The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 21, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Merger of tank and IFV?
westwords2020    8/15/2006 9:51:53 AM
One design for a tank in Armour magazine I found on the Web favoured the Israeli concept of carrying three infantrymen in the rear, a railgun turret with laser and solar electric charging system for all electric tank.
That was far term idea.
But should the MBT and IFV be merged in a vehicle having say six man squad in rear, engine in front with crew shielded by it's mass, hybrid propulsion, three man crew and turret firing multipurpose ammo in the center.
Ammo would be antitank, HE, and guided AA rounds from autoloader feed by magazine in the form of concentric rings of a carosel in the hull. Say 60 rounds. Gun calibre would be 120mm to 140mm.
If I had space, the vehicle would have some missiles vertically launched like Net Fires Non LOS system but that raises tank hull height.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2
WinsettZ    RE:Merger of tank and IFV?   8/15/2006 10:52:07 AM
60 rounds? And rounds bigger than Abrams? That sucker is going to be huuuuge.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives    RE:Merger of tank and IFV?   8/15/2006 12:16:26 PM
60 rounds? on a carousel? In the hull? That'll make an awful mess if something gets through the armour. Turret propelled out of the roof, crew and dismounts propelled (in a fine mist) out the rear. Yech. Furthermore, the problem with having infantry and big gun in one tank is that it'll need a fair bit of internal volume. Which will have to be armoured, so it'll be huge and heavy. On top of that, you wonder if it will spend a lot of time wandering about in confusion trying to work out what it's supposed to be doing at that moment.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:Merger of tank and IFV?   8/15/2006 2:51:04 PM
Solar electric charging system? For what? The coffee pot? An all-electric tank will use orders of magnitude more energy than any vehicle-mounted solar panels could provide, especially with a rail gun.
 
Quote    Reply

WinsettZ    RE:Merger of tank and IFV?   8/15/2006 3:05:14 PM
Fusion power is going to have to come first. There's always fission, but who's going to war with an uranium pile?
 
Quote    Reply

westwords2020    RE:Merger of tank and IFV?   8/15/2006 4:25:50 PM
Seriously, that's what the article said in Armour though not solar panels but microwave power rectannas recieving from power satellites using solar cells in geostationary orbit. Merkova carries small teams in rear currently.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives    RE:Merger of tank and IFV?   8/15/2006 5:43:26 PM
Merkava can carry a couple of infantrymen in a pinch, but ISTR something about having to carry substantially less ammo to do so.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Merger of tank and IFV?   8/15/2006 6:49:32 PM
I don't think merging a tank with an IFV is a bad idea, however I do not think it should replace either, and there are multiple ways of looking at it. Looking at what the Israelis and Russians have done though, turning T55's into APC's, there is clearly a demand for heavily armoured troop carrying verhicles. You could build a vehicle to similar layout to the Israeli Merkava, as in a ~60 tonne tracked vehicle, with the engine at the front (as in most IFV's), and the turret in the middle (again as with most IFV's), and of course the troops in the back - however have the main armament a 40mm CTW cannon rather than a tank gun. Such a weapon would infringe far less on the internal space of the vehicle, and so allow a decent number of dismounts, while still delivering a punch capable of destroying anything up to T55's (T72A/B?) level. A true tank killing, or even SAM, ability could be added using external mounts for fire and forget missiles, such as Brimstone or Starstreak. Such a vehicle could outfit heavy infantry in a similar way to Stryker outfitting light infantry.
 
Quote    Reply

aceofw    RE:Merger of tank and IFV?   8/15/2006 7:53:10 PM
Actually the merkava can carry a couple of infantry guys without losing any ammo (although for aditional infantrymen ammo will need to be taken off), although these guys won't be comfortable, and I happen to know my battalion's communications officer spent a rather pleasent two and a half weeks with a pillow in the rear corridor ;) Personally, I'm a tool-for-purpose guy rather than jack-of-all-trades, I really don't favour IFV's much. Infantry should fight dissmounted, backed by tanks and other units, they should have APCs (heavy ones) for transport, but their fighting should be done on foot, spaced so that a single ATGM won't kill them in one shot.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:Merger of tank and IFV?   8/16/2006 9:47:04 AM
The problem with tool-for-purpose vs jack-of-all-trades is that you may not have enough of them, or they many not be at the right place at the right time. Consider a notional task organized armored company with 2 tank platoons (8 tanks) and 2 Bradley or HAPC platoons (8 Brads/HAPCs). The tank/brad company would have 16 vehicles capable of long-range, anti-armor fires and 16 vehicles with advanced thermals and fire control. The tank/HAPC company would only have 8 vehicles capable of long-range anti-armor fires and 8 with advanced thermals (assuming only RWSs on the HAPCs). The tank/Brad company would also have significantly more anti-armor stowed kills. A detached HAPC platoon would routinely need to be augmented with tanks if a significant enemy armor presence was expected. OTOH, a detached Brad platoon still carries significant, mounted, anti-armor capabilities.
 
