TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
There are a number of less protected vehicles in military service around the world.
Chinese infantry fighting vehicles
- Thread starter Broccoli
- Start date
Equation
Lieutenant General
It was built rather for speed in rough terrain to provide quick fire support for assaulting airborne units.
...and yet squeeze it into CH-53G.
Thus Chinese and Russian vehicles are in entirely different class: despite being light, they're fully functional IFVs, operating directly with their respective infantry sections.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
The Wiesel and Wiesel 2 is not an IFV and never was.
An IFV is a armored Vehicle capable of Carrying a Squad sized element, armed with a gun system larger than 20mm.
Wiesel is armed with a 20mm cannon but only carries a crew equal to a fire team, not a squad.
The APC version of the Wiesel 2 can load with a squad sized unit but is armed with a 7.62mm MG, a prototype version does have a 30mm cannon but no infantry.
it does not fit the IFV class, It's an APC or weapons carrier.
The German IFVs are the Marder ( phase out) and Puma with possibility of the Lynx as well.
For a more Airborne friendly version I think the German Foch is the closest.
As for the Russian Airborne and Chinese, They have the Mi 26 which carries a larger weight.
...and BMD series, on the other hand, always were IFVs. This is the very idea behind, turning something, which always was light infantry(motorized infantry at best) into proper light mechanized formations.
Currently, it's even possible to expect dropped airborne regiments to fight off something around armored brigade in scale(thanks to dedicated TD platoons, spotting both heavy ATGMS and tank gun-armed tank destroyers).
About weasels being IFVs... well, thanks, but gj arguing something which wasn't written.
Russia ok(сompany level helicopter assault is probably possible if all available heavy helicopters are to be gathered), but China...
There is 4 of them, and all are disaster relief(i.e. civilian) ones.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
debatable.
First The BMD infantry load on the BMD 1 is more part of the vehicle crew. The Infantry commander and Gunner operate MG's built into the vehicle you have 3 infantry then 2 more one being the commander but deploying them weakens the vehicle's attack and because the Commander is also a gunner He is a bit busy
BMD 2 eliminated the Commander/MGunner but still ties the Infantry into the vehicle.
BMD 3 changes the bow weapons but they are still operated by the Infantry.
BMD 4 ups this.
I would almost more call it a Cavalry vehicle then a IFV. An APC is a battle taxi It drops the infantry at the fight and runs for the next fare. An IFV is to support the infantry dismounts and the infantry dismounts are to support the IFV but the BMD more or less keeps half it's dismounts as part of it and only drops a few scouts This is less like a proper IFV and more like the US M3 CFV
A similar layout is seen in the BMP 3 but not in the newer Kurganets 25 or the Bumerang
The Chinese have not followed this and created more traditional IFV's
Airborne infantry is a product of the modern era, since the advent of the Aircraft and parachute but it has had limitations. most mass drops are hardly precision with paratroopers dropped for dozens of miles with no real control or precision even into the last decades. Vehicles are harder to drop because of weight, shock and aerodynamics. Many a Humvee have been destroyed because of a gust of wind knocked it onto the roof or a Parachute failed and it slammed into the ground.
Workarounds like slinging or loading on Helicopters are used as they allow precision but limitations kick in here like reduced speed, reduced Range. Frankly an Airborne IFV will always be a compromise of weight and protection for mobility.
You look at Medium weight IFV's like the Kurganets, Bradley, Puma, V12 They cannot be Air dropped. Compare them to Airborne capible IFV's like the Snow leopard, LAV 25, VAB and although they might be able to take a direct hit to the frontal armor. The Medium weight vehicles have the advantages. they can take hits to the side and front, they can take the lighter ones because they often have the main or secondary missile that will end the fight.
Especially with the more modern ones that are adding hardkill APS and Reactive armor.
that's a pipe dream. If it's a larger force of Airborne dug in, Maybe but unlikely. We have seen some sucess in the middle east these days but that is mostly because the Forces fighting have not properly supported there armor, and have used older armor. if it's peer on peer. it's a slaughter for the Airborne.
than don't try and compare them.
The Germans did not build the Wiesel vehicles to fight tanks they built them to probe and runaway,
That was one of their advertizing points. there are two forms of Airborne forces, Paratroopers and Air Assault. Para are dropped, Air Assault prefer helicopters. As I indicated above Para Vehicles have a hit or miss on actually getting there vehicles or getting to the target zone. Air Assault can get their vehicles and the zone but have shorter legs to get to those.
I'll give you that one but the Chinese have been pushing for larger helicopters including a joint for a heavy lifter of atleast Mi26 class.
They're same part of infantry, and are expected to dismount when necessary despite MGs.(their mounts aren't awfully effective to begin with)
I.E. it's question of organization, and rusdian vdv sees them as organic IFVs.
Check why and how Sptut-SD(and new -SDM) appeared.
Tactical reconnaissance vehicle is only one among many weasel variants.
ATGM and direct support variants are just as important.
Well, it is somewhere in the future.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
The Commander is one of the dismounts that leaves the vehicle command to the gunner and driver. later the 4 fixed this it's still iffy.
A glass Cannon. A gun that could take a tank but the armor is light. like a glass jawed boxer, it punches fine but one hit and it's over. Modern MBT's like the Abrams can take a lot more punishment.
Humvees have ATGMs to. they also have mortars, and SAMs.
It's just bad side of vehicle(1 man turret), which even in this form was heavier than desirable. I shall remind what main Soviet transport plane for paradrops in 1970 was An-12, not il-76.
Infantry commander wasn't equipped to command BMD properly anyway.
Because it's actually tank destroyer(and employed as such), not light tank. But one very capable of stopping armored push, thanks to full tank gun as main weapon. WW2 experience.
Btw, for this kind of work "intermediate" armor is a liability.
They do, and they actually have to perform same tasks in American airborne.
...and BMD series, on the other hand, always were IFVs. This is the very idea behind, turning something, which always was light infantry(motorized infantry at best) into proper light mechanized formations.
Currently, it's even possible to expect dropped airborne regiments to fight off something around armored brigade in scale(thanks to dedicated TD platoons, spotting both heavy ATGMS and tank gun-armed tank destroyers).
About weasels being IFVs... well, thanks, but gj arguing something which wasn't written.
Russia ok(сompany level helicopter assault is probably possible if all available heavy helicopters are to be gathered), but China...
There is 4 of them, and all are disaster relief(i.e. civilian) ones.
Yes Sir ! in fact mechanised ( light ) airborne units for all the 7 Divisions in Soviet Army and again in the 4 existing plus 5 Indep Brigades, " VDV" have 45000 pers.
According my notes only one ABN Rgt of the 15 ABN Corps is mechanised with AIFVs the 134th, 168 vehicles in 3 Bat.
But now Rgts transformed in Brigades with artillery so udpade after
