Chinese infantry fighting vehicles

TerraN_EmpirE said:

That would depend on the build of the vehicle. Most Modern IFV have modular armor across the frontal arch that is rated to stop 30mm rounds.

Click to expand...

On paper, yes, many IFVs are rated to take up to 30mm these days. But I'm positing that even if you gave me Pumas with AMAP-B panels, and they start taking 30mm hits, I'm still gonna get shredded. Even if they take frontal hits and their optics survive the initial burst (magically), I'm not trusting their frontal armor against 30mm. That's their absolute limit. I'm gonna assume it will fail very quickly. And that's already assuming the initial burst came exactly from the front, and not from a weird angle, in which case I'm kaput from the first round. Lets not forget, IFVs are supposed to Fight Infantry, not other IFVs. (That's supposed to be the job of MBTs, artillery, CAS/gunships etc.) If my IFVs start taking cannon fire, I already completely f***ed up tactically.

Rant on
There is a general point to be made here, regarding a confusion in the intended mission for many platforms these days, including IFVs. If their purpose is to fight infantry, why are they continually being up-armored so much? All that's doing is making them less effective at their actual mission, which is to support your infantry, against enemy infantry, which requires very high mobility across terrain that can be very unsuited for heavy armor. I suspect it has a lot to do with the marketing teams of all the defense contractors. They pitch these products to people in procurement departments, who are mostly interested in securing their retirement consultancies at Lockheed etc.
Rant off

Ok but what will happen if a puma IFV faces a US LAV AD frontally and the later one uses it's GAU-12/U 25mm Gatling gun against the puma. Will the puma still hold?

Against 25mm? Probably. But that's still a tactical failure. If your Puma is facing a LAV-AD, the technical term for that situation is a "clusterf**k." Imagine the debrief after the engagement. You think the Puma commander is gonna get any brownie points? I don't think so. Was he employing the tools at his disposal correctly? Definitely not.

Mech Infantry is analogous to shock cavalry lancers. Their job is to either flank through the path of least resistance, OR wait until the defenses have been whittled away, and then storm in and mop up the remaining infantry quickly. If the enemy IFVs are still active in the area, you're not supposed to deploy your own IFVs to engage them. That's like sending in shock cavalry to attack shock cavalry! That's not what they're for.

Mohsin77 said:

IFVs are supposed to Fight Infantry, not other IFVs.

Click to expand...

Not quite they are supposed to support Infantry. yes most if it just sits there it’s going to fail eventually but the same is true for most tanks.
They replace traditional APC the “Battle Taxi” Which was just to drive to the combat zone then depart leaving the grunts to fend for themselves.
IFV are supposed to be able to support the Infantry and offer offensive support vs Vehicles of equal class. In some cases even heavier than.
in the Gulf war. Bradley IFV took on and defeated both T72 and BMP1 by combination of TOW missiles and the 25mm gun.
The Russian BMP3 packs a combination of ATGM, 100mm gun, and Russian 30mm gun There next gen aims to a 57mm with ATGM. The US Stryker has been getting a 30mm but the OMFV program aiming for a 50mm gun well the British and French are getting 40mm guns. Some IFV already have 35mm to 40 mm guns. These guns weren’t chosen just to chew up structures and infantry but to chew up other IFV and even potentially get mission kill vs an Enemy MBT. They are not to kill infantry if that was the task why bring infantry?
They are supposed to support the squad in their belly. By offering firepower that we’ll out classes what they organically carry in the event that the Infantry face a far heavier target.
If the Goal was just to kill Infantry they could have far more easily mounted grenade launchers or heavier MGs. Like the North Korean or Iranian BMP knockoffs. But the First IFV rolled out with 20mm cannons. The BMP1 with a 73mm and then Bradley with 25mm and others with 30mm why? AP! Better AP! They were looking at killing vehicles. The 35 and 40mm guns AP better vs 30mm protected vehicles. The 50mm, 57mm kill or disabling just about anything that they face off against. ATGM features ditto.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

....yes most if it just sits there it’s going to fail eventually but the same is true for most tanks.

Click to expand...

Not really, unless you're up against obsolete tanks. Against the frontal armor of modern tanks, 30mm APDS shots will barely leave a scratch. Those sabots will shatter on impact. Maybe after thousands of hits in the same spot, but I doubt even that. If you wanna kill an M1 SEP or an Altay etc. with a 30mm, you'd have to get hits on its top armor. Gunships can frag them, because their shells land from the top.

If you're in an IFV and you spot a modern tank, unless you have tank cover of your own, you're done. Your autocannon is more of a liability than a weapon in that situation. If you fire it at a tank, you're just pissing him off. A few seconds later, you will be blown to oblivion by him and the rest of his squadron. Best option for you is to hide, pop smoke and fall back. But this should be rare because you would have tank cover of your own.

If the Goal was just to kill Infantry they could have far more easily mounted grenade launchers or heavier MGs.

Click to expand...

