Armored personnel carriers with weak armored protection

[Militaryman]

Armored personnel carriers with quiet weak armored protection become an easy target for any anti-tank missiles

BTR-T Heavy armored personnel carrier

Crew 2 men
Personnel 5 men
Weight 38.5 t
Chassis length 6.2 m
Width 3.27 m
Main gun 30-mm cannon
ATGW single tube AT-5 'Spandrel' launcher (3 missiles)
Engine power 580 hp
Maximum road speed 50 km/h
Range 500 km


Source:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/bmp-4.htm

Thise idea of building better armored personnel carriers sounds nice to me.
Are these heavy APCs going to replace the traditional ones in the near future?
Your comments please.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Armored personnel carriers with quiet weak armored protection become an easy target for any anti-tank missiles

BTR-T Heavy armored personnel carrier

Crew 2 men
Personnel 5 men
Weight 38.5 t
Chassis length 6.2 m
Width 3.27 m
Main gun 30-mm cannon
ATGW single tube AT-5 'Spandrel' launcher (3 missiles)
Engine power 580 hp
Maximum road speed 50 km/h
Range 500 km


Source:


Thise idea of building better armored personnel carriers sounds nice to me.
Are these heavy APCs going to replace the traditional ones in the near future?

Your comments please.

Much better.

However links to foreign defence websites aren't allowed. Again read the rules.

Yes, although I'd advise that few APC's are being built these days. Modern armoured vehicles designed to carry troops AND fight in the battlespace are known as Infantry fighting vehicles...

Modern variants of these such as the CV-90 and Puma are becoming quite heavy indeed.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

For transportation, they either use IFVs (i.e. HMVEE) or, more likely, they use choppers and, sometimes, planes for airlifts.

I doubt new 'APCs' will be constructed. I think more money is being poured into improving IFVs and other infantry support vehicles (i.e. Strykers) and airlift capabilities.

I know China and Russia still have old APCs but they're really outdated and will probably be fully replaced by helicopters soon.

EDIT: Just realized I mentioned the HMVEE thinking I was talking about IFVs. I didn't mean to count it as an APC.

 

[Big-E]

ATGMs are getting so powerful these days little can stand up to them, even full armoured MBTs. APCs don't stand a chance against a top down attack. Penetration tech is getting so ahead of armour it is almost obsolete. First one to shoot generally wins in modern tank battles.

 

[Aussie Digger]

For transportation, they either use IFVs (i.e. HMVEE) or, more likely, they use choppers and, sometimes, planes for airlifts.

I doubt new 'APCs' will be constructed. I think more money is being poured into improving IFVs and other infantry support vehicles (i.e. Strykers) and airlift capabilities.

I know China and Russia still have old APCs but they're really outdated and will probably be fully replaced by helicopters soon.

A HMVEE is NOT an infantry fighting vehicle. IN US Service, only the Bradley fits the designation of: IFV.

A HMVEE is, if anything an infantry mobility vehicle, at best. In Australia it wouldn't even be considered that. It would simply a "B" vehicle (ie: non-armoured general service vehicle).

The Stryker is a better example of an infantry mobility vehicle than the HMVEE.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

I don't know why it's not. It carries and is used to support infantry and is armored and armed enough to effectively fight in a combat role. They can be outfitted with stingers and TOWs. It can even be rigged with treads to give it the ability to cross most types of terrains. It fits all of the characteristics of an IFV.

EDIT: Just realized I mentioned the HMVEE thinking I was talking about IFVs. I didn't mean to count it as an APC.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't know why it's not. It carries and is used to support infantry and is armored and armed enough to effectively fight in a combat role. Can't they be outiftted with stingers on top? If so, it fits all of the characteristics of an IFV.

No it doesn't. An IFV is designed to carry a section/squad of infantry soldiers (usually 7 or 8 soldiers) into combat, directly into the face of the enemy. To have sufficient armour protection to be able to "assault" an enemy position and withstand the resulting enemy fire, deliver the troops ONTO the enemy position and have sufficient firepower to fight anything short of a main battle tank. Most ALSO have anti-armour weapons, providing an anti-bunker capability AND a self-defence/limited offensive capability against MBT's.

Show me the HUMVEE that can do ANY of that? Virtually ALL HUMVEE's can carry only 4 persons. Have little or no armour and have pedestal mounted weapons, with the firer exposed. A significant difference to an IFV...

The Avenger vehicle you are referring to (the HUMVEE with STINGER's mounted on them), is a reasonably specialised air defence variant. It does NOT carry infantry...

This:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/images/brad6.jpg

This:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/images/cv90_8.jpg

and this:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ascod/images/new2.jpg

are examples of modern IFV's.

This:

http://www.defense-update.com/images/up-armored-humvee.jpg

is not.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

My bad then. I personally would refer to it as one becasue it does carry infantry, it does have pedestal mounted weapons, and it is armored. Sure, it doesn't have the Bradley's M242 chain gun and isn't a giant metal box but it is still is an effective transport and combat vehicle.

 

[Waylander]

I would also not say that the BTR-T Heavy is an APC.
With a 30mm and ATGMs it is more like an IFV.

But APCs are still build. For western countries the Boxer is such an example.
It is also well armored for an APC but as a true APC has just weapons for self defence (MGs and grenade launchers).

Those are used as battle taxis, transport for combat pioneers and logistics or are suited with special mission modules for ambulance services, EW and radio operators, C3 assets, etc.

An IFV would be much too much for such.

 

[old faithful]

I would also not say that the BTR-T Heavy is an APC.
With a 30mm and ATGMs it is more like an IFV.

But APCs are still build. For western countries the Boxer is such an example.
It is also well armored for an APC but as a true APC has just weapons for self defence (MGs and grenade launchers).

Those are used as battle taxis, transport for combat pioneers and logistics or are suited with special mission modules for ambulance services, EW and radio operators, C3 assets, etc.

An IFV would be much too much for such.

I agree Waylander,38.5 t is almost a MBT! Leo 1 coming in at 42 t. Its ability to carry only 5 grunts rules it out as a true APC and puts it in the heavy IFV cat. Not unlike the Isreali,s converted T55,s,which can carry a full section,squad, of grunts...but lack the fire power of an IFV.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

ATGMs are getting so powerful these days little can stand up to them, even full armoured MBTs. APCs don't stand a chance against a top down attack. Penetration tech is getting so ahead of armour it is almost obsolete. First one to shoot generally wins in modern tank battles.

True that conventional armour, both RHA and composite, have been found wanting in the face of new anti-armour weapon systems. The main direction of research at this point is no longer focused on passive protection but rather active defence systems. Until we have some major breakthroughs in passive protection technology, the trend will continue to be that way.

 

[riksavage]

Up armoring of APC's

Note the trend to upgrade and up-armor older APC’s to meet the current threat from man portable ATW’s continues with a vengeance. The venerable 432’s in UK service have been upgraded to 430’s (bulldogs) and deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, complete with new power-packs, upgraded armor and air-conditioning.

See below link, complete with photo’s.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/BulldogArrivesAtTheFrontLine.htm

Makes sense to me, plenty in stock, and in the new guise provide a significant improvement in protection over and above what is provided by the Viking and snatch land rovers.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

France's VBCI (Véhicule Blindé de Combat d'Infanterie, French 'IFV') and Israel's Achzarit are nice too. The Achzarit is based off the Soviet T-54/55 chassis but without a turret. Though it doesn't have the tank cannon, it does have three 7.62 machine guns around it. It's about six feet tall, making it stand out even less in an open battlefield. It's old (dates back to '60s) but has been upgraded over the decades (i.e. from 120 to 200mm hull and 2x HP).

France's VBCI, though classified as an IFV, it is also supposed to take on the role of tank support. It's equipped with a DRAGAR turret which is the single seater turret you see on top. The VBCI comes in two main versions, the IFV and a mini CP, which is basically the IFV with two less spots for infantry and a 12.7mm MG instead of the standard 7.62. I saw it in person a couple years ago in the French military parade. It's a good IFV that will definitely stay in French service for a long time.

France also has the nice VAB but, in my opinion, it lacks the firepower that an IFV would need in the combat zone with only one MG.

Achzarit (left), VBCI (right).

 

[rrrtx]

Another contender in the heavy APC market is the Jordanian Temsah - a converted Centurion tank. The Israeli's also have the Namera which is a converted early model Merkhava.

I think the economic appeal of converting obsolete tank chassis is interesting.

What will we do with all those Cold War era tanks? Hey - I know...

 

[oskarm]

Definition of IFV

For the purpose of limitation of conventional weapon systems in Europe, the definition of a IFV was made. It stand something like this: Vehicle able FONT=Verdana]to carry a section/squad of infantry soldiersunder armor protection, armed with gun of 20mm or more. So although USMC calls LAV APC in fact it is IFV, same as Rosomak or VBCI. So Achzarit is not an IFV but Heavy APC. So Stryker is an APC but Canadian LAV III is IFV. I suggest to keep that definition in future (both NATO and WP had accepted this definition).

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted