Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV)

[Bhadra]

Today, world needs to generate, control and manage small wars. Tanks / ICVs have a limited roles to play in it. The Major part is played by the SF and Infantry, the rouges, trouble makers and street thugs.
Today's Armies need street fighter vehicles and not bottled up ICVs.
The street fighting needs to done economically and not foolishly.

Where is the role of bottled up ICV in this ?

 

[Damian]

Have you any military experience?

Do I really need to have one? Being in military do not prove anything, I heard storys from people that in training seargants were talking such stupidity like callink 9M14 ATGM modern and capable to destroy modern tanks with front armor hits...

If you have had then do tanks fight isolated?

Of course not, this is why there are vehicles designed to carry infantry, they are called APC's and IFV's.

What is the minimum tank formation that can be effective?

Depending on enemy forces and situation, sometimes effective is section (2 tanks), sometimes company (14 tanks), sometimes battalion (58 tanks).

And when is Infantry to be carried?

In Merkava? Preferbly never, for infantry carriage there are Achzarit and Namer.

Today, world needs to generate, control and manage small wars. Tanks / ICVs have a limited roles to play in it. The Major part is played by the SF and Infantry, the rouges, trouble makers and street thugs.
Today's Armies need street fighter vehicles and bottled up ICVs.
The street fighting needs to done economically and not foolishly.

Where is the role of bottled up ICV in this ?

Then make a phone call to US Army HQ and tell them they do not have slightest idea how to fight in wars and they should spend money not on tracked GCV but instead on more wheeled APC that they see as obsolete in a long term.

Did You even saw upgraded Strykers? They are not small, and not light vehicles, there was so urgent need to up-armor them that ERA package was developed and double V-hull, however this means that vehicle will lost some of it's tactical mobility. Tracked vehicle is just better.

 

[Bhadra]

Kunal,
I ask you very simple question.

Is Pakistani concept of their Infantry Taxi concept better or you ICV concept?

Who is able to generate more and effective combat power in given place, time and space ??

 

[Ray]

What?!



Yeah right, and how You would retake for example Fallujah from insurgents hands? In lightly armored wheeled APC's?

And in reality Americans used heavy armor-mechanized forces, hah USMC not only send there it's own armor assets but even asked US Army to provide support with it's heavy armor.

Of course there are people on this planet that would be very happy to die in lightly armored thin can... preferbly on wheels.

Rather lame an explanation. People dying in tin cans.

If that is the logic, then why have the infantry?

One does not take on insurgents in APC/ ICVs.

It is always better to be on foot and with greater flexibility and not as romping around like a lucrative target.

Even in that field, India has more experience and western powers have come to learn of the same, to include a General of the British Army before he took over the task in Bosnia!

 

[Bhadra]

Do I really need to have one? Being in military do not prove anything, I heard storys from people that in training seargants were talking such stupidity like callink 9M14 ATGM modern and capable to destroy modern tanks with front armor hits...



Of course not, this is why there are vehicles designed to carry infantry, they are called APC's and IFV's.



Depending on enemy forces and situation, sometimes effective is section (2 tanks), sometimes company (14 tanks), sometimes battalion (58 tanks).



In Merkava? Preferbly never, for infantry carriage there are Achzarit and Namer.



Then make a phone call to US Army HQ and tell them they do not have slightest idea how to fight in wars and they should spend money not on tracked GCV but instead on more wheeled APC that they see as obsolete in a long term.

Did You even saw upgraded Strykers? They are not small, and not light vehicles, there was so urgent need to up-armor them that ERA package was developed and double V-hull, however this means that vehicle will lost some of it's tactical mobility. Tracked vehicle is just better.

You have typical American ideas which always fail !

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Today, world needs to generate, control and manage small wars. Tanks / ICVs have a limited roles to play in it. The Major part is played by the SF and

Infantry, the rouges, trouble makers and street thugs.
Today's Armies need street fighter vehicles and bottled up ICVs.
The street fighting needs to done economically and not foolishly.

Where is the role of bottled up ICV in this ?