Come on man, you know that's not right. There's no grenade launcher or MG on earth that can achieve the effect of a 30mm HE shell at range. Plus, it can punch through massive cover and it even has programmable air burst these days. Autocannons are still primarily anti-infantry weapons. Their anti-armor capability is secondary. That's why they have many more HE rounds in their magazines than AP.

Not quite they are supposed to support Infantry....They replace traditional APC the “Battle Taxi” Which was just to drive to the combat zone then depart leaving the grunts to fend for themselves.

Click to expand...

Exactly. But when in a battle do you push a position with your mech infantry? You do that after softening it up with the combined fires of your tanks, gunships, CAS etc. So your IFVs wouldn't even engage until massive fires have already been called.

.... in the Gulf war. Bradley IFV took on and defeated both T72 and BMP1 by combination of TOW missiles and the 25mm gun.
The Russian BMP3 packs a combination of ATGM, 100mm gun, and Russian 30mm gun There next gen aims to a 57mm with ATGM. The US Stryker has been getting a 30mm but the OMFV program aiming for a 50mm gun well the British and French are getting 40mm guns. Some IFV already have 35mm to 40 mm guns.......................

Click to expand...

OMG, again with the Gulf War... just get over it already. We're discussing traditional doctrine as applied against near-peer forces with comparable combined arms, intel and tactics here. Good luck sending in a pure Bradley/Stryker convoy against an armored or mech formation today. (Hint: They're gonna get shwacked before they even spot any IFVs.)

How vulnerable are modern tank optics to 30mm HE rounds? If an IFV only has its 30mm gun (no ATGM) in an encounter with a tank, perhaps its best chance of survival is to knock out the tank's optics.

Better question: What are the chances that you'll even get to even fire your 30mm before the tank kills you? Not very good.

But what really concerns me is this remark:

...If an IFV only has its 30mm gun (no ATGM)....

Click to expand...

Are you implying that ATGMs would even the odds? Because the won't. The reason you have ATGMs on IFVs is for digging in against counter attacks. When advancing, IFVs are behind tank cover and are being escorted. Maybe they can help out a little from the rear, but they are not striking until the heavy threats have been dealt with. Their ATGMs really come into play in defense, when their infantry has to hold the ground they've captured. And even defensively you would still need support of your own tanks/artillery/CAS etc. You definitely don't want to attack tanks with only IFVs. If you advance on armor with ATGM equipped IFVs alone, you may get a lucky kill or two, but they will evaporate your entire formation.

Let's play this out. First, they will call in smoke to blind you and take away your range advantage. Then they will counter attack, advancing all around you. Once you're in range of their main guns, they will BBQ you alive. Tanks can acquire and fire way quicker than your ATGMs. Also, the time on target of a cannon shell is way faster than your ATGM's flight time. But even assuming that you popped your ATGM before dying (and assuming its fire n forget) the chances of that lone ATGM getting a kill on an MBT by itself are pretty low these days. Either these new APS's would hardkill it, or the tank can break lock with countermeasures, IR smoke and maneuver.

Note: I'm not trying to sound like an Armored Division fanboy here (I'm an air power fan boy) but you have to give armor its due respect. It is still your Queen piece on the land warfare chessboard. Yes, a pawn can still kill your Queen. But if you get your Queen killed by a Pawn, then its your own fault, not the Queen's. Just recently, the Turks got some Leopards destroyed by Kurds and Israeli Merkavas got their butts handed to them by Hezbollah, all because of ATGMs. But if you dig into the details, in every case it was a result of bad tactics. But with these newer APS systems, even bad tactics would be much more forgiving. The main threat for tanks are other tanks, gunships, guided-artillery etc. (and of course Air Power/CAS reigns supreme.) But IFVs are not a major threat to tanks. I'll put it this way: If IFVs are your heavy lancers, than Tanks are my cavalry archers. There's no contest here. My unit will literally run circles around yours, until you're a shish kabab.

Mohsin77 said:

Not really, unless you're up against obsolete tanks. Against the frontal armor of modern tanks, 30mm APDS shots will barely leave a scratch. Those sabots will shatter on impact. Maybe after thousands of hits in the same spot, but I doubt even that. If you wanna kill an M1 SEP or an Altay etc. with a 30mm, you'd have to get hits on its top armor. Gunships can frag them, because their shells land from the top.

Click to expand...

Or to optics or to the rear of the tank. The armor is thickest to the front and gets weaker as you go aft. Hits the the track, engine compartment or optics will disable the ability of the tank to move or fight. In some cases a 30mm shell to the turret ring will jam it. However that the true of both IFV and Tanks which is my statement on modern heavy IFV and unarmored IFV. It’s not magic.

Mohsin77 said:

Come on man, you know that's not right. There's no grenade launcher or MG on earth that can achieve the effect of a 30mm HE shell at range. Plus, it can punch through massive cover and it even has programmable air burst these days. Autocannons are still primarily anti-infantry weapons. Their anti-armor capability is secondary. That's why they have many more HE rounds in their magazines than AP.

Click to expand...

Tanks also have more HE than AP because of the same deal... Man.
The main gun will crew up fortified positions and structures just as well.

