Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV)

[Kunal Biswas]

So do KOLOS TATRA!

Massive firepower does not deter a well dug in enemy, who too have access to massive firepower with the added advantage of knowing the ground better than the attacker.

Battle of Longewala comes to mind!

Longewala attack by PA is flawed from beginning, Using lighter tanks would have caused more causalities to PA account..

A mix of infantry and Armour can dig out any dug in enemy in most cases..

 

[Ray]

Nah, all conflicts prooved that helicopters are too vurnable to be good replacement for armored vehicles. What is a reason to replace highly survivable vehicle that is less expensive by more expensive yet less survivable vehicle?

Ah so now the cost come into the factor.

Then why not have only infantry and not expensive vehicles to carry them and then they do nothing at the objective either!

Or get down and do the normal infantry attack dismounted.

Kolos Tatra vehicles are equally powerful!

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Kunal you have very high theoretical ideas which soldiers are supposed to discard very early..
I can only say, I wish you did some soldiering..

Sorry If I hurt your sentiments...

Soldiering and me or the relation don't matter here, But what i say does it have logic or not, It just my view, If not agreed its fine by me..

 

[Ray]

Longewala attack by PA is flawed from beginning, Using lighter tanks would have caused more causalities to PA account..

A mix of infantry and Armour can dig out any dug in enemy in most cases..

Well in theory yes!

But what are minefields for?

It is to separate the infantry from the armour.

Only a dumb enemy will have no minefield and no nest within those or spoiling attacks and so on!

Battle is not just Bole so Nihal and a cakewalk!

Longewala was not flawed to the extent it is made out to be.

 

[Damian]

I have read US manuals, but since you have read them as it appears, could you give links?

Unfortunetly I did not have access to newer ones, I readed only the old ones when M2's still had firing ports.

So, they have come to have a jolly? Do no constructive stuff but sit inside and have fun?

Why not? Every modern AFV's is designed that way.

Ah so now the cost come into the factor.

Then why not have only infantry and not expensive vehicles to carry them and then they do nothing at the objective either!

Yeah, I see it, offensive on foot, so we are going back to WWI times? Or better maybe we should back to ancient times? Yeah, screw firearms, soldiers, take Your swords!

But what are minefields for?

Minefields? Minefields are easy to go over these days, with MICLIC, with anti mine rollers and blades mounted on tanks.

You think why US Army wanted to go with actually an active mine field? Where instead of classic mines there would be set of platforms with anti personell and anti vehicles projectiles?

 

[Bhadra]

Longewala attack by PA is flawed from beginning, Using lighter tanks would have caused more causalities to PA account..

A mix of infantry and Armour can dig out any dug in enemy in most cases..

Lok Kunal,

Half Knowledge is dangerious !

Longewala offensive by Pak stopped Indian offensive plan towards Rahim Yaar Kahn dead on their tracks.

For Pak it was a massive success at athe cost of a few bloody vehicles called tanks.

They save their arses.... and Indians lent theirs...

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Even with the Russian Assault by Fire concept, all enemy is not obliterated!

Sir, being better Armour and have better firepower is a disadvantage ? retaining most qualities of the previous, of-course not the port holes..

The objective is to end the exsistance of the enemy in the given area, Using Armour to add more punch is a advantage..

that post was specific to Bhadra`s post..

If arriving faster was the criteria, then helicopters is the best answer for troops who are not paratroopers.

And with them there could be Gunships which would have greater flexibility than armoured vehicles! And air support, if needed!

Sir, All three can be together..

 

[Ray]

Unfortunetly I did not have access to newer ones, I readed only the old ones when M2's still had firing ports.



Why not? Every modern AFV's is designed that way.



Yeah, I see it, offensive on foot, so we are going back to WWI times? Or better maybe we should back to ancient times? Yeah, screw firearms, soldiers, take Your swords!

I don't go by what you say.

I go by logic and understanding the the battlefield and not by what a manufacturer has to spin.

One does not have to go back to the ancient times to fight a battle, but one also cannot daydream.

It may be worth your while to learn of how the US inspite of being a high tech army operates in the High Altitude of Afghanistan.

