How about Saurer 4K 4FA-G2.Name one APC (intended to operate as such on the battlefield) with a 20mm gun.
I dare you
IFV v APC
- Thread starter Asstroboy
- Start date
Or to evacuate wounded and fallen tankers in case of a üenetration in these dug in positions.And this little feature where Merkavas are employed as dug-in stationary defense guns, and the space in the back is used for loading from outside
Having a nice (relatively) big door at the back is defenitely a nice feature for operating the tank in general and not only for the mentioned tasks.
Just think about not having to climb up and down the tank all the time...
If you can get past the pallet of ammunition strapped in place.Or to evacuate wounded and fallen tankers in case of a üenetration in these dug in positions.
Having a nice (relatively) big door at the back is defenitely a nice feature for operating the tank in general and not only for the mentioned tasks.
Just think about not having to climb up and down the tank all the time...
Agreed - this is one of the many good things making the Merkava series one of the best defensive battle position tanks that is out there, hold the line and let your air and artillery assets disrupt the main attacking forces.Hopefully most of the ammo has been used.
In the end trying to get to the wounded guys through the backdoor is defenitely better than trying to rescue them over the turret while a heavy Syrian assault is rolling to you position...
German language doesn't differentiate between IFV and APC, Schützenpanzer is really in use for both (though Transportpanzer can be in use for some APCs including the Saurer in the .50cal-armed variant).How about Saurer 4K 4FA-G2.
The 4K 4FA-G2 (aka MK66/SPz) was used as command vehicle / IFV in Austrian PzGren units.
Typical composition for a platoon was two MK66/SPz (with 20mm) for platoon commander and platoon sergeant, and three üSMG/SPz (with .50cal) for the three infantry squads of the platoon. The MK66/Spz carried the commander, comm team, as well as half the heavy weapons squad of the platoon (one anti-tank team, one sniper). Later on, the third APC was skipped, and its troops split on the two command IFVs.
Operational use was pretty much identical to IFVs in other armies. Also shown by its direct succession by the Ulan (ASCOD) IFV.
And yes, i had to look that up
Afaik the M113 is only called MTW when used in the APC role?In the end I have to admit that I don't know were the difference is between a TPz and a MTW?
Is there a reason for different names?
While the TPz means the entire Fuchs family.
Plus, you can probably blame that they switched doctrines inbetween.
The MTW was introduced during Heeresstruktur 2 and was probably called that to properly differentiate MTW-equipped (light) PzGren units from SPz-equipped (heavy) PzGren units.
The TPz was introduced around the switch from Heeresstruktur 3 to Heeresstruktur 4 to transport equipment primarily, and not at all in any PzGren units.
So Austria does differentiate between the 50 cal and 20 mm versions.German language doesn't differentiate between IFV and APC, Schützenpanzer is really in use for both (though Transportpanzer can be in use for some APCs including the Saurer in the .50cal-armed variant).
The 4K 4FA-G2 (aka MK66/SPz) was used as command vehicle / IFV in Austrian PzGren units.
Typical composition for a platoon was two MK66/SPz (with 20mm) for platoon commander and platoon sergeant, and three üSMG/SPz (with .50cal) for the three infantry squads of the platoon. The MK66/Spz carried the commander, comm team, as well as half the heavy weapons squad of the platoon (one anti-tank team, one sniper). Later on, the third APC was skipped, and its troops split on the two command IFVs.
Operational use was pretty much identical to IFVs in other armies. Also shown by its direct succession by the Ulan (ASCOD) IFV.
And yes, i had to look that up
There are different MTW versions like MTW KRKW (San). And they are still called MTW.
So I would think that the switch from Heeresstruktur 2 to Heeresstruktur 3 could be a good explaination.
To Austria, the .50cal version is a "IFV with downgraded armament", sortaSo Austria does differentiate between the 50 cal and 20 mm versions.
: Both are called Schützenpanzer (IFV), one of them with üSMG (.50cal M2), the other with the MK66 (20mm gun).
There's actually a reason for that. Austria originally did plan a IFV with built-in armament in a turret (20mm gun). Original requirements were for a IFV with a 20mm gun, space for an infantry squad, fully tracked with mobility close to MBTs, armoured against 20mm from the frontal arc.
However, the planned armament wasn't available at the time (or not cheap enough?). So they built them without in 1961-1963. Simple hatch, .50cal M2 on a pintle mount behind a armour shield. The 20mm version only came about in a further batch five years later.
