APC or IFV
- Thread starter Miragedriver
- Start date
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
A very good IFV only two faults I find in it. The 5.56mm coax and the 6 man squad. The six man squad is common to a number of IFV, the 5.56mm coax was a compromise.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Commonality only with Saw gunners. The Coax is belt feed. every round needs to be belted to feed through that gun only Saw gunners with the MG4 would have that the rest of the infantry would be using box magazine feed rounds to there carbines. in a pinch I doubt the grunts are going to start emptying there magazines grabbing belt links and assembling links.
The US arma wants a bigger gun on it's Strykers (not the MGS ones) for them to be able to take on similar opponents and harras heavier ones.
The main concern is russian BMP-3 / BTR-80/82 type vehicles featuring cannons or even 100mm low-velocity guns. Quite a few AFV designes in use with eastern european armies have 30mm guns as well. And the US Army doesn't want to stand back here.
The main concern is russian BMP-3 / BTR-80/82 type vehicles featuring cannons or even 100mm low-velocity guns. Quite a few AFV designes in use with eastern european armies have 30mm guns as well. And the US Army doesn't want to stand back here.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Now a lot happening with this one. First alot of people are asking "why?" Remember that the US Army already has a IFV family, the Bradley M2A3 and M3A3 armed with a 25mm Bushmaster and Tow II ATGMs also Bradleys have better protection against IFV attack then Stryker.
But on the other side Stryker has better electronics, a larger Infantry capacity 9 vs 7 meaning a whole rifle squad not most of one. The gun is larger at 30 mm (but Bradley has been demonstrated with the same turret and even bigger guns).
So is this really justified? Hard to say.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Okay so gun and armor wise favors the Bradley but then why?
The numbers.
A US ARMY rifle squad is 2 fire teams of 4 men and a squad leader for 9 men. That's bed rock for doctrine.
The Bradley only fits 7 passengers that means that you need 4 vehicles to move a platoon, 12 for a company and so on up. Each of the vehicles squads would be under strength and more vehicles would be needed then necessary. This increased the logistics burden and more or less demanded exemptions for doctrine among Bradley units.
When the Army picked up the Stryker they found once more they had a AFV with a 9 man squad that worked better for deployment and allows the Brigade combat teams doctrine.
To do the same with Bradley would demand a total redesign of the vehicle.
Now the article mentions AMV, Pandou II and CV90 all three have infantry loads of over 9 men compared to IFVs like the Bradley or Puma.
Also consider that the GCV and FCS MGV infantry carriers both were written for 9 passanger capacities as likely does the FGV program. Basically the Army is using the Stryker Bushmaster ICV as a interim IFV to plug the doctrinal hole.
The numbers.
A US ARMY rifle squad is 2 fire teams of 4 men and a squad leader for 9 men. That's bed rock for doctrine.
The Bradley only fits 7 passengers that means that you need 4 vehicles to move a platoon, 12 for a company and so on up. Each of the vehicles squads would be under strength and more vehicles would be needed then necessary. This increased the logistics burden and more or less demanded exemptions for doctrine among Bradley units.
When the Army picked up the Stryker they found once more they had a AFV with a 9 man squad that worked better for deployment and allows the Brigade combat teams doctrine.
To do the same with Bradley would demand a total redesign of the vehicle.
Now the article mentions AMV, Pandou II and CV90 all three have infantry loads of over 9 men compared to IFVs like the Bradley or Puma.
Also consider that the GCV and FCS MGV infantry carriers both were written for 9 passanger capacities as likely does the FGV program. Basically the Army is using the Stryker Bushmaster ICV as a interim IFV to plug the doctrinal hole.
shen
Senior Member
well, this is why Bradley can't do it.
from the article "An infantry or armor brigade combat team could not have done Dragoon Ride," he said. "We just reassured our allies by conducting a 2,200 km movement … and we could not have done that with a different type of formation."
tracked vehicle doesn't have that kind operational maneuverability.
from the article "An infantry or armor brigade combat team could not have done Dragoon Ride," he said. "We just reassured our allies by conducting a 2,200 km movement … and we could not have done that with a different type of formation."
tracked vehicle doesn't have that kind operational maneuverability.
