The old tank as APC idea is not new to the Israeli's. For some years now those
Centurions that weren't upgraded to Ben Gurion were turned into Assualt APCs
by removing the turret, placing an armoured superstructure over the turret
well so that the whole thing was about the same size (height certainly) as the
original tank. Extra armour was added all round. Two or three mgs were its
only armament and being Israelis at least one
would be a .50cal. My understanding was that the infantry de-bussed via
doors in the superstructure at the back and over engine decking. They might
also have gone through side doors but I cant remember. Jane's will be the
source here as I cannot recall seeing it in the more popular "reference"
series (osprey, "... in action", etc...). If they are converting further tanks
they will be T55's and T62's some of which the Israelis might have once
upgraded to TI67 (105mm gun and new power plant IIRC). The Israelis don't seem
to go for the IFV idea at all. The most common military vehicle I saw (this is
'95) was the M3 half track mounting a.50cal and at least 2 if not 4 mg's (one
for each corner). You'll find that that is standard practice for any combat
vehicle in the Israeli army that is not a tank. From the Ram Scout cars to
M113 and Zelda. Even the M109's
mount MGs of somesort. Tanks usually have co-ax plus MGs over driver AND
gunners hatches. On occasion (and I think they no longer do it, only in
Beruit) you will see an odd mount with a.50cal over the main gun barrel.
Merkava I's mounted a 60mm mortar as well (but I think this was mostly for
smoke). Israeli theory seems to be that tanks deal with tanks and to deal with
infantry means massed, high volume small arms fire from as many MGs as you can
muster.
Tony. twilko@ozemail.com.au
> At 01:29 17/11/98 PST, you wrote:
I have a copy of Peter Gudgin's Armour 2000 (by Arms & Armour Press,
1990, ISBN 1-85409-044-5) in which he examines the near future evolution
of the tank. It, like all of the 2000 books (Artillery, Sea Power and Air
Power) is very good and very useful to serious wargamers whether present day
or science fiction. He makes two comments of particular interest to us: 1.
Future APCs and other tracked battlefield vehicles should share as many parts
as possible with the MBT to simplify maintenance and reduce overall costs
(compare and contrast with Germany in WW II as an example of how not to do
it). If, instead of making 100 tanks, 200 APCs and 200 other tracks you build
all 500 on a common chassis and drive train you can now afford 600 of them. 2.
Future tanks will be lighter and smaller, using a remote turret to reduce
their silhouette, the autoloader also allowing a reduction in crew.
The first point makes good sense to me though I am less sure of the second.
Israeli APC In the newsletter of the Near Future Study Group, an offshoot of
the Society of Twentieth Century Wargamers (I think) they mentioned a new
Israeli APC, converted from captured T-?? Tanks (cannot remember which).
They removed the turret and made other changes. The passengers exited
through the rear and the vehicle carried only an MG for self-defense,
this prevented heroics on the part of the crew and it had the panzers to
protect it and it carried the infantry to protect the panzers. This brings me
to another question, how sensible are IFVs, surely they are there to get the
infantry to where they are needed, not to fight with the troops on board and
to stay away from hostile panzers. I realize that TOW etc. gives them a good
stand off punch to supplement the panzers' guns but will they survive long
enough to use them?
Los spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Michael Blair wrote:
The
> bradley (and BMP) has the survivability of any other APC with the
As ex-infantry, I can appreciate a good AFV to back me up. The chain
gun or autocannon, a GMS system for nailing armoured threats, or even an LPG
like the 73mm isn't a bad thing to have backing your infantry (plus some MGs).
The armoured transport saves wear on the Two Step Black Cadillacs and keeps
the grunts protected until they deploy. But, I think the question was more
related to do infantry actually fight from a mounted posture and is this
useful? The bradley (IIRC) was fitted with ports for the M231 port firing
rifle thingy and the idea was (at one time) that you could fight the squad
mounted. I don't believe this is done to any significant degree, but someone
please correct me if they know differently. I've never conducted operations
with a Bradley so I could not say. As a footslogger, I wouldn't be fond of
fighting inside what I consider to be an
underarmoured and undergunned missile-magnet.... it might be better
than being in a truck or an M113, but it isn't something I'd be comfortable in
during a battle with enemy armour or ATGMs.
> >realize that TOW etc. gives them a good stand off punch to supplement
Obviously a necessity. But if the battle boils down to two sides standing off
and slugging with APKE rounds at 1500m with ATGMs from the IFVs, the infantry
won't do much. And if you are in close terrain, and such weapons are not able
to use their range capability, the infantry then operates with their vehicles
support being primarily close in fire support.
Especiallly in
> anything but Billiard table terrain. And even on biliard table
Actually, on a billiard table, I'd prefer a 19 ounce cue.
And anyway,
> an straight boxed M113 is in no better postion to withstand hits than
Worse by far, I'd guess.
> <anecdote>
I saw a PIVAD (Vulcan Air Defence) cannon turned on infantry cutouts and
trucks... YIKES. Like a chainsaw. Eats ammo but nothing in its arc would
survive. Holy Jeez but that buzzing is a scary sound if you realize what it
means... and by then you'd be cut in half.
My first ride in a Bradley: I
> was in the turret of a Bradley and the gunner locked the gun onto the
he
> had locked the gun onto a target then was doing donuts and all kinds
That is one technology that the US has a lot of. I think the only power that
might have better weapons stabilization is the Germans on the Leopard II
generation. But it is scary to see an MBT do a belly flop at high speed over a
ridge and the gun not even come off target.
/************************************************
> Michael Blair wrote:
> This brings me to another question, how sensible are IFVs, surely they
They are absolutely ivaluable. The mech rifle company's killing power was
increased dramaticaly by the introduction of IFVs. A casual perusal of the
Mechanized Infantry Company Field Manual will show you that the infantry are
meant to dismount in most circumstances (once within small arms range) during
the attack and on the defense, of course, always. The bradley (and BMP) has
the survivability of any other APC with the added bonus of its weapons. If
you've been in the infanty for more than five minutes, the added advantage is
apparent and appreciated.
> realize that TOW etc. gives them a good stand off punch to supplement
That depends whether you assume IFVs will just sit out there in the open and
trade shots with enemy tanks or whetther they'll use intellligent fire and
manuever and terrain selection to stay alive. Especiallly in anything but
Billiard table terrain. And even on biliard table terrainteh TOW has a range
advantage over a tank main gun. And anyway, an straight boxed M113 is in no
better postion to withstand hits than an IFV.
Tows are stand off weapons. SO if you are attacking a target you move your
IFVs to withinX km and they're used in that role, while other IFVs and tanks
go in
<anecdote> BTW, in an infantry assault the 25mm gun is a great force
multiplier to the squad. They're quite amazing things. My first ride in a
Bradley: I was in the turret of a Bradley and the gunner locked the gun onto
the tip of a telephone pole. Then the IFV vibrated a lot and made a lot of
noise for a few minutes. After that we moved to anotehr site and repeated the
process. When we got back to teh spot where the grease monkeys had been
working on tehvehilcle I asked why they had stopped so many times and revved
the engine. The guys said they hadn't stopped. he had locked the gun onto a
target then was doing donuts and all kinds of high speed manuevers. The whole
time, the gun remained locked onto the telephone pole. Amazing gun
stabilization!
> On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> But, I think the question was more related to do infantry actually
the british vehicle design wallahs were convinced that infantry firing from a
transport achieved (a) waste ammo (b) er... (c) that's it. the warrior thus
has no small arms fire ports (or so i am led to believe). not only is
pointless firing prevented, but it makes the hull that little bit more
resistant to gunfire, shrapnel, gas etc.
> > telephone pole. Amazing gun stabilization!
there is info on some of this sort of thing at www.army-technology.com;
have a look at the Leclerc - it has a computerised mapping thingie which
displays the positions of all the targets as little coloured icons. the
commander's station looks like a games arcade...
Tom
> T-55s. This sort of thing was also done by Canadians in WWII, called
Based on the Sherman chassis, I think????
> This brings me to another question, how sensible are IFVs, surely
The Canadian military is putting into service a series of armoured vehicles
based around the Swiss MOWAG chassis (rather modified). We sell a version of
this to the US as the LAV25 (for the Marines), and to Australia, I think Saudi
Arabia, etc. There are several versions (an APC, a mortar carrier, a TOW
vehicle, a specialized recce vehicle, maybe an ARV, a command
vehicle/ambulance, etc) - most slightly different than the LAV25 (our
version of the APC will carry 8 troops instead of 6 and have the same 25mm
chaingun turret). They were experimenting with a 105mm cannon armed version,
but I don't think anybody has bought it. These vehicles are
designed to be self-deployable (don't need carriers like tanks do), etc.
There is a fundamental difference in design philosophy and doctrine between
these type of vehicles and MBT's. John is quite correct - there is a
real conflict between the use of an armoured infantry vehicle as a "fighting"
vehicle, hence "IFV", and as a simple troop carrier - "APC". The
Canadian military is using a system similar to John's Dirtside battalion
organization - with the infantry carrier armed with an automatic cannon
to provide supporting fire for the infantry AND to fight similar vehicles
(other IFV's/APC's, trucks), and heavy anti-tank missiles concentrated
in a separate platoon attached to the Combat Support Company at the Battalion
level (along with the 81mm mortars, assault pioneers and the recce platoon).
There shouldn't be the conflict between whether the infantry
carrier fights as a "light tank" or to support the infantry - their
primary role should be to support the infantry they carry.
As we design vehicles for use in SG and Dirtside - we have to be aware
of the tactical doctrine governing how they will be used. Is the primary
fighting element the infantiers, or their vehicle? If you have heavy armour
formations and fight a very mobile war of manoever with infantry providing
support to tanks, then you will need apc's with the ability to fight and
survive next to the tanks (ie heavier designs, heavier weapons, heavier
armour). If you have a force focused on infantry as the primary
fighting element, with tanks, GMS-H type weapons, etc. in support of the
infantry - then their vehicles will not need to be as heavily armoured -
the infantiers will be spending less of the "fighting time" buttoned up and
the vehicles will be used differently.
