IFV v APC

[gf0012-aust]

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

What relevance has the Thunder Run got in your argument when it included multiple Abrams as part of that high speed entry?

You just can't pick out a historical example like the Thunder Run and extrapolate it to an Australian scenario. Different tactics and doctrine for a local event.

We have fundamentally the same fitouts, but our local doctrine is different to the US Army. If you want to see an example of difference between the way we operate with similar equipment, then look no further than Convoy management in Iraq.

 

[Simon9]

What relevance has the Thunder Run got in your argument when it included multiple Abrams as part of that high speed entry?

You just can't pick out a historical example like the Thunder Run and extrapolate it to an Australian scenario. Different tactics and doctrine for a local event.

We have fundamentally the same fitouts, but our local doctrine is different to the US Army. If you want to see an example of difference between the way we operate with similar equipment, then look no further than Convoy management in Iraq.

I don't know where he's going with the Iraq comparison either but I do agree with the fundamental idea - there is merit in the idea of mixing calibres, particularly for the Australian Army which might conceivably have less opportunity to re-supply than the US Army, particularly if operating over long distances within Australia.

Actually that's probably the reason they mixed the .30 and .50 cals on the M113s in the first place. I can't think why else they'd put two ballistically dissimilar weapons side by side in the same turret.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't know where he's going with the Iraq comparison either but I do agree with the fundamental idea - there is merit in the idea of mixing calibres, particularly for the Australian Army which might conceivably have less opportunity to re-supply than the US Army, particularly if operating over long distances within Australia.

Actually that's probably the reason they mixed the .30 and .50 cals on the M113s in the first place. I can't think why else they'd put two ballistically dissimilar weapons side by side in the same turret.

For situations where the 50cal cannot be fired, ie: in built up areas, where civilians are a concern.

In Somalia the 30cal was fired more often than the 50 from all reports...

Plus there's the practical issue that for many years Army didn't operate a BFA for the 50cals and if they wanted to fire a gun during an exercise scenario it was a 30cal or nothing...

 

[Simon9]

For situations where the 50cal cannot be fired, ie: in built up areas, where civilians are a concern.

In Somalia the 30cal was fired more often than the 50 from all reports...

Plus there's the practical issue that for many years Army didn't operate a BFA for the 50cals and if they wanted to fire a gun during an exercise scenario it was a 30cal or nothing...

Yeah I bet the 30 was fired more in a place like Somalia. Not that a 30's going to have much trouble punching through walls in regional Somalia I suppose.

A 2/14 trooper I spoke to many years ago (on my first combined arms weekend!) told me the 50 cal was intended more for vehicles, and the 30 cal for infantry.

 

[gf0012-aust]

but I do agree with the fundamental idea - there is merit in the idea of mixing calibres, particularly for the Australian Army which might conceivably have less opportunity to re-supply than the US Army, particularly if operating over long distances within Australia.

I'm not saying that its not an option, I'm saying that its an issue of relevance and available real estate on the platform. There are practicality issues depending on the platform, and more importantly re the tasking.

I guess its easier to probably explain if an example is used. eg an LRDP recce group will have a different fitout than a strike group - eg the former may well have a Mog in tow for basic provisioning etc so has the luxury of carting about extra rounds and mixed rounds as they will RTB after every LR event. Force structure (as such) is different.

and unless I'm confused, the original calibre mix re this discussion was 20mm and 50cal, so I've been arguing around the issue of that calibre mix rather than 50cal and 30cal.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yeah I bet the 30 was fired more in a place like Somalia. Not that a 30's going to have much trouble punching through walls in regional Somalia I suppose.

A 2/14 trooper I spoke to many years ago (on my first combined arms weekend!) told me the 50 cal was intended more for vehicles, and the 30 cal for infantry.

Yep, pretty much.

30cals were extremely good guns in my opinion IF, you could actually get good working parts for the gun.

If you managed to do this, they certainly used to "hum" when operating well...

Why they weren't replaced with MAG-58's 15-20 years ago though is beyond me. Same as the MG3's on the Leopards. The expense of operating these different guns, when they offered little to no capability benefit over a MAG-58 astounds me.

The 30cal's for instance still use "canvas belts" for their ammunition for crying out loud...

As for the "punching through walls". I expect you're correct, though the over-penetration is not going to be anything like that of a 50 cal...

 

[lobbie111]

It wouldn't be hard to modify a mag 58 to the .30 standard would it? just change the sepcifications of the components but why are we discussing putting another caliber into the mix? the 7.62 is good enough for urban situations isn't it?

 

[Simon9]

It wouldn't be hard to modify a mag 58 to the .30 standard would it? just change the sepcifications of the components but why are we discussing putting another caliber into the mix? the 7.62 is good enough for urban situations isn't it?

Mate I think you need to start reading posts a bit more carefully.

Nobody is talking about replacing the MAG 58 with the .30 cal. The old M113s had both a .50 cal AND a .30 cal side by side in the turret. And the Leopards had MG3s.

We were just saying that there's no reason why we needed to have three separate GPMGs in service on our armoured vehicles when they could have been standardised with the MAG 58. And certainly no need to have two separate calibres.

 

[AGRA]

.30-06 is the original form of 7.62x51mm NATO. All that happened in the development of 7.62 was more modern and powerful powder was used allowing the shortening of the case by under 1cm. The South African Army and other users converted the .30 Browning MG to fire 7.62x51. That would have been an ideal option for Australia. Wouldn't have changed performance an iota but standardised on one type of ammo and belt/links.

As for the MAG-58 it was originally only an interim weapon in the Australian Army. Up until 1990ish the M60 was our standard GPMG. MAG-58s were only on issue to the ODF or 3 Bde because the M60s were clapped out and high field maintenance 'pigs'. After the introduction of the F89 Minimi to replace the M60 more MAG-58s were issued for the SFMG role.

At this time the infamous M113 turret replacement project was underway. In 1993 it was seen as being just around the corner so the old .30 Brownings could solider on. Of course its now 2007 and we will be lucky to have the new turret in service within a year.

The MG3s were a great gun and came with the tanks. Again the MAG-58 standard issue didn't really arrise until the mid 1990s when the Leopard AS1 was due for replacement my a new wheeled light tank. Things have since changed and our current MBT comes with M240s as standard MGs.

Of course while looking the same as the MAG-58 on the outside the M240 is not quite parts common. But we had this problem before with both imperial built L7s and metric built MAGs all comprising the fleet we call MAG-58. So what's that argument about standardising?

 

[buglerbilly]

Nah I want them changed, all of them changed, to an 8.6mm/.338 Lapua MAGNUM round! Now that would punch holes thru' a wall............

 

[Chauvel]

off topic

whats with T5C
Chauvel:unknown

 

[AGRA]

Nah I want them changed, all of them changed, to an 8.6mm/.338 Lapua MAGNUM round! Now that would punch holes thru' a wall............

.338 is a great round but not useable for MGs. The casing isn't tapered enough to actually be extracted by an automatic mechanism. However the current taper has been considerable modified in an attempt to make it more MG friendly. But you really would need an entirely new shell casing to make it work.

But in the same way 8.6mm is much better than 7.62mm and 12.7mm for sniping so would it be better for MG action. H&K developed a 9mm sniper round in the 80s with this in mind.

 

[lobbie111]

It would be more cost effective now to use the 7.62 because obviously cheaper costs and the infrastructure is there but in the future could we see the 8.6mm?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Of course while looking the same as the MAG-58 on the outside the M240 is not quite parts common. But we had this problem before with both imperial built L7s and metric built MAGs all comprising the fleet we call MAG-58. So what's that argument about standardising?

At least our M113AS1's wouldn't be using canvas belts anymore...

Speaking of the replacement M113 turret, does anyone know if a MAG-58 or M240, for that matter, could be mounted on a flex-mount on the M113AS3/4 turret?

The reason for this is the same issue mentioned before about using 12.7mm machine guns in built up areas, against non-armoured targets or personnel...

I am aware that "hatch down" is the preferred method of operating in our more heavily protected bucket, that might arrive at some point in the future, unless Labor follow through to the ultimate conclusion with their latest defence criticisms, however the design has specifically eliminated a second lower calibre weapon capable of operation from within the turret.

How has the requirement changed? Surely light infantry, militia etc, doesn't require 12.7mm ball ALL the time?

 

[Simon9]

Of course while looking the same as the MAG-58 on the outside the M240 is not quite parts common. But we had this problem before with both imperial built L7s and metric built MAGs all comprising the fleet we call MAG-58. So what's that argument about standardising?

What's the difference in parts between the L7s and MAGs, other than the stocks? I've used both - in the same weapons lessons, no less - and haven't noticed any difference in the internal parts, and there is certainly no difference in procedure. But I'm not an armourer and haven't been in DFSW so maybe I haven't noticed (down for the DFSW course in November, but I don't like my chances of getting on it, they're always well oversubscribed!)

But I would hardly compare the L7 and MAG to the difference between the MAG and the .30 cal.

At least our M113AS1's wouldn't be using canvas belts anymore...

Speaking of the replacement M113 turret, does anyone know if a MAG-58 or M240, for that matter, could be mounted on a flex-mount on the M113AS3/4 turret?

The reason for this is the same issue mentioned before about using 12.7mm machine guns in built up areas, against non-armoured targets or personnel...

I am aware that "hatch down" is the preferred method of operating in our more heavily protected bucket, that might arrive at some point in the future, unless Labor follow through to the ultimate conclusion with their latest defence criticisms, however the design has specifically eliminated a second lower calibre weapon capable of operation from within the turret.

How has the requirement changed? Surely light infantry, militia etc, doesn't require 12.7mm ball ALL the time?

I've wondered this myself, I figured it was an issue of the all the optics and electronics of the new turret, vis-a-vis the old manually operated turret, the fire control system of which consisted of tracer rounds.

If anything the requirement for under-armour 7.62 is increased in the current strategic environment.

 

[Chino]

BTR-80A is APC by all means. Look at its armor. Noone in the right mind would send it on frontline. M113 - same. Note, you can slap 75mm gun on a bus - it will NOT make said bus an IFV.

So, any conclusions so far? Is the 75mm-equipped bus a APC or IFV?:unknown

Here's my opinion of traditional definition of an IFV...

I remember that back in the day, the M2 Bradley was the first western IFV. Its definition: - a heavily-armed tracked troop carrier that can keep up with the M1 Abrams. (M113 was considered too slow.)

The M2 IFV was also tracked so that it has the same cross-country abilities as the M1.

And to further add weight to justify the term "IFV", the M2 had six firing ports to allow the infantry troopers inside the IFV to fight without dismounting.

And thus - Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

...

One reason the US did not call the M113 an IFV because most were phased out of service as soon as the M2 Bradley became available. And the US also did not upgrade the M113 as much as say Israel or Singapore - both of whom have continued to work on their stock of M113 to the point where they are little different from IFV.

So IMO it is correct to call the M113 an IFV.

But the role of the IFV were never much different from that of the APC: get the troops there, and provide fire support for the troops along with the tanks. The firing ports in the M2 Bradley

,,,

So in conclusion, I feel the traditional definition of an IFV should remain: a tracked vehicle, high performance, well-armoured, heavy armament up to 90mm, ability to carry a section of mounted troopers with or without vehicle-mounted weapons that some of the troopers can operate.

 

[eckherl]

So, any conclusions so far? Is the 75mm-equipped bus a APC or IFV?:unknown

Here's my opinion of traditional definition of an IFV...

I remember that back in the day, the M2 Bradley was the first western IFV. Its definition: - a heavily-armed tracked troop carrier that can keep up with the M1 Abrams. (M113 was considered too slow.)

The M2 IFV was also tracked so that it has the same cross-country abilities as the M1.

And to further add weight to justify the term "IFV", the M2 had six firing ports to allow the infantry troopers inside the IFV to fight without dismounting.

And thus - Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

...

One reason the US did not call the M113 an IFV because most were phased out of service as soon as the M2 Bradley became available. And the US also did not upgrade the M113 as much as say Israel or Singapore - both of whom have continued to work on their stock of M113 to the point where they are little different from IFV.

So IMO it is correct to call the M113 an IFV.

But the role of the IFV were never much different from that of the APC: get the troops there, and provide fire support for the troops along with the tanks. The firing ports in the M2 Bradley

,,,

So in conclusion, I feel the traditional definition of an IFV should remain: a tracked vehicle, high performance, well-armoured, heavy armament up to 90mm, ability to carry a section of mounted troopers with or without vehicle-mounted weapons that some of the troopers can operate.

The Bradley was not the first true designed IFV, that title would have to go to the Russian BMP and German Marder with the U.S and Britian following suite with the Bradley and Warrior. Also the U.S never intended for the M113 to be a IFV.

 

[kato]

The Bradley was not the first true designed IFV, that title would have to go to the Russian BMP and German Marder with the U.S and Britian following suite with the Bradley and Warrior. Also the U.S never intended for the M113 to be a IFV.

He said Western. Bradley came in '81, AMX-10P in 1972, Marder in '71 - production deliveries for each, development started around 10-12 years ealier in all cases. So, yeah, Marder was the first Western IFV.

The first production series AIFV aka M113A1 PI (with firing ports and 25mm gun) competed against the Bradley in the early 70s and lost; the first production vehicles of the AIFV were the Dutch YPR-765 sometime after '75.

But the role of the IFV were never much different from that of the APC: get the troops there, and provide fire support for the troops along with the tanks.

An APC does not provide fire support, other than perhaps "opportunity fire" . It's role in combat - if at all - is similar to that of a MG in a Cold War NATO doctrine defense line; that is, placed to cover peripheral sectors not covered by the infantry itself, not central to it in any way.

 

[AGRA]

The difference between the L7 and the MAG is that all the parts are built to different tolerances. The L7 parts are measured in inches and the MAG parts in metric. So you need two sets of parts and tools to support the weapons. From an armourers point of view - apart from training - they might as well be two different MGs. The M240 is measured in inches as well.

The Tenix turrent on the M113AS4 is designed to operate either the M2HB QCB 12.7mm or a MAG type MG. Changing between the two is something the crew can do by themselves (ie no armourer needed). The Army's requirement did not include a 40mm AGL at the time so you would be hard pressed to fit in such a weapon unless it had a smaller exterior profile than a M2HB - which is unlikely.

 

[eckherl]

He said Western. Bradley came in '81, AMX-10P in 1972, Marder in '71 - production deliveries for each, development started around 10-12 years ealier in all cases. So, yeah, Marder was the first Western IFV.

The first production series AIFV aka M113A1 PI (with firing ports and 25mm gun) competed against the Bradley in the early 70s and lost; the first production vehicles of the AIFV were the Dutch YPR-765 sometime after '75.


An APC does not provide fire support, other than perhaps "opportunity fire" . It's role in combat - if at all - is similar to that of a MG in a Cold War NATO doctrine defense line; that is, placed to cover peripheral sectors not covered by the infantry itself, not central to it in any way.

Yes we tested a couple of proto types and that was the extent of it, even though the Netherlands bought in to the project, it was doomed with the U.S Army due to the armor configeration and suspension, a 50 caliber machine gun will punch holes in to it.