The testing has to be done that way because the BMP-2 is a threat vehicle, whereas the the Bradley, Warrior, Puma, etc., are not. It has nothing to do with ego, but everything to do with what recent and potential future enemies are equipped with. Armies have to prepare this way. To pit Strykers against Warriors or CV-90s makes no sense when they will almost certainly never be opponents in battle, but BMP-2s have been fought and may be fought in the future.
The Armoured Personnel Carrier APC / Infantry Fighting Vehicle IFV
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
The testing has to be done that way because the BMP-2 is a threat vehicle, whereas the the Bradley, Warrior, Puma, etc., are not. It has nothing to do with ego, but everything to do with what recent and potential future enemies are equipped with. Armies have to prepare this way. To pit Strykers against Warriors or CV-90s makes no sense when they will almost certainly never be opponents in battle, but BMP-2s have been fought and may be fought in the future.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
although in the modern age when almost every thing is for sale..... it might be a good idea to start looking at older Alied generation gear once in a while.
RedMercury
Junior Member
Sure I understand you train against likely threats. But this also makes your statement about ATGMs quite hollow. You're saying a previous generation ATGM system is not very effective against a system that was probably designed to counter it.
How is my statement hollow? I don't quite understand what you are saying. If you read the report on the MAIS Trials that I provided the link to, you will find that most engagements took place at ranges of 1,400-1,700 m. The LAV-III Strykers found that their 25 mm cannon could penetrate the BMP-2 at those ranges, but the 30 mm cannon of the BMP-2 couldn't penetrate the front of the LAV-III until around 800 m or less, forcing them to use their ATGMs. The LAVs in turn countered the use of the ATGMs by closing within 1,200 m of the BMP-2s, but staying out of the 800 m lethal range of the BMP-2s 30 mm cannon while remaining close enough to kill them with snap-shots from their own 25 mm cannons, whereas the BMP-2s had to rely on slow-moving ATGMs at the same range. It was tactics as much as technology that gave the Stryker the edge over BMP-2.
The tactical problem for all ATGM launchers and ATGM-armed vehicles is that in an otherwise more or less level contest, the deck is usually (not always) stacked tactically in the gun's favour vis a vis the missile. A tank gun or IFV autocannon can snap-shoot and send a sabot round towards its target at a mile-a-second; an ATGM launcher, man or vehicle, cannot, at most a few hundred metres per second. One-on-one, the gun usually beats the missile, especially since missiles often don't get to use their range of a few kilometres due to terrain or bad visibility (something that even the best sensors can't always negate).
If a TOW-armed vehicle had been placed in the same tactical situation as the BMP-2s, for example, it would have fared no better given the typical engagement ranges of 1,400-1,700 m. The problem for IFVs is that they have no recourse other than to ATGMs for weapons that have any chance, however, remote, of a head-on kill to a current-generation MBT. Even most Infantry anti-tank weapons exist at least as much for the psychologial value as for any actual anti-tank capablity the may have. Tanks are usually very hard to kill, especially head-on, and most of the time that's the only part of them that the enemy gets to see and shoot at.
Last edited:
When using ATGMs, dismounted infantry has a better chance of defeating/inflicting casualties on MBTs than IFVs/APCs because an infantry unit with a tripod mounted launcher is far less visible than an exhaust belching vehicle. That gives them a chance to get off the first volley, and reduces the tanks ability to snap-shoot the target because an anti-tank round has minimal antipersonnel affects.
Of course, the infantry can still be overrun, and infrared sights make things easier on the tanks. But when APCs/IFVs are facing oncoming MBTs it is, I believe, a good idea to dismount the infantry and let them take on the MBTs.
Of course, the infantry can still be overrun, and infrared sights make things easier on the tanks. But when APCs/IFVs are facing oncoming MBTs it is, I believe, a good idea to dismount the infantry and let them take on the MBTs.