Thoughts???
> the british vehicle design wallahs were convinced that infantry firing
not only is pointless firing prevented, but it makes the hull that little bit
more resistant to gunfire, shrapnel, gas etc.<<
The Brits have always concerned themselves with "wasting" amoo! They resisted
going to full auto capability for infantry small arms, they were amongst the
last to go to semi-auto capability, and once upon a time the major
resistance
to the Lee-Metford box magazine rifle was the fact that troops would
"waster" ammo. Ammo is good to wasteWaste lots! It's heavy to carry, and if
you spread
enough around it is just like manure - a good investment!
> Michael Blair wrote:
> 1. Future APCs and other tracked battlefield vehicles should share as
That's a good idea, unfortunately very difficult to put into practice. We saw
in 1960s (? 70s?) the British produce a whole family of light armored vehicles
with a high degree of commonality, and for many years
most of the tracked vehicles in US Army were varients on the M-113, but
as long as you want to have lighter APCs than tanks, there won't be much
overlap. Of course, now with IFVs, possibly.
> Society of Twentieth Century Wargamers (I think) they mentioned a new
T-55s. This sort of thing was also done by Canadians in WWII, called
Kangaroo?
> This brings me to another question, how sensible are IFVs, surely they
The problem is that a TOW has an effective range of 3,750m. GMS/H has
4,800m. It is to the ATGM-armed vehicle's advantage to keep the range
open. However if you drop off the infantry 3,750m from the target, then you
might as well not have an armored ride for them. If you close with your
infantry inside and fight with the TOW, you're risking your
troops. This is why in Dirtside II, my IFV designs have a RFAC/2 or
MDC/1, and an infantry batallion also has an Anti-tank company with 15
Tank destroyers armed with 2xGMS/H.
> Tony Wilkinson wrote:
> The Israelis don't seem to go for the IFV idea at all. The
According to the books I've read, this largely stems from watching the Syrians
and Egyptians use them like idiots in 1967. Lots and lots of
BMP-1s (not that hot a vehicle to begin with) were used by stupid
Syrians in standup fights with Israeli tanks. Guess who won? IFV does not
spell "tank" and anyone who tries to use it as one should be
court-martialed for gross incompetence. Are also expensive, reduce
number of dismounts, and no one has really come up with a good way to use
them. Also, Israeli infantry is primarily geared up to support tanks. If
you've got 105mm guns, you don't need a handful of extra
20-30mm guns.
> Merkava I's mounted a 60mm mortar as well (but I think this was mostly
Sounds logical to me.
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
> >T-55s. This sort of thing was also done by Canadians in WWII, called
Sort of. It was based on the Ram Kangeroo tank which was a Canadian
designed /
built vehicle that never saw action (at least as a gun tank). The chassis was
actually based on that of the M3 Lee / Grant which predated the Sherman
but was very, very similar.
> Adrian
> On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
> That's a good idea, unfortunately very difficult to put into practice.
> We saw in 1960s (? 70s?) the British produce a whole family of light
This sort of thing would save money with IFV/APC's, but light vehicles
certainly can't have the chassis of tanks and still be cost-effective.
But one hull type for light/support vehicles and one for tanks would
still be a much bigger improvement on what a lot of armies have nowadays.
> T-55s. This sort of thing was also done by Canadians in WWII, called
Yes, the Kangaroo. This was basically a turretless Sherman. My impression is
that this was a Commonwealth thing and not just Canadian, but not I'm not too
sure about that. I bet the infatry liked it a lot. <g>
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
> The Canadian military is putting into service a series of armoured
Sweet vehicle! I've been a fan of buying them for use in our US Army light
units, an idea which perpetually gets kicked around and rejected on the
grounds that there is no way we could ever copy the Marines. Humbug.
> Saudi Arabia, etc. There are several versions (an APC, a mortar
Yup. Definitely an ARV--I've got the minis! I use various LAV
incarnations for my Akritai. The LAV-25 is the light tank, and I use
the logistical varient (boxier rear and no turret) as an APC. Plus
mortars, Tank Destroyer w/ GMS/H (another vehicle which has done some
serious damage in the past). Used properly, my Akritai can hold their
own against real troops--not bad for border guards.
Howdy!
> On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Los wrote:
> They are absolutely ivaluable. The mech rifle company's killing power
The
> bradley (and BMP) has the survivability of any other APC with the
What is current US doctrine with IFVs? I am familiar with Israeli doctrine,
which I think is a bit different...
> BTW, in an infantry assault the 25mm gun is a great force multiplier
he
> had locked the gun onto a target then was doing donuts and all kinds
You're kidding, right?!?:)
That is certainly a defintition of "gun stabilization"...
Ken