So, TerraN, US infantry doctrine applies to mechanized (or armored?) infantry as well?
I'm just asking to correctly understand that. In the Bundeswehr the "Panzergrenadiere" (Tank Grenadiers?) are a type of combat formation distinct from the infantry. And there a squad essentially consists of all the personall that fits into one IFV.
I also see, and agree with, the point of having proper firepower on lightly armored, highly mobile, essentially motorized infantry formations. However, I would have thought that maybe one or two such heavy weapon vehicles would support a company of standard armed Strykers. There would need to be an unmanned turret of considerable size, I suppose, to hold the weapon and ammo while retaining the room for a rifle squad.
And in a financially constrained "either or" environment that Stryker solution seems like the better one.
That being said, dedicated direct fire support Bradleys with 30mm guns + ATGM and an operators only crew still look usefull to me.
I'm just asking to correctly understand that. In the Bundeswehr the "Panzergrenadiere" (Tank Grenadiers?) are a type of combat formation distinct from the infantry. And there a squad essentially consists of all the personall that fits into one IFV.
I also see, and agree with, the point of having proper firepower on lightly armored, highly mobile, essentially motorized infantry formations. However, I would have thought that maybe one or two such heavy weapon vehicles would support a company of standard armed Strykers. There would need to be an unmanned turret of considerable size, I suppose, to hold the weapon and ammo while retaining the room for a rifle squad.
And in a financially constrained "either or" environment that Stryker solution seems like the better one.
That being said, dedicated direct fire support Bradleys with 30mm guns + ATGM and an operators only crew still look usefull to me.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Mechanized Infantry are still infantry. Trained and assembled as infantry just attached to vehicles. In both these cases you have infantry attached to vehicles, whether a Stryker or a Bradley. What logic is there in having to redesign Armored Infantry units forcing them to loose mission critical personal just because of two seats? I mean US Army Airborne also use 9 man squads why should cav be any different?
Currently Stryker brigades have used the MGS with a 105mm cannon to supply fire support along with Tow missiles from on the tow carrier but the ICVs pack only a M2 machine gun or Mk19 grenade launcher or M240.
General Dynamics demonstrated a modified Stryker with a Kongsberg 30 medium caliber remote turret and M240 coax which seems to be the choice for this. That same turret was also demonstrated by BAE on a M2A2 IFV platform. Currently Bradley features a 2 man turret with a M242 25mm Bushmaster chain gun and TOW missile launcher.
The BAE Bradley remote turret would loose the TOW missiles but up gun and gain some room inside the vehicle. Not alot realistically, but some.
A large number of surplus Bradleys are also about to be converted into Armored Multi purpose Vehicles as replacements for the M113 family which dates to the late 1950s early 1960s as part of that some Bradleys will loose there turrets and have internal restructuring and be re engined this could provide a road map for a Bradley A4 but that is down the line.
Currently Stryker brigades have used the MGS with a 105mm cannon to supply fire support along with Tow missiles from on the tow carrier but the ICVs pack only a M2 machine gun or Mk19 grenade launcher or M240.
General Dynamics demonstrated a modified Stryker with a Kongsberg 30 medium caliber remote turret and M240 coax which seems to be the choice for this. That same turret was also demonstrated by BAE on a M2A2 IFV platform. Currently Bradley features a 2 man turret with a M242 25mm Bushmaster chain gun and TOW missile launcher.
The BAE Bradley remote turret would loose the TOW missiles but up gun and gain some room inside the vehicle. Not alot realistically, but some.
A large number of surplus Bradleys are also about to be converted into Armored Multi purpose Vehicles as replacements for the M113 family which dates to the late 1950s early 1960s as part of that some Bradleys will loose there turrets and have internal restructuring and be re engined this could provide a road map for a Bradley A4 but that is down the line.