Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Are IFVs A Good Idea?


LostCosmonaut
 Share

Recommended Posts

While the vehicle can provide much of that, with modern computing  the individual soldier can provide the same data. 

I am still in contact with many of the guys that stayed in (I did ~16 years) and the miniaturization of much of the equipment we used it amazing. My laser designation equipment was about 50lbs without a battery, now it is the size of a .45. My GPS was the size of a 1/2 gallon carton of milk, now it is a cell phone. My forward entry device was the size of laptop, now it is a ipad mini...   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the vehicle can provide much of that, with modern computing  the individual soldier can provide the same data. 

I am still in contact with many of the guys that stayed in (I did ~16 years) and the miniaturization of much of the equipment we used it amazing. My laser designation equipment was about 50lbs without a battery, now it is the size of a .45. My GPS was the size of a 1/2 gallon carton of milk, now it is a cell phone. My forward entry device was the size of laptop, now it is a ipad mini...   

But it's still more shit that the soldier has to carry, and the modern US infantryman carries a truely obscene amount of kit.  Having some of it on your ride isn't a bad thing. Along with the ability to reach out and touch someone at extended ranges if needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't ever be conclusive to say "the Bradley suffered higher casualties so it's a flawed design" - but I think a look at the actual design supports that. One way to tell if a design was developed poorly is to see if it replaced everything it was intended to (or perhaps just most things) or if it has needed to be complemented or supplemented much sooner than you'd expect.

There are a lot of reasons these things can happen beyond a design being poor, but they are markers for a poorly thought out design. A good example would be the M14. The rifle and its implementation was so unsatisfactory as a standard arm as soon at it began rolling off the production lines the DoD was looking for a replacement. This isn't to say the M14 isn't useful - it clearly has proven to be.

The Bradley reminds me of that. It never replaced the M113 and was supplemented in many roles by MRAPs, Strykers, and even HMMWVs. If anything, 73 Eastings seems like the perfect environment for the Bradley, as it's basically a quasi-tank with good electronics, optics, and firepower. Who cares how big it is when you're smashing into the side of the Iraqi armored divisions!

Well that and there aren't too many positions for infratry to be transported too where the need for surplus rifles outweighs the need to spot and bust Armor from afar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't sticking up for the M113, actually I've heard they sucked, but the Bradley is too expensive and complex to replace them. Period. You need something that's more like an actual M113 replacement (which the Bradley was originally supposed to be!).

 

Bear in mind that BAE has recently won a contract to replace M113's with turretless bradleys

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/12/24/bae-wins-1-2b-contract-to-build-m113-replacement/

Sure, the actual contract for several thousand vehicles hasn't been signed yet, but there are no other realistic options for most of the M113's currently in use

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BMP and Bradley pretty much fill the same tactical roles. I am still a big fan of the BTR, having had the experience training with Russians and riding around in one. 

The armored reconnaissance mission is something the M3 is not very well suited for, having served in a number of cavalry squadrons as the FO, they sucked. The scouts did better dismounted or in M1036. The M7 was better than the m981 but was almost always misused by the attached command and was not as good as the new M1200.  

 

The M113 has really be relegated to rear duty. Ambulances, engineer vehicles, mortar carriers, smoke generators, base security, and command variants. I know they got put into service in Iraq in their original roles due because armored hmmmv are stupid and MRAP hadn't the numbers. 

 

One thing I've always liked about the BMP over the Bradley is that they have an actual fire support variant - the BMP-1 with the 76mm and the BMP-3 with the 100mm gun - that can do direct-fire HE as opposed to the Bradley being stuck with plinking with the autocannon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I've always liked about the BMP over the Bradley is that they have an actual fire support variant - the BMP-1 with the 76mm and the BMP-3 with the 100mm gun - that can do direct-fire HE as opposed to the Bradley being stuck with plinking with the autocannon.

Ask and you shall receive.  I have created a fire support variant of the Bradley equipped with a 105mm howitzer.  Behold!

