New Ukrainian BMP. The BMP-64.

[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!

 

[Bhadra]

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 ..

 

[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!

 

[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?