Thanks - it was a good challenge for you thoughTo Austria, the .50cal version is a "IFV with downgraded armament", sorta
Both are called Schützenpanzer (IFV), one of them with üSMG (.50cal M2), the other with the MK66 (20mm gun).
There's actually a reason for that. Austria originally did plan a IFV with built-in armament in a turret (20mm gun). Original requirements were for a IFV with a 20mm gun, space for an infantry squad, fully tracked with mobility close to MBTs, armoured against 20mm from the frontal arc.
However, the planned armament wasn't available at the time (or not cheap enough?). So they built them without in 1961-1963. Simple hatch, .50cal M2 on a pintle mount behind a armour shield. The 20mm version only came about in a further batch five years later.
well the US and Australian LAV-25's were originally intended to carry a small 4 squad reconnaissance team but these were scrapped in place of more fuel and ammo storage just like the Merkova, to me I don't see why its necessary for the Merkova to be able the transport infantry, if you have wounded you get a helo or an ambulance APC variant to pick them up and the MBT's continue on...
In terms of the 20mm and .50 cal debate, instead of having one type mix it up a little different horses for different courses.
In terms of the 20mm and .50 cal debate, instead of having one type mix it up a little different horses for different courses.
The israelis have a requirement for getting troops in and out of the battlefield as safely as possible - it fits within their doctrine. Their doctrine is unique per se in some areas.
You just can't call up medivac etc, at the drop of a hat - you need to have the spare and avail resources to to that, or you need to be able to triage as much as possible while extra support comes. The Israelis have always been big on soldier protection as they're lean on human resources
Why? both calibres don't necessarily have a capability overlap. - and you need to be able to place them effectively on the platform to be able to use them as well.
No...No...No thats not what i was saying, what I'm saying is basically if you cant fit in a 20mm put in a .50, although the ammo capacity is reduced when you have a 20mm and why waste ammo on a squad of infantry that your pursuing with your 20 when you can pull out your 50, a 20mm would be more reserved for light Armour and the 50. infantry, and yeah i see how that works for israeli's limited manpower etc. but for someone like America where they usually make extensive use of helo's and the like
Capacity is reduced? You actually have a broader selection of 20mm rounds than 50's. Are you talking volume of rounds or capability of rounds?
the issue of calibre directly relates to capability expectations for that platform.
its also an issue of available real estate, and an issue of access. if you try and turn the top deck into an all singing all dancing gunmount, then sooner rather than later you end up with restricted capability as there's only so many people who can get up and operate them concurrently anyway.
either that, or I am completely missing your point.
yeah you are missing my point.
I was talking about the volume of ammunition you can carry with the different calibers and how your not going to waste precious 20mm rounds on a squad of infantry when you can use the other vehicles more plentiful 50. cal
(I am well aware of the fact that there are more than 200 rounds carried by a 20mm cannon, I am more referring to sustained operations without a resupply anytime soon)
I was talking about the volume of ammunition you can carry with the different calibers and how your not going to waste precious 20mm rounds on a squad of infantry when you can use the other vehicles more plentiful 50. cal
(I am well aware of the fact that there are more than 200 rounds carried by a 20mm cannon, I am more referring to sustained operations without a resupply anytime soon)
but calibre of weapon is also going to denote what type of unit that weapon is in, and the type of unit then starts to denote mission and tasking issues. sustained ops means a different platform mix within the force structure.
at that point its a logistics and a training issue...
Kind of, in the Iraq the Americans utilized their brigades of Lavs where all either had 25mm, .50 cals or Mk19 grenade launchers and they pressed on until they reached Baghdad without resupply obviously because it only took them two weeks.
So yeah i see your point the question is do you see mine
So yeah i see your point the question is do you see mine
That's a bit of a generalisation... I think the problem word is "doctrinal."
If you look at something like the Australian M113s, they are, doctrinally, APCs. But also in the doctrine they can be used as IFVs, advancing WITH the infantry during attacks, providing fire support. There's even a part of the doctrine on using the M113s to assault through the position alone, and drop the infantry either on top of, or beyond, the objective to mop up.I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, just pointing out that, as with just about all things military, the lines can and do blur. Obviously nobody would WANT to be advancing in contact with M113s when they could have Bradleys, but some armies don't get the choice.
Just because a vehicle is unsuitable for a certain role does not, unfortunately, mean it won't be pressed into that role. The Australian Army, for one, has sort of mashed the APC and IFV concepts together, out of necessity.Though perhaps with the new "Hardened and Networked Army" that will soon change...