Now see how the ancient war chaps as per you teaches modern armies:

Given the extensive experience of the Indian Army in mountain warfare, troops from other nations regularly train and conduct joint exercises at these schools. Because of its experience in fighting wars in mountain regions for over 50 years, as well as its history of recruitment of natives from the Himalayan regions of India and Nepal (such as Gurkha, Kumaon, Garhwal and Dogras), Indian Mountain Warfare Units are considered among the best in the world. Numerous army units across the world are now implementing training modules modeled after Indian Mountain Warfare training systems.[7] These include forces from UK,[8] US,[9] Russia, etc. In 2004, US special forces teams were sent to India to learn from Indian Army experiences of the Kargil War prior to their deployment for operations in Afghanistan. Russian troops also trained at the High Altitude Warfare School in Gulmarg for operations in Chechnya.[10][11] They also visited Siachen and other Army posts.

Mountain warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Damian]

I don't go by what you say.

I go by logic and understanding the the battlefield and not by what a manufacturer has to spin.

One does not have to go back to the ancient times to fight a battle, but one also cannot daydream.

It may be worth your while to learn of how the US inspite of being a high tech army operates in the High Altitude of Afghanistan.

Now see how the ancient war chaps as per you teaches modern armies:

And what mountain warfare have to armor mechanized forces wrafare?

 

[Ray]

Sir, being better Armour and have better firepower is a disadvantage ? retaining most qualities of the previous, of-course not the port holes..

The objective is to end the exsistance of the enemy in the given area, Using Armour to add more punch is a advantage..

that post was specific to Bhadra`s post..



Sir, All three can be together..

Better firepower and better armour is not a disadvantage.

If not the capability of fighting from inside the ICV and merely being carried, what is the advantage?

Are you aware that a medium or cluster bombs can destroy a tank?

Remember always that a minefield will stop armour. Even if trawls are used, they are sitting ducks being slow.

In the final analysis it is dismounted infantry.

Yet, if feasible in the mounted role, instead of not being able to participate and ward off the dangers being boxed into a fortified coffin, it is better to take on some enemy especially those who are about to use A Tk weapons.

 

[Ray]

And what mountain warfare have to armor mechanized forces wrafare?

To tell you that you don't have to teach Indians how to fight.


We have greater experience in combat than Europeans that you claimed earlier.

We have combat experience in High Altitude, plains, deserts, canal and ditch cum bund, jungles, riverine terrain and in all aspects of warfare to include counter insurgency.

So spare us your homilies!

 

[Damian]

If not the capability of fighting from inside the ICV and merely being carried, what is the advantage?

Advantage of IFV is it's weaponary, IFV it is just APC with better weapons, that's all. And there is no need to fight from inside vehicle for it's dismounts.

Every high tech army sees this, so in demands lists for IFV's there are no firing ports, because why to use them? Why to risk lower armor protection and survivability?

Are you aware that a medium or cluster bombs can destroy a tank?

Are you aware of a fact that everything can be destroyed? But higher survivability is allways a nice thing eh?

To tell you that you don't have to teach Indians how to fight.


We have greater experience in combat than Europeans that you claimed earlier.

We have combat experience in High Altitude, plains, deserts, canal and ditch cum bund, jungles, riverine terrain and in all aspects of warfare to include counter insurgency.

So spare us your homilies!

...

What homilies? Did I say something about teaching Indians how to fight? People are You allways overeacting in discussion when different point of view is showed to You? This is some kind of complex?

 

[Ray]

Advantage of IFV is it's weaponary, IFV it is just APC with better weapons, that's all. And there is no need to fight from inside vehicle for it's dismounts.

Every high tech army sees this, so in demands lists for IFV's there are no firing ports, because why to use them? Why to risk lower armor protection and survivability?

It is your view. Are you a weapons sales person?

What is the tactical advantage is what I have been repeatedly asking.

You keep saying that Europeans know better. They do? They have been fighting wars? The little they have done is hardly laudable inspite of all the brouhaha!

Are you aware of a fact that everything can be destroyed? But higher survivability is allways a nice thing eh?

As a soldier, I would be ashamed to die with firing a shot, even in anger!