The current doctrine recommends clearing the built up area with dismounted troops prior to any armored vehicles entering. This Task Force proved that this is not a requirement and is not necessarily the best initial course of action. By moving armored vehicles along a pre determined route and destroying any enemy forces whether dug in, in buildings, or on roof tops with massive overwhelming fires from M1A1 tanks and M2A2 fighting vehicles, an entire line of communication can be opened up allowing access not only into the built up area but through it also. Once the line of communication is open, clearing operations with dismounted forces are much easier. A key to this is the overwhelming psychological effect the firepower of these weapon systems have on the enemy once the initial raid is conducted, almost all remaining enemy forces will withdraw from the initial shock. This initial shock of overwhelming firepower facilitates the attacks of dismounted infantrymen into the built up area.

post number #53

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Kunal,
I ask you very simple question.

Is Pakistani concept of their Infantry Taxi concept better or you ICV concept?

Who is able to generate more and effective combat power in given place, time and space ??

Pakistan is poorly equipped with M113 which are degraded than BMP-2 in terms of fire power, they are Pure battle taxi, Unlike BMP-2 is better ICV & APC..

But the matter is BMP-2 is not up-to today`s thread, that is what i am saying, And the reason BMP-2 deign ideology is different when made from today..

Today APC/IFV are much better protected..

 

[Ray]

Do I really need to have one? Being in military do not prove anything, I heard storys from people that in training seargants were talking such stupidity like callink 9M14 ATGM modern and capable to destroy modern tanks with front armor hits...



Of course not, this is why there are vehicles designed to carry infantry, they are called APC's and IFV's.



Depending on enemy forces and situation, sometimes effective is section (2 tanks), sometimes company (14 tanks), sometimes battalion (58 tanks).



In Merkava? Preferbly never, for infantry carriage there are Achzarit and Namer.



Then make a phone call to US Army HQ and tell them they do not have slightest idea how to fight in wars and they should spend money not on tracked GCV but instead on more wheeled APC that they see as obsolete in a long term.

Did You even saw upgraded Strykers? They are not small, and not light vehicles, there was so urgent need to up-armor them that ERA package was developed and double V-hull, however this means that vehicle will lost some of it's tactical mobility. Tracked vehicle is just better.

I will put it across to you quite bluntly.

The US is an Army with high technology, but they are not suitable to fight wars that are not conventional.

As far as how many tanks are to be used, that is a nice political answer which is neither here nor there! Indeed everything is based on the situation. I daresay two tanks will ever go into battle!

Have you read the controversy over the Styrkers? They are only for CI anyway.

And are you aware why they have come into being?

 

[Damian]

You have typical American ideas which always fail !

These are not American ideas, the same ideas have many other countries, look at Germans, they developed heavy armored tracked IFV. Russians also aim at the same goal.

Oh damn it, discussion with You is waste of time... "American ideas are bad" bla bla bla, yet they were the pioneers in safe ammunition storage in tanks, but yeah, probably these was also failed idea of designers in that nation... even if their solutions saved lifes of many tank crews.

The US is an Army with high technology, but they are not suitable to fight wars that are not conventional.

Yet they achieved victory over insurgents in Iraq, while Afghanistan would be tough nut to crack for any army.

Hae you read the controversy over the Styrkers? They are only for CI anyway.

And are you aware why they have come into being?

Hah but Stryker were never designed or intended for COIN operations, it was designed for classic battlefield, the heavy Stryker is insted designed for also COIN and it was designed exactly because heavier protection was needed.

 

[Ray]

Damiaqn,

You have still not explained the concept of using Mechanised Infantry without participating in battle and being merely made safe in the battlefield.

How are they being tactically employed?

 

[Bhadra]

Pakistan is poorly equipped with M113 which are degraded than BMP-2 in terms of fire power, they are Pure battle taxi, Unlike BMP-2 is better ICV & APC..

But the matter is BMP-2 is not up-to today`s thread, that is what i am saying, And the reason BMP-2 deign ideology is different when made from today..

Today APC/IFV are much better protected..

