Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV)

[Ray]

Those who have been in battle would know why the tank commanders do not 'button up' till the last moment.

Situation awareness is a major factor in conducting battle.

 

[Ray]

Infantry have its role to play when dismounted, the cannon of the IFV/ICV/APC is for fire-support, The APC Armour is for protection of the crew the vehicle and most importantly the infantry inside, the turret is for fire role..



They carry wounded and full equipped 4 men only..

That is obvious and all are aware of the modes the Mech Inf is deployed in battle.

Mounted/ Dismounted.

What are they doing when fighting through the Objective mounted?

Or is that concept obsolete?

Sitting pretty till the Reorg Stage?

If these ICVs are merely for fire support, it is better to have tanks. They are more powerful in firepower!

And if one is heartless, it is cost effective to have more infantry units than mechanised since they will do some worthwhile contribution than those who move protected all the way, do nothing to fight through the objective, but join in the fun in the Reorg stage.

Or have I missed something?

 

[Bhadra]

Ok armchair general, tell that to US Army that have real combat experience in such environment and want tracked IFV instead of wheeled vehicles. Tell that Russians that want tracked platforms with heavier protection, yeah tell that to Germans that are manufacturing tracked Puma, oh wait actually every big manufacturer of combat vehicles will make tracked vehicles for future. You know why? Because tracked vehicle can be used in difficult terrain far more effectively than wheeled one and is capable to have greater protection without loosing tactical mobility.



Same that are used these days. Long road marches = HETS, railroad, C-5 and C-17 heavy transport planes and transport ships. The idea of light or medium mechnized brigades that are capable to be quickly transported via transport planes is complete and utter BS. Even USAF do not have enough transport planes to quickly transport even one mech brigade from US to any other place on earth.

Arm chair general , Ah !

You wish to impose German and Russian models with vast stretches and open tankable country on the world.
It is very silly of you even if you would never be a general.
Would USA ever fight there like yester years ?

Today's battle field milieus have changed. Today's military objectives have changed. Today's military terrain have changed.

I must admit you are dreaming to be Rommel in 21st century.

 

[Ray]

In the Iraq War, the Bradley has proved somewhat vulnerable to improvised explosive device (IED) and rocket propelled grenade (RPG) attacks, but casualties have been light—the doctrine being to allow the crew to escape at the expense of the vehicle. As of early 2006, total combat losses included 55 Bradleys.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Please let us not go by Iraq war example.

We are well aware how the Iraqis fought!

Than in present Counter insurgency war in Iraq, there have been engaged by RPG but saved due to the extra amour on sides..

Despite being struck by an enemy rocket-propelled grenade, an Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle brings supplies to "F" Troop, 4th U.S. Cavalry, during a gun battle with insurgents south of Baqubah, Iraq, that lasted 12 hours. Original photo location: www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/061804front22.jpg

Tanks and Bradleys repeatedly sustained hits from RPG's and ground directed anti aircraft fire that dismounted infantrymen, HMMWVs and other light skinned vehicles could not sustain. Bradleys successfully protected the infantrymen inside while at the same time delivering a massive volume of fire against dismounted enemy, trucks, tanks, and armored vehicles. The firepower and shock generated by tanks and Bradleys could never have been matched by dismounted infantry. Without the use of these systems initially, the enemy would have caused many more casualties.

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.

Why so Kunal, because of the extra armor ?

Extra Armour is one reason but also better training and the technology involved..

A Carrier without capability to fire on move is a battle taxi . it is on move and nothing else..

Well in all famous engagements of IA, the troops prefer to be mounted on top of BMPs rather than being inside it. I can quote many examples !!

There is a 30mm gun on it, It fires on move..

Being on top helps to disperse quickly when in fire but that don't required when one inside a heavy APC..

Besides BMP don't provide sufficient protection against AT weaponry..

 

[Damian]

Wrong . the israelies developed their Markva (troop carrying tanks)

Wrong! Merkava is not designed to carry infantry, where do You want to carry fully equipped infantry squad here?



Rear hull space is main ammunition storage in Merkava, not a troop compartment... myths, myths, everywhere myths!

Why were the 'dleted' if indeed they were.

What is the tactical reasons to do so and how are the infantry moving in this highly protected vehicle to be tactically employed?

They were deleted to improve side hull protection. And reason is simple, improve vehicle protection and survivability... however I can understand Your sadomasochistic obsession with firing ports weakening vehicle protection and survivability thus minimizing crew and dismounts survivability.

Please let us not go by Iraq war example.

We are well aware how the Iraqis fought!

I highly doubt You know how they fought, they fought as best as they could, and hey, the Iraq experiences are the basis for up-armoring program of all US and British AFV's, so it seems that Iraqis were rather good fighters on tactical level eh?

 

[Ray]

Please understand that one does not make such an expensive machine merely for Counter Insurgency.

That (COIN) is only a side business of the military.

If one has to dismount, which they will also have to do in real combat, why prevent them from being effective?

I have not understood the logic or have I missed something?

