APC or IFV

TerraN_EmpirE said:

That's the Stryker Broccoli. A APC with remote turret however faces issues. It can't support infantry units if they come under fire from similar vehicles. As the HMG rounds lack punch. The aim of a IFV is medium fire support. It combines the function of a infantry tank with a APC. This means not only can it lay down antibunker and some antitank fire it also allows infantry units mobility. Now you are correct manned turrets eat up space on the inside most APCs have a 10-12 man troop complement but when IFV turrets are installed that drops to a 5-7 man complement. However that's with a manned turret. As you pointed out we have today remote weapons stations and all it takes is some scale to get a IFV with a unmanned turret. Now you can have the best of both worlds.

Click to expand...

Well you could always bring back the M-113 in the form of the M-113A and the upgraded armor with the placement of twin 50Cal MG in an enclosed cupula. The US has 10,000 to 15,000 in storage.

I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

not really solving the problem. Broccli is pointing to a traditional issue with IFV's that is that the manned turret starts from it's roof line and emds at the floor of the vehicle this goes back to my second post where i gave the specs of a Stryker with a 9 man infantry squad vs the NZLAV with only a 6 or 7 man unit. both were are based on the same hull and design. But I also pointed out this.
[video=youtube_share;6nGHIKgvKjE]http://youtu.be/6nGHIKgvKjE[/video]
the Kongsberg Protech Systems' Medium Caliber Remote Weapons Station a 30mm chaingun on a Stryker. as the name implies the station is remote operated form in the hull. the modification is mounted to the hull not in the hull. it more shallow this means the Turret is unmanned. and allows the stryker to keep the full 9 man squad.
[video=youtube_share;F5ivi9K1Sj8]http://youtu.be/F5ivi9K1Sj8[/video]
It's also been tested on the Bradley And offers the potential for a full remodeling of the interior of the M2 to bring the Bradley up to a full 9 man squad.

The Role of that Turret on a IFV is a proven want. it offers longer reach more precision fire and heavier effects then even a large MG.

TerraN old Friend, I guess we are back to the chicken and egg scenario. I seams that the question was asked that the large turrets on many modern IFV have become so large that it effectively cuts down the number of infantry that may be carried in the vehicle. Basically what ends up happening is that they are now carrying 6 combat troops in lieu of the 10 which was carried prior. IFVs seem to be evolving into tanks that can transport infantry.

The question really then becomes “Do we want to have a vehicle that can do it all, or have two versions of the same vehicle”. Also is the primary purpose; combating insurgents and urban patrolling, or is it large scale army maneuvers as we trained for in the cold war?

The answer to both of these questions could be answered the same way. One vehicle (chassis, drivetrain, etc...) but filling two purposes. Imagine if you will a vehicle mounting two separate weapons system. The first vehicle will be our APC/IFV. This vehicle could mount a simple 20mm auto cannon with say a 40mm grenade launcher, with a turret similar to VCTP. This vehicle would be sufficient in its role as an infantry transport vehicle and would provide adequate firepower to suppress the enemy and permit the infantry to perform their required duties.

The other vehicle would be the fire support vehicle which would mount a larger cannon (90mm 100mm with HE rounds) in conjunction with an auto cannon and ATGW. A turret with something along the lines of a BMP-3 turret. This vehicle could be the designated fire support vehicle. And could be integrated in any ratio a particular military deems appropriate. 1 fire support vehicle for every 5 to 10 IFV. Existing stocks of surplus M-113 could be modified to fill this role. Even surplus German Marder or wheeled APC’s.


I will now get back to bottling Malbec

I would agree with what you say here mostly.

However, for the fire support vehic, I'm wondering if three main weapons systems isn't too much perhaps. Having only a bit of ammo for every weapon.
Now, if by FSV you mean something carrying no infantry at all, it might work. However, in full up armored warfare, I believe mech Infantry will remain a requirement. And in those scenarios the APC / light IFV you mention won't do it. It'll require an IFV with a 30-40mm autocannon and ATGM. Perhaps on a remote turret to allow adequate number of Inf to be carried. Also 7,62mm, .50cal, or 40mm Grenade as secondary.

And then, we're perhaps back at three vehicles again.

After the cold war, a lot of GER surplus Leo2A4 were sold in different upgrade states. Maybe something similar, althuogh on a smaller scale, will happen with the Marders.

Scratch said:

I would agree with what you say here mostly.

However, for the fire support vehic, I'm wondering if three main weapons systems isn't too much perhaps. Having only a bit of ammo for every weapon.
Now, if by FSV you mean something carrying no infantry at all, it might work. However, in full up armored warfare, I believe mech Infantry will remain a requirement. And in those scenarios the APC / light IFV you mention won't do it. It'll require an IFV with a 30-40mm autocannon and ATGM. Perhaps on a remote turret to allow adequate number of Inf to be carried. Also 7,62mm, .50cal, or 40mm Grenade as secondary.

And then, we're perhaps back at three vehicles again.

After the cold war, a lot of GER surplus Leo2A4 were sold in different upgrade states. Maybe something similar, althuogh on a smaller scale, will happen with the Marders.

Click to expand...

Yes I should have clarified that the FSV would not carry any infantry. We could simplify the ammunition problem even more my having the follow weapons on the vehicles:

APC/IFV 20mm Auto cannon and 40mm grenade launcher

FSV 100mm cannon with HE rounds and a coaxial 20mm

Both vehicles would have a 50cal or Russian equivalent.



I will now get back to bottling Malbec

APC and IFV Hulls are already widely fielded as the basis of "Fire support Vehicles" that trade infantry for specialties

"Assault Guns","Tank Destroyers", "Mobile Gun systems", "Light tanks" ( like the CV90120T pictured above) Some Howitzers, Mortar carriers and Auto mortar Vehicles, ATGM platforms.
For your 100mm system I point to the MGS/Light tank.
the trend is to use tank guns as it saves money by drawing on existing supplies and ammo. as well as offering the ability to if need be engage enemy armor directly. adding 20mm Chainguns or the like is possible but if you already have a large caliber gun, why? More derp derp?

I dislike Mortar Carriers, and prefer Auto Mortar Vehicles as they keep the crew in the hull and out of the line of enemy fire. They offer not only light artillery but can trash armor or fortification with direct fire of a 120mm mortar shell.
Howitzers are always a need, and getting a SPh on a common hull keeps cost down. Offers long long range and lots of power.
MLRS systems can be built using the chasis and offer even longer range and can fire even missiles.

a 25 or 30mm or higher cannon is more versatile as not only does it fire AP ammo but can unload HE rounds. If your worried about the size and weight of the Turret Most Remote weapons stations can mount chain guns up to 30mm. in fact the only real advantages you would get from a combination Heavy MG/40mm would be a slightly lower weight and the ability to dismount the weapons from the vehicle.

As you can see a M230LF can be mounted on a surprisingly small and compact vehicle. Right now Boeing, Polarus Defence and a few others are testing it for the US Army's ULCV with is little more then a modernized Jeep with a 30mm Cannon. even a 20mm and Mk19 can compare to the range and punch. Pound for pound a 30mm cannon wins in range, power, ease of maintenance, versatility of integration and would take up less space then you combo.

Now we’re cocking with oil TerraN! The CV90 is one of my favorite weapon systems. Same chassis and drivetrain, but different weapons platform; IFV, FSV and lite tank. This really simplifies maintenance, parts logistics and in actual combat pulling parts off of one vehicle and onto another may save lives and the mission.

By the way I concur on the SP mortar. Complete waste of a good vehicle. However, I do like the turret mounted 40mm semi auto grenade launchers. Great infantry support weapon.


FSV


Lite Tank


IVF




I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

Miragedriver said:

Now we’re cocking with oil TerraN! The CV90 is one of my favorite weapon systems. Same chassis and drivetrain, but different weapons platform; IFV, FSV and lite tank. This really simplifies maintenance, parts logistics and in actual combat pulling parts off of one vehicle and onto another may save lives and the mission.

By the way I concur on the SP mortar. Complete waste of a good vehicle. However, I do like the turret mounted 40mm semi auto grenade launchers. Great infantry support weapon.

Click to expand...

FSV Actually Luftvärnskanonvagn (lvkv) 9040 Anti Aircraft the Drum is a Radar



IVF Error Armadillo APC


IFV


IFV with 40mm cannon, Rejected offering for SCOUT SV




I will now be taking away one bottle of Malbec.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

FSV Actually Luftvärnskanonvagn (lvkv) 9040 Anti Aircraft the Drum is a Radar

Click to expand...

Oops! I got over zealous in my photographic google search.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

I will now be taking away one bottle of Malbec.

Click to expand...

LOL! I should not drink and Google . Should I send you some bottles?

Bradley without turret is going to replace M113 in US army just as I suggested.

Defence giant BAE Systems is to supply the US Army with a fleet of armoured combat vehicles, in a contract reportedly worth up to $1.2bn (£770m). The new Armoured Multi-Purposed Vehicles (AMPVs) will replace models that date back to the Vietnam War.

Click to expand...