Is protection the sole answer to the mechanised warfare for Infantry? where is the capability of Mechanised Infantry to dismount and Charge? where is the role of being an Arm of close combat? Where is the role to close in with the enemy ? where is the role to destroy the enemy even with their teeth? where is the role to hold a piece of ground against all odds and forms of attack? where is the Infantry motto of the final bayonet charge !

Please revise your basics, Kunal ! Mechanised infantry is nowhere .

 

[Kunal Biswas]

One does not take on insurgents in APC/ ICVs.

It is always better to be on foot and with greater flexibility and not as romping around like a lucrative target.

Sir, Armour and Infantry archive there objective faster than just Infantry..

Heavy armored APC/ICV is small yet very armored and can open up with massive firepower..

 

[Ray]

Sir, Armour and Infantry archive there objective faster than just Infantry..

Heavy armored APC/ICV is small yet very armored and can open up with massive firepower..

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!

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Is protection the sole answer to the mechanised warfare for Infantry?
where is the capability of Mechanised Infantry to dismount and Charge?
where is the role of being an Arm of close combat?
Where is the role to close in with the enemy ?
where is the role to destroy the enemy even with their teeth?
where is the role to hold a piece of ground against all odds and forms of attack?
where is the Infantry motto of the final bayonet charge !

Please revise your basics, Kunal ! Mechanised infantry is nowhere .

Not at all..

They can dismount and charge being heavily armored and have the same flexibility with more powerful engines is no draw back..
They are ..
Being heavily armored yet compact enough is not good enough to get close in..
Being there with Infantry and Armour providing fire support is a advantage..
If enemy is dead before baynot charge why bayonet charge ?

Killing the enemy is main objective with getting killed..

 

[Ray]

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!

 

[Damian]

Damiaqn,

You have still not explained the concept of using Mechanised Infantry without participating in battle and being merely made safe in the battlefield.

How are they being tactically employed?

Normall, they are inside vehicle untill contact with enemy, if fast movement is needed then they stay inside vehicle, wehivle have fully stabilized weapons so no need to dismounts to fire from inside either.

If fast movement is not needed, dismounts get outside vehicle, and both dismounts and vehicle provide support to each other. You should try to find newer US Army manuals for mech infantry.

Look Damain,

Only one answer.

India needs to fight its wars rather than Russian or German or American wars.

For that Indians need not be bloody copy cats !
In my humble opinion, India does not need bottled up ICVs ..

So any of India enemys will not use the same RPG's or ATGM's or other types of weapons? Wow very optimistic view, but ok, India probably do not need to take it's eye on latest armor protection developments.

And it's funny even, that You are talking here about copying... so what next? Reinventing the wheel?

 

[Ray]

Not at all..

They can dismount and charge being heavily armored and have the same flexibility with more powerful engines is no draw back..
They are ..
Being heavily armored yet compact enough is not good enough to get close in..
Being there with Infantry and Armour providing fire support is a advantage..
If enemy is dead before baynot charge why bayonet charge ?

Killing the enemy is main objective with getting killed..

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

I have not understood the rest.

 

[Bhadra]

Not at all..

They can dismount and charge being heavily armored and have the same flexibility with more powerful engines is no draw back..
They are ..
Being heavily armored yet compact enough is not good enough to get close in..
Being there with Infantry and Armour providing fire support is a advantage..
If enemy is dead before baynot charge why bayonet charge ?

Killing the enemy is main objective with getting killed..

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...

 

[Damian]

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!

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?

 

[Ray]

Normall, they are inside vehicle untill contact with enemy, if fast movement is needed then they stay inside vehicle, wehivle have fully stabilized weapons so no need to dismounts to fire from inside either.

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

If fast movement is not needed, dismounts get outside vehicle, and both dismounts and vehicle provide support to each other. You should try to find newer US Army manuals for mech infantry.

That is known.

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

So any of India enemys will not use the same RPG's or ATGM's or other types of weapons? Wow very optimistic view, but ok, India probably do not need to take it's eye on lates armor protection developments.

Well, I presume he meant that being buttoned up and doing nothing is like being frogs in the well!