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     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
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

aceofw    RE:Merger of tank and IFV?/S-2 Reply   8/16/2006 7:44:09 PM
Ranges were typically short, when you're on one hill and they are in a village on the next one. Short range for tanks, but long enough for ATGM to be fired from buildings. Yes, we did use artillery to supresse and destroy on ATGMs identified, that's better than using the main gun (not that we didn't use the main gun as well) because it has better effect on buildings, and it doesn't require you to be exposed.
 
Quote    Reply

aceofw    RE:Merger of tank and IFV?/Saber Reply   8/16/2006 7:55:36 PM
You really didn't understand what I said, in fact, you unerstood quite the opposite. I said the job of fighting and the job of carrying infantry should be seperated to different AFVs. Also as you mentioned, a heavily armored but lightly armed APC is also likely to be much cheaper than an IFV and will have moe room for the infantry. We do not carry Infantry inside merks for assault purposes, it's ineffective, we do however often used merks to evacuate wounded man quickly from under heavy fire. We also have a "Tankbulance", a merk that had most it's ammo taken out, and instead prepered so a doctor/medic could have all his medical supplies on hand and will have enough room to comfertably treat a patiant.
 
Quote    Reply

Sabre    RE:Merger of tank and IFV?/AceofWar   8/17/2006 7:58:25 AM
Actually, Ace, I didn't mean to reply with your name in the subject line (sorry, that was a mistake, since our network can be so hellishly slow sometimes... and I'm not terribly patient.) I certainly wouldn't want to field a Tank/Infantry Carrier combo - I agree that they should be separate AFV's. I've seen people advocating a Tank/Infantry Carrier combo cite reports that the Merkava can carry 10 troops (and I think that number keeps growing every time that I see it). It's good to hear, from someone who certainly knows, how it is actually used - for emergencies / casualty evacuation. I just didn't want anyone to imagine the Merkava routinely carrying 10 troops, along with 80+ rounds of main-gun ammunition at the same time, for weeks on end. I think that would get a little... cramped.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:Merger of tank and IFV? - aceofw   8/17/2006 8:38:44 AM
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. Hmm, my history on the Brad is a bit rusty, but I don't think its weight limits had anything to do with air-mobility. IIRC, the general thinking was we (the U.S.) wanted something heavier than the M113, but probably didn't want the logistics burden of an all tank-chassis heavy force. 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. Some of the current conflicts exhibited short ranges (Israel in Lebanon, OIF), but other semi-recent conflicts did not (ODS). HAPCs are fine if you don't have far to go with them (Lebanon). But dashing across 500 miles of desert with an all 50+ ton heavy force will place huge strain on the logistics system. 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. Agreed, in close terrain against an entrenched enemy with ATGMs, the Brad is significantly more vulnerable. The advanced gunner & commanders optics on the Brad can offset this a little, by improving the Brad's situational awareness, but I would still want to be riding in a HAPC. 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. Consider what NATO was facing in central Europe during the height of the cold war - 5+-to-1 ratio against in AFVs. In this scenario, the number of AT systems we could field was paramount - 16 AT systems vs 8 definitely mattered.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Merger of tank and IFV?   8/19/2006 5:21:39 PM
I think we are talking different horse for different courses! There is the division into armoured, mechanised and light forces. The converted T-55's (I call them mother-in-laws, which should be a fair translation of the hebrew name) are splendid for keeping up with tanks in difficult terrain. I agree with aceofwar that infantry fighting should be done dismounted; but there is a definate advantage in surviving an ambush with a nasty ATM/RPG. As I see it: The infantry problem is not so much enemy tanks, as your own tanks will handle them in the period it takes for infantry to dismount and set up firing positions. Then Your own tanks can pull back for a moment to regroup - protected by positioned infantry. The problem in Lebanon seems to be that there was no enemy tanks; but the infantry needed the firepower of cooperting tanks.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.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