APC or IFV

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Well I don't think that anyone has really done that. I guess it could be done but its a question of need and wants. If you do do a fire support vehicle like that one thing is your likely to ditch the infantry as to keep that rate of fire would need a chassis to take the recoil and a large magazine.

Click to expand...

I concur the vehicle would have to been “stand alone”. It could not function as an IVF. One could utilize the same IFV chassis and reduce production costs. Do you see the value in such a vehicle supporting both armored units (in a scouting role) and in mechanized infantry units (fire support)?

Has no one do this since it is not viable on the battlefield or is it that I am being delusional in its actual effectiveness?



I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

Miragedriver said:

I concur the vehicle would have to been “stand alone”. It could not function as an IVF. One could utilize the same IFV chassis and reduce production costs. Do you see the value in such a vehicle supporting both armored units (in a scouting role) and in mechanized infantry units (fire support)?

Has no one do this since it is not viable on the battlefield or is it that I am being delusional in its actual effectiveness?



I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

Click to expand...

well the Russians have the BMPT which packs a dual 30mm cannons ATGMs or medium Machine guns and no infantry.
the issue is the magazine and the size required. if your going to go with a off the shelf cannon on your system then your options are the Bofors 57mm which is 57 mm × 438 mm, on a naval ship it sinks two decks below the turret. the gun and turret system can weigh as much as a your APC hull. if you went lighter like the ol' Russian AZP S60 which fires 57×348 mm. SR the gun system is 5 tons before any ammo. Closest I can think of is well a self propelled Anti Air system like the being pointed at infantry and ground targets.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

well the Russians have the BMPT which packs a dual 30mm cannons ATGMs or medium Machine guns and no infantry.
the issue is the magazine and the size required. if your going to go with a off the shelf cannon on your system then your options are the Bofors 57mm which is 57 mm × 438 mm, on a naval ship it sinks two decks below the turret. the gun and turret system can weigh as much as a your APC hull. if you went lighter like the ol' Russian AZP S60 which fires 57×348 mm. SR the gun system is 5 tons before any ammo. Closest I can think of is well a self propelled Anti Air system like the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

being pointed at infantry and ground targets.

Click to expand...

The Russian BMPT is an amazing weapon system, however I was envisioning a single gun. Something along those lines but with a larger caliber gun. A 60mm without the “two decks” of space below. Imagine a four man crew, where the loader feeds the gun with a three or five round magazine. Since the vehicle is a strengthened APC/IFV hull, there should be plenty of storage for these three to five round magazines. This is how the ZSU-57-2 was operated.

Of course the platform would have a three way stabilized fire control system.



I will now get back to bottling my Malbec and firing 60mm rounds

While I also like the idea of a direct fire support vehicle I'm not really sure about those intermediate calibre guns. A modern 40mm round should be enough to deal with most armored threats Except MBTs and perhaps uparmored state of the art IFVs from the front. However, if you intent to be able to use such a vehicle in symmetric, heavy armored warfare it needs an ATGM system anyway, in my opinion. Something like Sike MR / LR or a laserSACLOS missile can take care of those latest IFVs and modern MBTs.
For COIN or other, lower intensity conflicts a 40mm (time fuzed) HEI or HE-FRAG will be enough to overcome revettments, knock down walls or otherwise engage infantry and vehicles.
While an intermidiate caliber gun will be cheaper than a modern hight cost ATGM system vs system, I believe there's so few targets that actually require a 75mm over a 40mm round that it doesn't warrant the cost of developing, inducting and maintaing such a system.

With the smaller caliber you can carry a lot more rounds wich are still good enough and add the ATGM when needed. I think in a way a vehicle like that has been around with the M3 Bradly Cavalary Fighting Vehicle.

Those 105mm guns on 8x8 might have a point, they're simpler by not being rapid fire, and pack a usefull punch, maybe especially with a HESH round. But I guess two or three 40mm rounds could equal the effect in most cases.

For indirect fire, I like the 120mm AMOS very much.

75mm is good against most light and medium armor but against a MBT well it might mission kill from the side, head on though it will hurt but be more of a punch in the nose. sure you will make a dent but against comprehensive armor. 57mm like the 57 mm AZP S-60 modified by the Russians and French for the Turret of the Atom BM57. against infantry and AFV's short of a tank would be a impressive fire options well still having a good Capacity. as we move up in generations of IFV we are starting to see the guns of IFV's pushing higher. the warrior family in british service for example is moving from the warrior's 30mm to the 40mm caseless. the Bradley life extension program is prototyping a unmanned turret ditching the 25mm for the 30mm with the possibility of future upgrade to 40mm. the CV90 series has options for 30mm, 35mm and 40mm. eventually we may see 75mm guns being the rule but that's down the line and assuming we have a return of mechanized on mechanized. as is the Russian BM 57 mm om a Atom IFV has a range of about 6KM thats a long range for a IFV gun twice the range of a 30mm. Atom could stand without a ATGM as long as she stays out of it's frontal arc.
For most IFV's the answer will remain a ATGM if it needs to take on heavy armor but that has limitations there are only so many a IFV can pack in. they tend to take more space then the rounds sued by the cannon and require a dangerous reloading.

the 105mm tank destroyer on 6x6 or 8x8 wheels is a real bruiser it can in some cases take a full MBT.
a tracked IFV hull though can be if designed properly can become a light to medium tank chassis with a full tank turret. both the XM8 and the CV90 have proven 120mm tank guns meaning they can take tanks. and 120mm and 125mm cannons can operate as indirect fire weapons.

the 120mm ATMOS and NEMO are really impressive weapons I really wish the US Army adopted them for future Brigade combat teams.

If it is a mechanized on mechanized warfare with air support, any IFV will have to have an ATGM against tanks, 25-75mm just doesn't cut it against MBTs and there are better uses of IFVs with their ~6 infantrymen inside. It is also inefficient to risk them against platforms specifically designed to destroy armored vehicles.

The other issue is cost; cannon shells are not cheap, especially fancy ones like DU sabot 30mm; and an IFV can go through a lot of it. A 40mm HE is like a hand grenade against infantry which is rather weak. If we leave the AT capability to the ATGM and focus on the Antipersonal capability, a 75mm auto loaded cannon would be a much better choice' especially if it can do high angle of attack in a city environment (maybe even with a auto loaded 60mm mortar).

In the field it should really provide anti air capacity by manpad and a high angle HMG like the 14.5mm or 15mm (lets say coax with the 75mm) to let the MBT focus on their thing.

a auto cannon round costs a fraction of the cost of a missile. a single late model ATGM like a javelin without CLU costs as much as the whole gun of a bushmaster cannon.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

a auto cannon round costs a fraction of the cost of a missile. a single late model ATGM like a javelin without CLU costs as much as the whole gun of a bushmaster cannon.

Click to expand...

As you correctly mentioned. A 75mm auto cannon will not take out a MBT, Leopard II, M-1, Challenger, etc.. However, it will cause damages and suppress the vehicle. This could be in the form of damaging the tracks and immobilizing the tank, damaging the optics, turret or main gun.

As mentioned, the vehicle would be for reconnaissance, and fire support. Engaging an MBT would not be a prudent course of action, but in an ambush situation or laying down suppressive fire and damaging MBTs and then letting the other MBTs finish the job is possible. War is fluid and a versatile vehicle like this can fill many functions. Having one of them for every 10 or so APC/IFV would be interesting so say the least.



I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

navyreco said:

[video=youtube;5V_MQsWFIMM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V_MQsWFIMM[/video]

Click to expand...

okay this Future Technology Demonstrator is the chassis and platform that BAE was cooking up for the US Army's BCT-GCV program. BAE put it on a Diet knocking it from the ridiculous 80 tons down to the more reasonable 40 tons. I like the Hybrid drive. it's got the technical readiness to really be considered good to go proven tech. the first attampt dates back to WW1, then you have
the
The US Army's AHED Advanced Hybrid Electric vehicle Demonstrator program
[video=youtube_share;0E59-DHDdUE]http://youtu.be/0E59-DHDdUE[/video]



And the X-M8 Thunderbolt II Hybrid vehicle demonstrator. Which was built by United Defence before it was absorbed by BAE and served as a FCS proof of concept for the mounted Combat system.
I am not so happy with the weight of the system even at 40 tons it a logistical nightmare demanding a C17's max load. cut it down to 28 tons, scale it to a 11 man capacity. install a integrated APS, band tracks, modular ceramic-aramid shell, a radar absorbent low thermal paint, BAE's Adaptiv system, options for a number of turrets including a medium caliber IFV, 120mm direct fire, NEMO mortar, Rocket and ATGM launcher, that laser gun system and maybe even a howitzer or small railgun and it could be a really really high tech platform with excellent fighting specs

Here's one fore you Mirage 8x8, 6x6 or 4x4
right now most of the world is going wit 8x8 which allows it to be longer and have more room but I kinda like a 6x6 but not with side hatches they compromise protection.