Damian,

To desist from the humbug that having portholes weaken the structure!

That way every joint weakens the structure, including the doors!

As far as the Iraq war is concerned, I am afraid, you are not aware of the After Action Reports.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

In the Iraq War, the Bradley has proved somewhat vulnerable to improvised explosive device (IED) and rocket propelled grenade (RPG) attacks, but casualties have been light—the doctrine being to allow the crew to escape at the expense of the vehicle. As of early 2006, total combat losses included 55 Bradleys.

Mostly the once blow up by 50kg or more IED and without era tiles..

This one is a Heat Round..

 

[Damian]

Arm chair general , Ah !

You wish to impose German and Russian models with vast stretches and open tankable country on the world.
It is very silly of you even if you would never be a general.
Would USA ever fight there like yester years ?

Today's battle field milieus have changed. Today's military objectives have changed. Today's military terrain have changed.

I must admit you are dreaming to be Rommel in 21st century.

I seen people like You repeating like mantra that times of tank ended, I remember from history lessons that after WWI people like You were saying that this was the last war, etc. etc. etc. Saying that something changed and there will be no more full scale wars is normal for naive people with minimal or none knowledge about military technology.

In the Iraq War, the Bradley has proved somewhat vulnerable to improvised explosive device (IED) and rocket propelled grenade (RPG) attacks, but casualties have been light—the doctrine being to allow the crew to escape at the expense of the vehicle. As of early 2006, total combat losses included 55 Bradleys.

Ray please show me a vehicle, even a tank capable to survive for example 100+ kg IED... such things are capable to destroy even MRAPs. And still M2 was combat proven but for US it is too small (yeah too small!) an too lightly armored, this is why it will be replaced by bigger and heavier GCV.

Kunal,
you said :

They carry wounded and full equipped 4 men only..

They carry fit soldiers and four is not less. Four infantry soldiers in front of a squad of four soldiers can be very deadly. When it comes to motivated soldiers, numbers matter less.. Those six men inside Maekava is better than a stick of Indian Mechanised Infantry... Have no doubt on that.

Wonder how many photos I will need to upload to show that Merkava is not designed and capable to carry infantry while being still combat capable. You want to put there dismounts, ok but then You are left with only 5 to 10 rounds for main gun... yeah You have a tank and want to convert it in to APC with machine guns and tank gun without ammunition. Briliant!

 

[Ray]

Wrong! Merkava is not designed to carry infantry, where do You want to carry fully equipped infantry squad here?



Rear hull space is main ammunition storage in Merkava, not a troop compartment... myths, myths, everywhere myths!



They were deleted to improve side hull protection. And reason is simple, improve vehicle protection and survivability... however I can understand Your sadomasochistic obsession with firing ports weakening vehicle protection and survivability thus minimizing crew and dismounts survivability.



I highly doubt You know how they fought, they fought as best as they could, and hey, the Iraq experiences are the basis for up-armoring program of all US and British AFV's, so it seems that Iraqis were rather good fighters on tactical level eh?

It is time to smell the coffee and not hallucinate.

During the 1973 Middle East war many Israeli tanks ran out of ammunition and so the Merkava has been designed to carry a large supply in the rear of the hull. The Merkava can also be used as a command post with the ammunition supply containers removed. By reducing the ammunition load the Merkava can also carry troops, for example 10 infantry can be carried by reducing the ammunition load by 45 rounds or a commando squad of three together with their radios if the ammunition load is reduced by 25 rounds. It must be emphasised that the ability to carry infantry is only an option for use in special circumstances as the infantry have no vision devices at all.

Army Guide - MERKAVA Mk-1, Main battle tank

 

[Damian]

Damian,

To desist from the humbug that having portholes weaken the structure!

That way every joint weakens the structure, including the doors!

As far as the Iraq war is concerned, I am afraid, you are not aware of the After Action Reports.

Yes, every joint, opening is weakening the structure, this is why designers are aiming to reduce number of joints and openings to smallest needed quantity!

As for Iraqis, yet they were capable to make casualties for US forces, and were a reason for up-armoring program of US armored vehicles.

Ray, please, read carefully and watch photos I provide.

By reducing the ammunition load the Merkava can also carry troops, for example 10 infantry can be carried by reducing the ammunition load by 45 rounds or a commando squad of three together with their radios if the ammunition load is reduced by 25 rounds.

I talked with Israeli tankers, they are not doing so, and if needed only one or two tanks are reconfigured for specialized role, but then again, tank company have reduced firepower due to reduced main gun ammo quantity. Who needs that when they are specialized vehicles for carrying infantry?

Besides this, it ain't comfortable there either.

So what we have here with infantry squad? A tank without ammo for it's main gun and APC without seats for dismounts, also that ammo storage compartment is cramped... yeah a good way to transport infantry!

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Please understand that one does not make such an expensive machine merely for Counter Insurgency.
That (COIN) is only a side business of the military.
If one has to dismount, which they will also have to do in real combat, why prevent them from being effective?
I have not understood the logic or have I missed something?

Damian,
To desist from the humbug that having portholes weaken the structure!
That way every joint weakens the structure, including the doors!

Sir, Even in Open ground a ATGM launch from 2kms away wont help the man inside, the best thing is to armored it so it can endure and take the men, Supplies or the fire support to the objective ..

Sir,
The door are a weak point but in a BMP they are fuel tanks..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Kunal,

They carry fit soldiers and four is not less. Four infantry soldiers in front of a squad of four soldiers can be very deadly. When it comes to motivated soldiers, numbers matter less.. Those six men inside Maekava is better than a stick of Indian Mechanised Infantry... Have no doubt on that.

I have mentioned this in previous post, But what if a APC based on Merkava with a RCWS of 50cal or 30mm cannon..

The Israelis converted older generation tanks into APC.
Namer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nagmachon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Puma armored engineering vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nakpadon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here you can see there work..

 

[Ray]

Wonder how many photos I will need to upload to show that Merkava is not designed and capable to carry infantry while being still combat capable. You want to put there dismounts, ok but then You are left with only 5 to 10 rounds for main gun... yeah You have a tank and want to convert it in to APC with machine guns and tank gun without ammunition. Briliant!

If you had done your research before being cocky, you would have realised what would be the effective round reduction.

I am yet to hear from you with some good military reason as to why porthole were 'deleted' and how it made no difference to the Mechanised Infantry tactical employment. I want to know this to update my rusty knowledge!

 

[Ray]

Sir, Even in Open ground a ATGM launch from 2kms away wont help the man inside, the best thing is to armored it so it can endure and take the men, Supplies or the fire support to the objective ..

Sir,
The door are a weak point but in a BMP they are fuel tanks..

That is not the issue.

The issue is fighting through the objective mounted.

What about HHMTs? They are very small objects and are used as staybehinds for armoured advance!.

One can have Fort Knox on wheels!

All I want to know is the employment for which it is designed.

If only a Battle Taxi, it is a very expensive toy!

I don't want to be disrespectful or doubt anyone, it is just that I have always been a person who wants to know the whys and whereofs of issue so that it appeals to the logic rather than accepting whatever is dished out as the Gospel Truth!

 

[Damian]

If you had done your research before being cocky, you would have realised what would be the effective round reduction.

Yeah right, maybe first read some book about Merkava instead. Merkava can carry approx ~50 rounds (48 in Mk4 variant) so if we reduce it by 45 rounds in Merkava Mk4 how many rounds for main gun You will be left with? Where is logic behind doing so? Israeli soldiers seems to also not seen logic behind this this is why Merkava is used as a tank and for infantry transports there are Achzarit and Namer HAPC's.

I am yet to hear from you with some good military reason as to why porthole were 'deleted' and how it made no difference to the Mechanised Infantry tactical employment. I want to know this to update my rusty knowledge!

Read carefully my posts. I said, because armor improvements were needed, to improve protection ports needed to be deleted, firing ports were useless anyway so nobody cried, and in fact deletion of firing ports allowed to reconfigure M2 Bradley troops compartment in to more comfortable configuration, allowing for faster infantry dismounting.

 

[Bhadra]

There is no end to Armour illogicity... including the Mechanised ones..

They have never proved to assets and battle winners in small wars...

Diman and Kunal can prove it otherwise rather than talking of cracks and holes.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

That is not the issue.

The issue is fighting through the objective mounted.

What about HHMTs? They are very small objects and are used as staybehinds for armoured advance!.

One can have Fort Knox on wheels!

All I want to know is the employment for which it is designed.

If only a Battle Taxi, it is a very expensive toy!

Sir, as i have said, Its a battle taxi, Its a mobile fire-support unit, the troops are used when dismounted, the vehicle fire on move..

It is deigned to carry troop under fire, Also it can fire at the direction of enemy fire also it can provide fire support when dismount troops..

 

[Damian]

There is no end to Armour illogicity... including the Mechanised ones..

What?!

They have never proved to assets and battle winners in small wars...

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.

 

[Ray]

Yeah right, maybe first read some book about Merkava instead. Merkava can carry approx ~50 rounds (48 in Mk4 variant) so if we reduce it by 45 rounds in Merkava Mk4 how many rounds for main gun You will be left with? Where is logic behind doing so? Israeli soldiers seems to also not seen logic behind this this is why Merkava is used as a tank and for infantry transports there are Achzarit and Namer HAPC's.



Read carefully my posts. I said, because armor improvements were needed, to improve protection ports needed to be deleted, firing ports were useless anyway so nobody cried, and in fact deletion of firing ports allowed to reconfigure M2 Bradley troops compartment in to more comfortable configuration, allowing for faster infantry dismounting.

Have you any military experience?

If you have had then do tanks fight isolated?

What is the minimum tank formation that can be effective?

And when is Infantry to be carried?

If this is not acceptable, then one wonders how a highly armoured ICV is only to be used as a Battle Taxi!

If money is on no concern, why not have a Merkava doing the same job of a Battle Taxi with greater firepower and better protection?