 

bradley%2Bfire%2Bsupport.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like be a good vehicle

 

hhhhhhhheeeeeeyyyyyyyyoooooooo

It's a great vehicle, it's just not one upon which to build a Mega-Blivet, which seems to be what everyone wants to turn it into.

Slap on turret(s), more armor, then more flotation to compensate, basically destroying what practicality it had.

 

It was designed as a simple, lightly armored semi-amphibious box intended to shuttle infantry into position. 

That the thing had a robust enough drivetrain and running gear to tolerate all the other crap it was tasked with, or the nigh upon infinite variations that mutated from it is testament to it's versatility.

 

But just because someone manages to use a claw hammer as a wrench does not mean it's a good wrench.

Same thing with the 113.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But just because someone manages to use a claw hammer as a wrench does not mean it's a good wrench.

 

Which one does more damage to a Human skull and brain mass in your opinion though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the BTR-50 does the same thing the Gavin does and more (like having armor), im surprised it and the MT-LB arent shown more love in the west

"NIH" syndrome.  I'd point out that both are rather larger than the 113, and one is a bit more modern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"NIH" syndrome.  I'd point out that both are rather larger than the 113, and one is a bit more modern.

 

The MT-LB is actually shorter than the Gavin, and almost as skinny, only really longer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MT-LB is actually shorter than the Gavin, and almost as skinny, only really longer

It's also quite a bit more modern design.. I'd hope it'd be better.

 

I won't argue the inconsequential length and width differences. It's a slightly larger vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was used for artillery tractors. 

Right, but that only had armor for the vehicle crew.  IIRC there was one that had some form of light armor for the passengers as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By Serge
      The Armored Combat Vehicle Puma started as a privat-venture betwen Krauss-Maffei and Diehl in 1983. The two first prototypes were ready first in spring 1986 with a Kuka 20mm two men turret and second in autumn with a Diehl 120mm mortar turret. 
      ACV-Puma was intented as an export armored vehicle of the 16-28 t class. 
       

       
      By 1983 original concept, it was offered with two engine options (400/600hp) to cope with the level of armor protection asked.
      The running gear was a mixt of both Leopard-1 and 2 components :
      - Leo-1 : road wheels, track support rollers, torsion bars and even the driver's seat ;
      - Leo-2 : track adjuster, cooling system components and sproket hub.
      It was possible to run the engine outside of its compartment. 
       
      In 1988, the concept was improved further :
      - the class range reached 38t ;
      - the engines offer was 440 or 750hp strong ;
      - the chassis was now available in two length (5/6 road wheels) and  hight/low profil hull (20cm).

      The ACV-Puma was a contender at the Norwegian IFV programme from 1991 and the Turkish 1987 relaunched TIFV programme.
      Norway chose CV-90 and Turkey, the AIFV.
      (If anyone have information about how it was a serious contender, I'm interested)
      It was also evaluated by the Swiss army in 1991. I don't know if it took part to the Char de grenadiers 2000 programme. 
       

      In 1983´s concept, the difference betwen the low profil hull and the 20cm higher hight profil hull was obtained by a "box shape vertical raised" rear compartment. With the 1988's design, the front slop is now different to achieve a better ballistic protection. 
       
      When considering documentations of this period, it's important to note the mine/IED protection was not a priority like today. 
       
      I'll post soon a scan showing general layout of the troop compartment. It's a Marder/BMP old fashion one with soldiers facing outside. 
       
      Even if it was not a success at exportation, I think ACV-Puma must be known because of both :
      - the outdated combat beliefs of the 80's (still vigourous today) ;
      - and advanced proposal  such as the differential hull length from the drawing board. 
       
      I have a question :
      Does anyone known if a 6 road wheels chassis was ever built ?
    • By 2805662
      The following is derived from various wanderings, discussions, & tyre kicking, and covers an opinion on the forthcoming Land 400 Phase 3 Request for Tender, and is as per June 2018.
       
