Discussion in 'Land Forces' started by Damian, Feb 20, 2012.
Hey! Most of us are armchair generals here!
Well, very short comment because I don't have much time for writing:
Originially the idea behind the IFV was that the infantry squad would be capable to fight during mounted combat against soft-skinned vehicles and infantry. This is why early first and second generation* IFVs had firing ports (if you base it on the German definiton then there is very likely also a zeroth generation of IFVs) had firing ports, hatches and in case of the Marder and Swiss projects (Taifun) also MGs mounted in overhead configuration which were controlled from the inside.
But technology and requirements changed, Early IFVs didn't have dual belt-fed and some didn't have specialized HE ammunition at the beginning (like the BMP-1), which meant that they weren't suited for fighting infantry as much as later IFVs.
But hatches and firing ports are potential structural weaknesses - when higher protection is required the amount of them has to be reduced or all have to be removed. Afaik the Puma IFV has not a single hatch, while ASCOD has only one for the crew. We also must note that "half-sized" rounds like the ones fired from StuG 44 and Ak-47 have a effective combat range of about 500 m. The M16 and G36 use 5.56 mm NATO rounds, which also have a effective engagment range of only 600 m - therefore German ISAF troops have been carrying the G3 (DMR) and will introduce the G28 soon. The Puma did adopt a multi-shot grenade launcher which has greater anti-personnel potential and greater range than these weapons, but less ammo.
I wonder why no country did install a/multiple RWS on the crew compartment to give the squad higher firepower when mounted.
BTW: ERA does increase the protection and the squad survivability while travelling inside, but the usage of ERA will create a larger danger zone for dismounted infantry as more shrapnels/splinters will fly around. For the typical NATO tactics during Cold War (close cooperation between dismounted infantry and IFV, while letting infantry dismount in most combat situations) ERA was unthinkable - which lead to the development of some metal-free ERA types like CLARA. Modern combat situations are different, regardless of modern low-intensity confict (ISAF, Iraq, KFOR) or high-scale battle.
*There doesn't exist a common designation for IFVs generations, but I think it should be possible to use the same criterias as used for MBT generations
Where are the water jet holes at the rear end of the track guards?
Ah, this one has it.
Regarding port holes:
Not a great benefit as per recent conflicts. Also, lack of peripheral vision is a bane for those sitting inside.
That is the question, why?
And which conflict?
In the US context, they will not be fighting a conventional war because no country will fight them so. Having the experience of Iraq, one wonders if the US will engage in such campaigns.
In the Indian context, conventional wars are very much in context.
Therefore, the question - is the ICV merely a battle taxi?
I am quite intrigued and Google seems to fail me.
RWS appears a reason for no portholes. I will read it up.
However, what is the latest to the significance of a reduction in situational awareness by being restricted to operating with monitors inside the vehicle as with an RWS.
Regarding the water-jet I mentioned, please see 2:50 onwards:
Regarding port-holes, I agree w.r.t. COIN and what you mentioned.
And very quickly these were deleted. M2A2 was allready available in the late 1980's right? M2 and M2A1 were fielded somewhere in early to mid 1980's.
? Where do You see waterjets on BMPT-64 and BMPV-64? There are no water jets, these vehicles are not intended to be amphibious.
BTW if I remember correctly, firing ports originaly were added to vehicles so dismounts could fight from inside in environment with radioactive fallout, toxins, gases etc. Not because it was some super solution.
M2 infantry Bradleys also have turreted firing ports for a number of M231 Firing Port Weapons or FPWs, providing a button-up firing position to replace the top-side gunners on the old ACAV, though the M231 is rarely employed. Initial variants carried six total, but the side ports were plated over with new armor used on the A2 and A3 variants, leaving only the two rear-facing mounts in the loading ramp.
M2 Bradley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The M3 Bradley CFV is very similar to the M2 Bradley IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) and only varies from it in a few subtle ways and by role. The M3 is classified as an armored reconnaissance and scout vehicle and does away with the firing ports as found on the M2 series. The M3 Bradley varies from the M2 in that it also handles more in the way of ammunition for its 25mm, 7.62mm and TOW missile weapons. Additionally, the M3 system is fielded with the same powerful two-man 25mm cannon turret with the 7.62mm coaxial machine gun.
M3 Bradley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There used to be Recce Regts with light tanks! They were tanks nonetheless.
They were not for conventional attacks with armour.
I have missed the point.
I don't understand how when the infantry dismounts, they can still fight from the inside of an ICV!
Fighting is done by the body as given in the organisation.
As I see it, the ICV will act as the pivot and firebase with its integral weapons and the section as the manoeuvre element clearing the objective.
In an NBC environment, if one is to fight dismounted one has to be in the NBC suit.
These firing ports had many disadvantages in M2, the most serious one was how infrantry was sitting inside this vehicle. It was real horror.
In M2A2 after firing ports were deleted and addon armor added, dismounts compartment was redesigned in to such thing:
So as we see, it's much better than in configuration with firing ports.
And? Firing ports are obsolete these days due to numerous reasons, and can be much more effectively replaced with additional fully stabilized remote weapon stations with thermal sights and laser range finders. Also such RWS can be armed not only with machine gun but insted there can be automatic granade launcher. So once again, why to stick with something that is outdated and decrease vehicle protection and survivability?
What is the use of a ICV going over an objective and not being able to bring upon the targets an observed fire. Are one supposed to carry dead meat near or over an objective...
That is why even the MPVs have firing ports
You are correct.
I think that is correct as well.
I believe US training manuals are available from TRADOC.
This is not the first time we are having communication problems. Please re-read post #123.
I have posted two pictures that were posted earlier. One has holes, and the other does not.
BMP-1 and BMP-2 were meant to be amphibious. Therefore, it was my assumption that this one too will be amphibious.
I think we should not draw conclusions too early. The firing ports, even though the only allowed a limited field-of-view (and usage), still did have some advantages.The main advantage of firing ports was and still is that they allow the crew to fire their weapons, even if the area has been contamined by nuclear fallout. Other vehicles which doesn't have a turret with main gun and doesn't have firing ports, like the M113 are not capable to defend themselves, unless the whole crew is wearing special equipment (which does protect for a shorter frame of time than a NBC protection system of a vehicle). But we should not forget that without firing ports in most cases the crew can't fight from inside the vehicle (which should actually question the classification of the vehicle as IFV) or has to use hatches to fight enemies during mounted combat. Hatches does reveal a far more from the infantry than firing ports (firing ports reveal nothing), which means that a close MG gunner/normal soldier with assault rifle can kill members of the infantry squad.
The US, Germans, UK etc. all did decide to remove them on later generations as the situation changed. When the BMP-1 entered service, no medium vehicle was capable to resist a hit from it's HEAT rounds (at the beginning the only ammo carried). But the gun had a short effective range (< 700 m), which lead to the requirements common in NATO that IFVs should be capable to penetrate the BMP-1s armour at ranges greater than 700 m (20 mm AP can already penetrate the majority of the BMP-1s frontal armour at 1,000 m). Therefore M2 Bradley, Warrior, AMX-10 (probably) were all only capable to resist 14.5 mm rounds. The Germans somehow wanted a higher level of protection for the Marder, which made it the heaviest IFV back then. When the BMP-2 came into service, it was capable of penetrating every IFV in the NATO (14.5 mm resistant at 2,000 m with AP, Marder probably with APDS at 1,000 m). This meant that NATO forces where in a bad position, but there was a solution. While it was impossible to overcome the penetrating power of the 73 mm HEAT round with then existing armour, 30 mm AP(DS) could be stopped by up-armoured IFVs.
The side armour, even though 30 mm APDS can still penetrate it with a 90Â° impact from most ranges, was reinforced to increase the level of protection for +/- 20-30Â°.
Btw: ICV might not be the best acrynom. It can stand for Infantry Combat Vehicle (= IFV) or for Infantry Carrier Vehicle (=APC).
IMHO firing ports can be well replaced by small RWS with stabilization and much better overall + and - elevation angle for it's weapon.
I read the article by Gur Khan about this via translator...
He claims an incredible protection level and a number of 12 passengers (including the crew?) for a weight comparable to the normal Marder 1A5. How can 12 people fit inside an former T-64 and how can the BMPT-64 weigh as much as the BMP-64, although the BMPT-64 features a large turret and more armour coverage?
Incredible level of protection?
BMPT-64 have 350mm + 40mm frontal armor with Knife ERA, this givs level of protection enough to protect against 105mm APFSDS ammunition, very possible with Knife ERA. Side protection is 82mm + 20mm with Knife ERA. Remember that BMPT-64 and BMPV-64 are protected by not only steel armor but also ERA, in case of BMPT-64 very advanced ERA, so I do not see a problem with having such protection level with small weight.
Also I do not see why there should not be enough space for 12 dismounts... other thing is how comfortable is there with 12 dismounts + 3 man crew?
With Knife ERA? He uses the same values for the older vehicle (BMP-64) without Knife ERA, therefore I suppose that his values are not based on Knife's claimed effeciency against KE.
I think You should re read article. Values are not the same. Also ERA is different, BMPV-64 use Kontakt-1 while BMPT-64 use Knife.
Number values are only for armor thickness, while 90mm and 105mm APDS/APFSDS is a overall front armor protection value.
Separate names with a comma.