed, mined, blocked. However our contemporary conflicts do not provide an enemy using heavy vehicles and frontline tactics. The enemy can jump out of some bush, shoot at you and doesn’t really plan this engagement further than the first shot, usually losing the battle but by killing a soldier here and there they keep the morale and moral homeland support low. These countries have bad roads and bad roads get worse using tracked vehicles, not really because of weight alone but because of the steering mechanism being very abrasive.

I think leaving a country with destroyed roads after eventually sometime getting rid of the regime is not really the way to go. You need a vehicle able to carry about 10 soldiers, with little width, protection all around against 14.5 (would 7.62 be enough?), designed for (N) ERA tiles covering most of the flank and mine protection. A low center of gravity would also be nice but doesn’t really add to mine protection.
Maybe you could swap the era tiles with AMAP-ADS, which I think is the only aps suited for these kinds of conflicts, would give 2 or 3 tones.

I do not know what these protection levels need in weight, maybe it’s possible with under 20 tones, the problem is the defense against MG calibers, is 14.5 really used often by the Taliban or other guerilla groups?

The Problem is that there is no vehicle built with these speciation’s, the Stryker is based on piranha, which itself is not that new of design and integration of modern defense solutions, modular armor and mine protection should be done from scratch not afterwards.

The only vehicle easily adaptable for this protection is the Boxer, but 33 tones is overkill as much as its size, the 4.5 tones is not really a lot of payload for modules either. (AND the price …Wow!)


Don’t forget to check out the http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/general-pictures/world-picture-day-7025.html



I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

Miragedriver said:

For an offensive strike against an enemy army, tracked heavy armored is the way to go as roads can easily be destroyed, mined, blocked. However our contemporary conflicts do not provide an enemy using heavy vehicles and frontline tactics. The enemy can jump out of some bush, shoot at you and doesn’t really plan this engagement further than the first shot, usually losing the battle but by killing a soldier here and there they keep the morale and moral homeland support low. These countries have bad roads and bad roads get worse using tracked vehicles, not really because of weight alone but because of the steering mechanism being very abrasive.

Click to expand...

My answer to that is band tracks.
mond you band tracks top out at about 30 tons so unless there is another tech break through there is a issue but then again there may be room to play
Vibration levels reduced by 50-65%. British MOD study on CVR(T) with band tracks provided 50% reduction.(5)
Noise levels reduced by 6-10 decibels (dB). TACOM/TARDEC study on band tracks for M113's showed the internal noise levels reducing to heavy truck cabin noise levels.( little known fact the vibration form conventional tracks mess with crew and electronics)
Band tracks being around 30% lighter than steel tracks.
More durable then steel tracks. M113 study has shown the life time doubling of the T130 steel tracks.
They can provide better traction by being wider than steel tracks thanks to their weight advantage.
Ground pressure levels reduced by the wider tracks.
Band tracks are more friendly to the road surfaces causing no significant damage to road surfaces.
Provide better fuel economy with their reduced rolling resistance. M113A3 with band tracks had 67% less rolling resistance than the T130 tracks.
Lower rolling resistance equals better fuel economy.
No corrosion to speak of with the band tracks.

I think leaving a country with destroyed roads after eventually sometime getting rid of the regime is not really the way to go. You need a vehicle able to carry about 10 soldiers, with little width, protection all around against 14.5 (would 7.62 be enough?), designed for (N) ERA tiles covering most of the flank and mine protection. A low center of gravity would also be nice but doesn’t really add to mine protection.

Click to expand...

for mine and IED in wheeled or tracked your going to face damage the question is mitigation. a Decoupled chassis with a boat shaped hull is possible on a tracked vehicle in fact is has been done before the

Maybe you could swap the era tiles with AMAP-ADS, which I think is the only aps suited for these kinds of conflicts, would give 2 or 3 tones.

Click to expand...

an Active defence system is good option but my aim is not a force dedicated just to asymmetric fights. I feel you need to have defensive protection against 30mm cannon or better.

I do not know what these protection levels need in weight, maybe it’s possible with under 20 tones, the problem is the defense against MG calibers, is 14.5 really used often by the Taliban or other guerrilla groups?

Click to expand...

14.5mm MG's are the base threat for Asymmetric war but over specialize and you breed in weakness.
check this out the Anzio 20mm sniper rifle.
[video=youtube_share;7ft2j6J4NcY]http://youtu.be/7ft2j6J4NcY[/video]
look at this thread
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/army/chinese-atgm-discussion-6468.html
ATGM's are now widely available, and in Iraq and the Ukraine you have asymmetric Opfor employing manufactured and captured IFV's In Libya they manufactured there own IFV's.
This is the Classic "Fighting vehicle" Of Asymmetric forces that comes to mind.

Okay this Mad max Reject is probably not, More like this

This CG Helix is armed with a 50 cal. but that's not the only gun they have mounted on such.

dual 20mm-25mm triple A cannons. the traversion can be used to lower them to level against vehicles. If they had a larger calibre cannon they would happily use it and APS don't protect against that as the rounds are to fast and rate of fire saturation to high.

The Problem is that there is no vehicle built with these speciation’s, the Stryker is based on piranha, which itself is not that new of design and integration of modern defense solutions, modular armor and mine protection should be done from scratch not afterwards.

Click to expand...

I agree. but one must also factor thaat just because your fighting insurgency today does not mean you will be tomorrow.

The only vehicle easily adaptable for this protection is the Boxer, but 33 tones is overkill as much as its size, the 4.5 tones is not really a lot of payload for modules either. (AND the price …Wow!)

Click to expand...

I disagree 33 tons is a fair point of start, the weakness is the ability to transport the vehicle. under 20 tons and the vehicle can be easily moved but is easily killed, move to 60 tons and it's impossible to transport but protects. 30 tons is the middle ground if you have a transport in the A400M class you can move it if it gets hit by a IFV cannon it can take as good as it gives.

the next generation of armored vehicle needs to be able to be transported to the AOR with in 72 hours. it needs to offer protection equal to a MRAP against blast threats, needs to offer IFV protection against heavier threats.

Oh yeah and before I forget, Band tracks can also drive at the same speeds as wheeled vehicles, in fact the biggest reason Tracked vehicles are slower is not mechanical it's the devastation a steel track leaves.
remember the fastest tracked vehicle is the Howe and Howe Tech Ripsaw which hits over 70 miles per hour easily.
[video=youtube_share;q3mRqBuiQA4]http://youtu.be/q3mRqBuiQA4[/video]
Most tracked vehicles have a governor in there propulsion to keep them slow

I am posting this here as it seems pertinent.
[video=youtube_share;HF-b_tw6q38]http://youtu.be/HF-b_tw6q38[/video]
note the armement means that they are amining still for a APC.
the Challenge is to create a APC/IFV that can carry a large rifle squad. The Marines have decided to go with wheeled off the shelf types. including the
Superrav,

AMV renamed HAVOC
and

The Terrex.
all 8x8 wheeled all sitting between 15 to 30 tons.