Quote    Reply

aceofw    RE:Merger of tank and IFV?   8/16/2006 12:52:40 PM
My POV is that of non-expeditionary force that will have it's forces on hand, an expeditionary force like the US would have weight limits. As I understand, that was the point of the bradly, an AFV that is light enough to be air-mobile, but still carries some armor and AT capabilities to handle itself untill the tanks arrive. Consider the current conflicts: Ranges are usually short, and the first shot is usually by the enemy. Also, even the rather old ATGM such as saggers are likely to penetrate anything short of an MBT-class protection. And newer ATGM will penetrate even MBTS. If ambushed (and likely so), a tank/brad force will have more firepower, but the brad part is also more vulnerable to being damaged, which will be bad for the soldiers inside. A tank/HAPC might be not as well armed, but the mounted men have better survival chances, and 8 tanks are enough firepower for any job. As a rule, for their own safty, if you're expecting combat or being engaged - Infantry are better off dissmounted and spread so their own ATGMs can be used. And they should always be backed up by tanks. Also, sometimes a soldiers with binoculars is better than a tank for observation.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Merger of tank and IFV?/AceofW Reply   8/16/2006 1:35:25 PM
Did you just get back from up north? If so, what were the typical (if any) ranges from which the Hizb were opening ATGM fires? Did terrain restrictions on LOS force initial engagements of you guys by Hizb at close range, or were they able to stand-off with their heavier weapons? Seems the fight was generally at close range, with few opportunities for long-range ATGM fires. Did you guys use arty fired WP/HE immediate suppression missions on identified ATGMS or just take them out with your main guns? Were arty fires responsive, or too slow to suppress/destroy ATGM sites? General answers only-I appreciate ongoing OPSEC concerns, but am curious. Thanks.
 
Quote    Reply

Sabre    RE:Merger of tank and IFV?   8/16/2006 1:43:31 PM
The other point that I'd feel should be made is that if I'm sending a platoon of tanks into harm's way to kill enemy tanks, I want to take as few casualties as I possibly can. I wouldn't want 6 grunts hanging out in the back of each of those tanks, not contributing to the fight and basically just waiting to get hit. (Yes, yes, dismounted infantry can help kill tanks. Sometimes. Not always. For example, I just don't think a fast, mechanized battle in table-top flat terrain with lots of artillery fire and no cover is a good time to try that theory out.) OK, so dismount the grunts before taking on the enemy tanks, right? I don't think combat always allows for that kind of planning, it's too quick. You'd also have to find a (tactically) good place to dismount those grunts, who now are outside of their armored protection and vulnerable to artillery fire, and incidentally, no longer mobile, so you'll have to go back to pick them up when the tank-to-tank combat is done (if you can even determine if all of the enemy tanks are destroyed). So perhaps I keep dismounts in only some of the Tank/Infantry Carrier Combos. I would keep the ones with infantry further back in my formation, exposing the least number of personnel to the greatest danger at the front of the formation. If the infantry dismount, as a general principle, I would want their carriers to be reasonably close by, so I could pick everyone up and move fast, if I had to. So now I've spent a lot of money on a huge vehicle that has both a big cannon and the concomitant fire control suite (which is exquisitly complex and expensive), room for dismounts to ride in relative comfort, thick armor covering a extremely large surface area - so the vehicle weighs 100 tons, and thus needs correspondingly larger and more expensive engine, drivetrain, etc... and it's hanging back from the fight, since its cargo is too precious to risk unnecessarily. Make no mistake: the fire control systems on a tank are expensive, and can cost more than the rest of the tank! Stabilizing a main gun, providing it with thermal sights, etc, can become very, very expensive. I shouldn't be spending this much money, and then using it as a glorified battle taxi. All this, and I have created a vehicle that is now huge, and is so much easier to hit and harder to hide, maintain, supply, and transport.
 
Quote    Reply

Sabre    RE:Merger of tank and IFV?/AceofW Reply   8/16/2006 1:56:30 PM
The other problem with a Tank/Infantry Carrier combo is that I wouldn't want to send a platoon of tanks into harm's way to kill enemy tanks with a bunch of grunts sitting in back, essentially not contributing to the fight and just waiting to get hit. (Yes, yes, grunts can kill tanks too, I know. Sometimes, in some situations. For example, I don't think a "meched up" battle in table-top flat terrain with lots of enemy artillery and no cover is a good place to try it.) I want to expose as few people as possible in the vehicles that I send into direct-fire contact. Alternatively, I could only have some tanks carry infantry, and keep those further back in the formation, but then I don't get use of their main guns - guns that I paid alot of money for, maintained, and supplied. It's all well and good for a few grunts to hang out in the back of a Merkava, to assault a village, but how long could they stay there? For 750 km and 21 days?
 
Quote    Reply

Sabre    RE:Merger of tank and IFV?   8/16/2006 1:57:37 PM
That's it. I hate the network. Sorry for the double post.
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    RE: Pffff! Aceofw is back!   8/16/2006 2:44:30 PM
Hey Ace, please drop me a line or gimme a buzz on my mobile, willya? I've been worrying about you kid. It's good to see a few recent posts of yours, but please tell me you were typing them from home and not from some unattended MOH workstation in Shikum! All you Merk-4 cavalrymen are our heroes, no doubt about it!
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy