I would suggest that since each man requires a set volume to occupy, the more volume you need to fit more men in. the more volume that you have, the more armour you need to provide a given level of protection. At some point your IFV becomes so heavy it cannot be effective. Since the F in IFV is for Fighting, you need armour to match. For most armies, operating a 10 man or less squad/section, anything more would be wasteful.

Also, the more men you have in, the longer it takes them to dismount and the more you lose if you run over a big IED/mine.

Also, from a firepower veiw point, the fewer platforms for a given unit means less platforms to mount weapons and the like.

The USMC sees advantages in having a 17 man squad and one 30mm cannon.  At one time, a similarly sized vehicle could accomdate 32 troops but proved inadequate as it was only a 'battle taxi' with no armament and not enough protection. 

 The existing amphibious assault vehicle lacks sufficent armour though armour can be bolted on while the EFV is still in developement and like the AAV-7 carries only 17 troops but provides a stabilized 30mm manned turret.

Would seventeen be acceptable size of dismounts in a similar sized and armed vehicle, a land version of EFV design with limited amphibious capability, that is, no high speed water mode, just what was needed to cross a river or small lake. 

The weight saved could go to increased armour protection. 

 I would mount a heavier gun and ask if  the N-LOS PAM/LAM could be accomodated in a vehicle stretch of from 30 to 37.5 feet.  Perhaps that is too much extra length and weight.

For my money the weapon I'd chose is the 75mm autoloading turret from the RDF tank prototype of the eighties and put it on a larger than FCS sized IFV.  That gun had good antiarmour, artillery and AA capability.

The USMC doubtless has reasons for doing what it does. Most other armies on the planet go for smaller squad sizes.

As for putting an artillery weapon on an IFV, what's the purpose there? Making the most horrendously expensive vehicle that rarely uses even as much as 20% of its capability? The EFV is already $12m-13m each. 

The BTR-50 only carried 20 in the open topped version and was scarcely proof against small arms fire. The hull floor was virtually nothing, and it clocked in at 14 tonnes. It would have to be multiplied by about four before being proof against 14.5mm, let alone RPG7 or IEDs

The German Puma is up to 40+ tonnes, ?5m and only carries 6 dismounts, although it has a substantial amount of armour. That's for a 30mm autocannon and no ATGM.

Then there's the tactical considerations. Why would you want to carry 20 men around?

There's definately an argument for a full section plus a specialist or two, but typical section size is 8-9men with the platoon HQ in its own vehicle. As the HQ is typically smaller, you can bung specialists or comms gear into the HQ wagon.

Although the turret is unmanned, you still need a crew, and it needs to be two (commander and gunner).

For volume for each soldier, if you look at the Artec Boxer site, they cite a troop carrying space of a given volume and equate that to a number of equipped soldiers.

I would replace the 30 mm which is a small weapon with the 75mm hypervelocity gun from the defunct RDF tank because it has better armour penetration, more explosive with the HE round and can fire AA shells with IR fusing and is still complety automatic as it loads from a two ring magazine in the hull of the IFV that has 60 shells that can randomly be selected.

EFV cost is about 17 million and only 573 are to be procured.  Much cost probably comes from amphibious systems.  Delete those and saved weight could go to more armour and perhaps a smaller price tag.

The air threat is so great that an active protection system is needed when it becomes availible to supplement armour by intecepting projectiles which will be on FCS.  You need something to shoot back with to deal with air threat.  The 30mm cannot do that.  A high elevation weapon is needed with reliable means of killing antiarmour helos and aircraft.

Perhaps Stinger could be carried in a mechanized launcher to supplement the 75 mm gun.

30-40mm is ample for engaging attack helicopters, no gun or even manpads can engage aeroplanes at altitude. That's why you have dedicated SAM assets and the reason behind combined arms. Putting everything on one vehicle is daft.

So what are you trying to do with this tank/IFV/thing? With the bigger gun, it looks like you're going for some kind of tank but without the heavy armour.  It's going to be huge and heavy - unable to be transported easily, incapable of using many of the roads or bridges across the world.

The RDF tank was a 12 ton vehicle so the armour and vehicle hull with engine meant a fairly lightweight gun and autoloader.  That gun can provide better fire support and engage tanks in an emergency along with the external TOW or Javelin launcher.  The AA capability might help morale as well as be able to shoot down a helo since proximity fused ammo does not require a direct hit to cause damage to the target like the 30mm does although a 40mm could carry a proximity fuse the 75mm has greater radius of blast/fragmentation damage.  Against a tank, you're talking side or rear shot or maybeye the treads.  Armouring to resist 30-40 mm cannon at least in the front while seeing the whole crew wasn't done in by penetrating AT rounds and active protection to enhance survivability of the individual vehicle.

What's the slant MER on your 7.5cmL40 LPC?

 

In other words, how far does Mister Helo have to sit back to be out of effective range?

 

I bet you that its less; than if a dismounted infantryman had a man-portable SAM.

 

Now the AT question.

 

Does it make more sense to lug around a cannon or an AT rocket if you are an infantryman considering that you can CARRY the rockets and the launcher with you after your ride is corked into a paperweight.

 

Herald

 

 

Do you think that a common rocket launcher that can take a variety of guided rockets might be a good infantry weapon?

 

Yes; I'm well aware that the problems of building a portable SAM launcher into an AT weapon frame is considerable and that the hashup might not be ideal, but if it was possible to build a pointable fire and forget man portable IR SAM, and an AT/bunker buster family of rockets out of a common man carried launcher, would that be useful to a mech infantry fire team rolling around in a tin can, or do you think it makes sense to have two different types of launchers for each target set?

 

Herald