      General: Phase 2 will significantly shape participation in Phase 3. Costs for the two bidders that weren’t short listed for the Risk Mitigation Activity (GDLS & Elbit Systems) ran into the tens of millions of dollars. Costs for the losing BAE bid could rightly be assessed as double that. Combined with Rheinmetall’s Phase 2-driven “perceived incumbency”, nobody wants to waste money to be a stalking horse on the Commonwealth’s behalf. There is a plausible risk that only Rheinmetall will bid.
       
      Reorganisation of infantry sections: When Land 400 was conceived, Australian infantry sections consisted of two fire teams of four. This drove the initial “eight dismounts” requirement that has subsequently been relaxed. Now comprising three fire times of three, one of those teams will be the vehicle crew, the other two will dismount, for a total of six dismounts. Recent operational experience has highlighted the need for temporary attachment of specialist personnel, so a platform that has some spare seating could still count for it. 
       
      GFE Turrets: One possible tactic that the Commonwealth may seek to use is that of mandating that the Lance Turret, as used on the Phase 2 Boxer CRV, be used as Government Furnished Equipment (that is, purchased from Rheinmetall and provided to suitably configured hulls by competitors). This would simplify the turret training and offer spares commonality across both phases. Perceived savings for “buying in bulk” were (apparently) unable to be realised as Rheinmetall was reluctant to discount its turret. Costs aside, if an offerer has a GFE turret, who owns the systems integration risk? Who does the customer turn to solve potential issues between the turret and the hull when they, the customer, has mandated that particular turret? Commercially, this is a high risk proposition. 
       
      Unmanned turrets: Only GDLS offered an unmanned/remote turret for Phase 2, the Kongsberg MCT-30, as has been adopted in small numbers (81) by the US Army to meet an immediate operational need. A bias against unmanned turrets is unlikely to manifest itself in Phase 3 due to the likely presence of the PSM Puma IFV. Of course, that’ll likely to open the door to GDLS bidding the ASCOD fitted with Elbit’s optionally manned/unmanned MT-30 turret....should they decide to bid at all. 
       
      Likely bidders: This brings us to the inevitable list of potential bidders and their platforms. 
       
      BAE: Unlikely to bid. If they win SEA 5000, that may get them off the bench, as would a requirements set that looks a lot like CV90. In the event that they do bid, the CV90 Mk4 is the most likely platform. 
       
      GDLS: More likely to bid than BAE, but still waiting to see what the RFT looks like. (Tellingly?) Their ASCODs at Eurosatory we’re painted for upcoming European opportunities, not in the distinctive Australian disruptive pattern.
       
      Rheinmetall: likely to offer the Lynx and maybe also the Puma. With the reorganisation of Australian infantry sections (see above) the eight dismounts of the KF41 version of the Lynx are less relevant. Still, the modularity of the KF41 demonstrated at Eurosatory 18 definitely left an impression.  
       
      PSM: As a JV between KMW & Rheinmetall, Puma may be offered separately (unlikely if the Boxer =\= ARTEC in Australia model is followed). In the event that it is offered separately, its high unit cost, without the associated modularity of Boxer, may be a disadvantage. Also, PSM has no experience with industrial partnerships in Australia: a significant disadvantage. 
       
      Hanwha Defense Systems: Korea has been a bit “off” Australian defence opportunities, largely due to the cack-handed way in which the cancellation of the K-9/AS-9 was handled in 2012. The AS-9 was viewed as a loss-leader, primarily as Australia has a reputation of being a discerning (aka difficult) customer. If Hanwha bids their K21, it’ll be interesting to watch. 
       
      Whilst no means exhaustive, the above outlines some less-obvious factors currently at play for the 450-vehicle opportunity that is Land 400 Phase 3.
    • By delfosisyu
      I can't read russian or ukraine language so the range of information is very limited for russian AFVs.
       
       
      I'd like to have information about how fast turrets of soviet IFVs rotate.
       
       
      Especially BMP2, BMP3, BTR-82
    • By Belesarius
      http://www.janes.com/article/53057/boxer-the-favourite-for-lithuanian-ifv-buy
       
      30mm Cannon and Javelins for armament.
      Is that the first vehicle mounting the Jav?
       
×
×
  • Create New...