Mohsin77 said:

OMG, again with the Gulf War... just get over it already. We're discussing traditional doctrine as applied against near-peer forces with comparable combined arms, intel and tactics here. Good luck sending in a pure Bradley/Stryker convoy against an armored or mech formation today. (Hint: They're gonna get shwacked before they even spot any IFVs.)

Click to expand...

Misconception 1) the Gulf war wasn’t fair.
The fact is the Iraqis had combined arms they had then modern Soviet equipment. They weren’t just a bunch of hicks with AK. The Gulf War is the single conflict in the last 40 years that comes closest conventional army against the a top tier military. IE it was Peer to Near Peer.
Misconception 2) Stryker doesn’t partner with Bradley. Stryker is actually a replacement for Humvees. It’s targeted to Infantry Brigades becoming Stryker Brigades. Brigades what by the way Also have Abrams in the Mix.
Bradley always partners with Abrams the two were designed to partner from the start. In the Gulf Bradley were the spotters Abrams were the shooters. In modern Heavy Brigade Combat Teams.

Basically stop trying to dictate the terms.
IFV may have been intended early on just to fight infantry but as time progressed they became anti vehicle as well. The 30mm is just the default.
The addition of ATGM to IFV made them effective killers of both tanks and other IFV. Where before they could only disable or kill under set situations.
The key factor of survival is Shoot First Kill First. Digging in is what gets you killed. That was what happened to the Iraqis they dug in and American forces cut into their assembly areas before the enemy could man up. The result was by the time the vehicle crews were at their vehicles the vehicles were smoking flaming wrecks.

Hi TerraN_EmpirE

May I know your opinion regarding the next gen IFV gun , the russian 57mm ,the german? ,the US? and especially China Norinco 40mm. The Russian seems to have an ideal gun selection for both AA and AT role.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Or to optics or to the rear of the tank. The armor is thickest to the front and gets weaker as you go aft. Hits the the track, engine compartment or optics will disable the ability of the tank to move or fight. In some cases a 30mm shell to the turret ring will jam it. However that the true of both IFV and Tanks which is my statement on modern heavy IFV and unarmored IFV. It’s not magic.

Click to expand...

Yea, I know. I was replying to your remark on frontal armor, because that's what we were discussing... Why are you talking about side/rear now? (stop baiting and switching).

Either way, you shouldn't be equating the case of the IFV to the Tank, because the tank's main gun out ranges and over powers the 30mm by orders of magnitude.

Tanks also have more HE than AP because of the same deal... Man.

Click to expand...

No. That is (very) incorrect. That would only happen in Urban/COIN ops where the enemy doesn't have any armor. And how many times do I have to say that we're discussing traditional doctrine against 'near peer' foes?! In a traditional scenario, MBTs may not even even carry any HE.

The default ammo split for an M1A2 has APFSDS and MPAT only (MPAT is just HEAT, and I hope you know the difference between HE and HEAT, the latter is anti-tank shaped charge, not HE for anti-infantry/structures.)

That split (for the 18 ready) is: 11/7, APFSDS/MPAT. Sabots are reserved for enemy armor, and MPAT for lesser vehicles like APCs/IFVs. Once they've cleared enemy vehicles, then their own IFVs (at the rear) go in to deal with enemy infantry, and tanks move on to bigger and better things. If you have a couple of HEs in stowage, you use them on infantry, but don't get distracted. Let your IFVs deal with that. You need to focus on hunting and killing other tanks and IFVs so that your own infantry/IFVs are secure in obliterating enemy infantry.

In comparison, IFVs always carry more HE than APDS, because their primary role is anti-infantry.

Misconception 1) the Gulf war wasn’t fair.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about "fair" ? There is no "fair" in warfare (no pun intended.) But it definitely wasn't "near peer" by any stretch of the imagination. The US was conducting network centric warfare against a non networked military with completely incomparable air power (which is by far the most important factor in modern warfare.) I could write you an entire essay on all the advantages the US had in 1991, not just against Iraq but over every military on the planet at the time. There's a reason why even Russia and China were shocked at 1991 and quickly started restructuring and overhauling. But many of those advantages simply don't exist anymore for the US.

Point being: Are you seriously going to use 1991 as your model for China or Russia in 2020? Well, maybe you will, but definitely not your generals. So stop bringing it up, for your own good. It adds nothing to this discussion. And by the way, you've lost 2 wars since then against kids with AK-47s, so stop pumping your chest already.

Misconception 2) Stryker doesn’t partner with Bradley.

Click to expand...

....What are you even talking about? I never said they don't partner. I said if this partnership went up against an armor by itself without tank cover, it would get obliterated.

Basically stop trying to dictate the terms.

Click to expand...

I will dictate terms as I please, because you pinged me, I didn't ping you. And I'm only interested in discussing traditional near-peer doctrine, not COIN/Urban ops or outclassed foes using obsolete tech and tactics. So if you want to engage me, then either get on my train, or get off. But don't tell me to change tracks.