BTW, we are not mortally afraid of the body bag that we have to hunker down scared!



...

What homilies? Did I say something about teaching Indians how to fight? People are You allways overeacting in discussion when different point of view is showed to You? This is some kind of complex?

Not over reacting.

It is just that you said that the Europeans have greater combat experience!

The facts belie that statement and that is what I am pointing out.

To give the facts to someone with delusions is not over reacting!

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Well in theory yes!

But what are minefields for?

It is to separate the infantry from the armour.

Sir,

They were not suppose to attack that post on the first place rather head for the real objective, knowing there is little chance of PAF Air-cover..

they could have been brought mine rollers, So does the should not have assault with external Fuel tanks on..

Mine field is there, that can be removed by mine roller, there are etc ways to deal with that too..

 

[Ray]

Damian

Check Post #18

No Ray, but maybe Indians have different experiences with IFV's and APC's, however countries with far greater experience in combat with use of AFV's and in AFV's designing, had resigned from firing ports.

 

[Ray]

Sir,

They were not suppose to attack that post on the first place rather head for the real objective, knowing there is little chance of PAF Air-cover..

they could have been brought mine rollers, So does the should not have assault with external Fuel tanks on..

Mine field is there, that can be removed by mine roller, there are etc ways to deal with that too..

Are you talking of Longewala?

Mine rollers?

The IA had them.

It takes 10 hits and then it is useless!

They could have done many things and so could we.

But war is not a set piece foreseen event.

It cannot be if Aunty had ****, then she would be Uncle!

 

[Damian]

It is your view. Are you a weapons sales person?

No, why I would have to bee weapon sales person?

What is the tactical advantage is what I have been repeatedly asking.

As I said, higher survivability. What do You need anything else if You can't survive on battlefield?

You keep saying that Europeans know better. They do? They have been fighting wars? The little they have done is hardly laudable inspite of all the brouhaha!

In terms of designing AFV's, yes they do, show me anything made in India comparable to SPz Puma for example.

Not over reacting.

It is just that you said that the Europeans have greater combat experience!

The facts belie that statement and that is what I am pointing out.

To give the facts to someone with delusions is not over reacting!

With armor-mechanized warfare? When did India fought a war with just masses of tanks and other AFV's? I must remind You that all theory of designing and using AFV's was born during WWII in Europe, when nations was learning in sweet and blood how to properly design them and properly use.

Mine rollers?

The IA had them.

It takes 10 hits and then it is useless!

Mine rollers can't be used alone, some tanks should be equipped with anti mine blades and there allways should be vehicles with MICLIC or similiar device somehwere around.

Also Russians designed special anti mine active protection for vehicles. It is used to detonate mines with electromagnetic fuzes... You can call it electromagnetic mine roller.

 

[Ray]

Anyway, I have not got the logic of not having portholes and instead being an expensive battle taxi.

I have no further interest and so will leave and go and have dinner.

It is already late since it is 0053 out here!

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Better firepower and better armour is not a disadvantage.

If not the capability of fighting from inside the ICV and merely being carried, what is the advantage?

Are you aware that a medium or cluster bombs can destroy a tank?

Remember always that a minefield will stop armour. Even if trawls are used, they are sitting ducks being slow.

Carrying infantry inside better protected vehicle is a advantage, the men need not to fight from inside as there is a turret with cannon provided to deal with threads, When there is a turret with a cannon why need to fight from inside ?, the logic of enemy can be shot down through portholes also compromise the deign of the vehicle being heavy armored..

I am aware sir, not just bombs many other things, But what best should be there when needed to the extend one can..

Sir, the same can slow the infantry down too, Anti-Infantry Mines..

 

[Ray]

With armor-mechanized warfare? When did India fought a war with just masses of tanks and other AFV's? I must remind You that all theory of designing and using AFV's was born during WWII in Europe, when nations was learning in sweet and blood how to properly design them and properly use.

Live in your world.

I am surprised you are not updated on wars and military history. Living and revel in the past!

For your information, check how many Indian military personnel died in WWI and WWII and so please spare us all that mushy pith about nations were learning in sweat and blood.

I have understood the quality and depth of your grasp of facts.