The Armoured Personnel Carrier APC / Infantry Fighting Vehicle IFV

Norfolk said:

The Russians and Ukrainians are really getting into the Heavy IFV (HIFV) concept. Besides the Russian BTR-T (based on the T-55) and the BMP-T, the Ukrainians are building upgraded T-72s and T-84s as HIFVs (as the BMT-72 and BTMP-84 HIFVs respectively), complete with 125 mm main guns, 3-man crews, and room for 5 infantrymen entering and exiting out through a rear door.

BMT-72 HIFV:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The BMT-72 weighs 50 tonnes and carries 30 125 mm main gun rounds.

BTMP-84 HIFV:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Likewise, the BTMP-84 weighs 48.6 tonnes and carries 36 125 mm main gun rounds.

Both the BMT-72 and the BTMP-84 HIFVs carry gun-launched ATGMs. These are powerful vehicles, and able to take a real beating. But when they carry only 5 infantrymen each, all that firepower seems somehow wasteful. It takes two HIFVs to carry a single Russian or Ukrainian Army 10-man Infantry Section; consequently at least 7 such HIFVs would be required to carry an Infantry Platoon rather than the usual 4. It seems that the Russians and the Ukrainians may have taken the lessons of the Battle of Grozny a little too far. Nevertheless, intriguing vehicles.

Click to expand...

The problem I see with HIFV's is that they are less deployable compared to regular IFV's. These things are as heavy as tanks, and as such, you will need a tank transporter to carry them to the front lines, as these things are tracked vehicles. With the current wars we are fighting, namely asymmetrical warfare, where the front line is not clearly defined, these tank transporters are vulnerable to attack. I would rather prefer to see a IFV be self deployable in that it can drive itself to the front lines quickly and easily without the need for a tank transporter.

Well, HIFVs aren't going to be the bulk of the army. Tanks in general never was. So I don't think 5 troops in a tank is real problem. Afterall, it's a tank first and foremost. T-72s and 84s don't have the armor that you can get nowadays in Western armies, so I myself wouldn't put all the eggs in one tanks.

another issue is weight. HIFV's like namer weigh about the same as the tanks they are based on and most modern and older MBT's are not what you call transport friendly. so i doubt your going to see a M1APC or other military that must deploy overseas in a rapid operation capability any time soon.

the real popularity is to MRAP's and 6-8-even 10 wheeled armored vehicles

Pointblank, Sumdud, TerraN_EmpirE, partially agree with you guys. The three of you are quite right that weight is an issue and that HAPC/HIFV built on MBT chassis aren't suitable for rapid deployment (goes without saying). Lighter vehicles may be more suitable under certain circumstances, but lighter vehicles, practically speaking, are best suited to internal security/aid to the civil power tasks. Rapid-deployment forces such as Airborne Divisions and the like require small numbers of light tanks and similar vehicles.

Russian and Ukraininan Motor Rifle and Tank Divisions would require a lot of these vehicles, several hundred per division.

As far as only carrying 5 infantrymen per HIFV, well, as Sumdud said, it's good to avoid the loss of an entire squad/section if you lose a vehicle; on the other hand, it means the squad/section dismounts in at least two separate halves (risky and causes disorganization under fire), and it about doubles the number of vehicles that need to be crewed, supplied, and maintained, etc. It would be interesting to see how this concept worked in battle.

Light vehicles are no substitute for the heavy stuff in the main force battle though, in medium- and high-intensity warfare. And these forces aren't intended for rapid deployment (not that they're capable of said anyway). Only the heavy stuff has a decent chance on that kind of battlefield, and the bulk of most armies is still composed of Infantry Divisions with limited quantities of heavy armour, and Armoured Divisions which, obviously have large quantities of heavy armour. Those forces need something like the HAPC for their roles.

I think the HIFV concept (especially what the Ukranians and Russians are doing) would work out if they were employed in a sort of hi-lo mix, since its not feasible to arm really large formations with these vehicles. A division would have one unit of Motorized Infantry riding into battle in HIFVs to lead the assault and take on more heavily armed enemy units, sort of acting as the mailed fist of the infantry. The other infantry units, riding in lighter IFVs and APCs would operate on the flanks and follow up the attack, and provide the bulk of the manpower.

Something that might best fit here. Three weeks ago, the Bundestag's budget committee cleared the buy of 405 new Puma IFVs for some € 3bil starting in 2010 through 2018 I think.
The Puma will stay with a 30mm main gun, wich enables it to hold as much as 200 ready to fire rounds, while the drawback is a potential lack of firepower against modern armor. The Eurospike missile is to be fitted also. Another point is the uncommon use of the 5,56mm MG4 as the secondary weapon. Although it again enables the IFV to carry many rounds, it may be a little underpowered. The housing is said to be able to also hold the MG3, though.
And once the A400M gets ready, it'll even be air-deployable.

It's not likely that you can punch through most armoured vehicles with an auto cannon anyway(Unless they give you their backside, not likely.), I too would've stayed with a 30mm, especially you are talking about 200 rounds.

But the MG4 is really underpowered. It's built for infantry, not vehicles......
What's the gun suppose to do anyway??

sumdud said:

It's not likely that you can punch through most armoured vehicles with an auto cannon anyway(Unless they give you their backside, not likely.), I too would've stayed with a 30mm, especially you are talking about 200 rounds.

But the MG4 is really underpowered. It's built for infantry, not vehicles......
What's the gun suppose to do anyway??

Click to expand...

I can tell you that 25mm rounds will sail through the turret of a Leopard 1 tank pretty easily...

Pointblank said:

I can tell you that 25mm rounds will sail through the turret of a Leopard 1 tank pretty easily...

Click to expand...

The problem is, an IFV isn't very likely to live long enough to get around to the rear of a modern composite-armour clad MBT to do that under most circumstances; back of a Leopard 1 turret was only designed to keep out HMG fire. An IFV without ATGM will not survive a head-to-head confrontation with an MBT, and even with ATGM is still rather unlikely given the snap-shooting capability of an MBT main gun versus a much slower ATGM, aggravated when the latter is laser- or wire-guided rather than fire-and-forget. Check out the report on the MAIS Trials pitting Leopard 1s and Strykers aginst T-72s and BMP-2s; even with Leopards out front, 18 out of 23 LAVs lost were killed by T-72s, only 5 by BMP-2s, while only 1 Leopard was killed an an AT-5 from a BMP-2 while the Leopards killed 26 BMP-2s in turn and Stykers killed 104 BMP-2s while BMP-2s killed only 5 Strykers (wire-guided ATGMs aren't necessarily all they're cracked up to be:

And strykers and bmp-2 are generations apart, why compare apples to crabapples unless all you want is an egoboost?