- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,841
Couple of basic facts.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.
Look at US, nor M2A2/M2A3 or currently designed GCV will have firing ports. SPz Puma or other modern IFV in Europe do not have firing ports. Israelis do not use firing ports on their Namer HAPC. It seems that Ukrainians and Russians also do not see a reason to have firing ports.
In fight dismounts should get out of vehicle, IFV will then support them with it's weapons.
India has more experience than any European country in the use of APCs, ICVs in actual combat!
When fighting through the objective, there are two ways of doing so.
1. Mounted
2. Dismounted away from the objective and fighting like regular infantry with the ICV acting as the firebase. This method is adopted when there is a minefield and the attrition thereof not being acceptable.
When mounted, the fight through the objective and fighting through the objective means fighting will ALL weapons and not merely going along in a protected move and then fanning out to protect against the Counter Attack with the weapons in built in the ICV. If that were so, what are the infantry soldiers on board doing? Have a free ride to collect medals for which they did nothing.
It is not Indians who have an unique way of using the ICV, it is universal. You may read the US and Russian military tactics book to realise so.
Last edited: