Combatreform is Mike's (and about two dozen other sites with similar layout).
As for Globalsecurity, they're a FAS spinoff, essentially. Bothered to actually read this on their site?
IFV v APC
- Thread starter Asstroboy
- Start date
As for Globalsecurity, they're a FAS spinoff, essentially. Bothered to actually read this on their site?
Actually the BMP3 has a very interesting 100mm gun/missile system. While it has a multitude of roles including anti-helicopters, you also easily deduce that it will be a very useful weapon for urban fighting. The gun can also elevate extremely high. This is probably from their experience in Afghanistan where they couldn't shoot at the Mujahideen on the hills ambushing road convoys. And also, I'm sure, from Grozny.
Though in my opinion it lacks a ammunition type spread. Seriously, only having (small) ATGM and HE-FRAG rounds available? Even the 152mm M81 on the Sheridan had more choice available, and its designed primary usage was the same (using ATGM vs armoured targets).
Grozny was a bit late for the BMP-3...
Wow grndpndr I am really glad that you edited up your post, yes we were quite shocked that they left the 82nd without any armor support, we figured at Todd Hall that you would be getting the M8 for sure and I guess you know what happened with that debacle. But they are in the process of working on something, could be the Stryker which offers better armor protection over a M113 series, you have to be very careful when installing reactive armor on the M113 due to the primary armor and to the way that it is welded together, the Stryker will offer you more options including ERA which is being tested now.
Never said that combat experience was a pre-requisite to anything. If that is the case this forum would be very empty.
You used the term "battlefield taxi" to emphasize your point. And I am explaining why your understanding of that term is wrong/different from mine.
It is not just taking you to the battlefield. It is taking you INTO the battlefield.
Oh but the shil was a scary thing to fire. Russia did use BMP3s in Grozney.
Thanks for the information.
Id be curious to know how many military systems had "unofficial nicknames"?Anyway id be very curious to see the effect sof the 152mm sheridans howitzer with HEP T against buildings.Problem i se with the stryker besides being unconvinced of wheled versus tracked is wieght and the fact but 1 can be carried(c130) and i think(aircraft) must be landed to offload.
Last edited:
Every single one.
Right! and contrary to the qoute of post 101.All systems had nicknames even the lowly m113 a3/4 'gavin'.The M1 wasnt officially the 'Garand' but we all know what it is.Dont we?official or no.And finally ill bet the M1 Rifle was known as The M1 long before it became unofficialy the garand.
So whether the M113 a3/4 is officailly called the gavin has no bearing on my arguments or what its capable of,simply semantics thats being taken exception to.
So whether the M113 a3/4 is officailly called the gavin has no bearing on my arguments or what its capable of,simply semantics thats being taken exception to.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
As a minimum the unofficial nick have to be in wide use or been used widely by the operators. This does not seem to be the case with "Gavin".
Hence it does not qualify.
Yes you are correct that only 1 can be loaded onto a C130 and they have to take the weapons platform off to do and that is just the 50cal system, you will not be shoe horning a MGS into one. They would most likely use C-17s for this task which is capable of landing on make shift runways. Russia does have a impressive batch of airborne vehicles at their disposal, problem is that this approach (air dropping) may be a little outdated due to technology that is currently available. I feel that wheeled vehicles have their place for small scale operations and may be actually better suited for this type of scenario over combat heavy vehicles, as I stated earlier in this thread the Stryker is actually better suited in urbanized areas located inside of Iraq due to the size of the roads and because of the speed that they can get to a trouble spot or get out of one. for fighting large scale offensive operations I would prefer the heavies. As far as the 152mm missle sytems HEP round goes I would think that it would be very effective against a building structure or troops in the open, a 155mm HE round has a danger close of 600 meters.
You keep going on about armament, but you've completely forgotten that the APC and the INFANTRY FIGHTING VEHICLE's share the same primary role is: to carry infantry to protect the tanks's against enemy infantry.
You are obsessed byt the IFV's ability to attack other tanks and IFV. While this is important, a dedicted gun platform can do it as well or better. An IFV is to carry infantry to counter enemy infantry and provide fire support.
How is this different from the role spelt out in the 60's for APC?
I am describing the APC's role BEFORE the arrival of the IFV.
You keep talking about APC vs IFV TODAY.
This is where you and I have a misunderstanding.
Who says a Mech force with APC will always meet another Mech force?
In Vietnam, the Allied armour were often used to counter enemy infantry.
In 1973 Yom Kippur War, those IDF Mech Force that went to battle without their infantry protection were slaughtered by Egyptian infantry heavily armed with lots of PRG and Sagger.
The APC exists to enable the infantry to protect the tanks against enemy infantry, not to protect the tanks against enemy AFV, the tanks can do that themselves. So your emphasis on armament, while important, is not primary to the existence of armoured troop carriers within armoured formations.
Whther they do that with a 20mm chain gun or a 50cal is not something the troops on the ground gets to choose. You fight with what you have.
With all due respect that is a very narrow view and very limited thinking.
Wouldn't you say that where the APC stop moving forward is a decision made on the battlefield and not on a piece of "doctrine" paper?
If you are an APC with a 50cal - tough luck - there will be no doctrine to say you can retreat to a safe place if you are in the IDF or even the SAF.
This is why the IFV was developed to REPLACE the APC.
I am not saying BRING THE APC BACK.I am saying the APC was all people had back then and even now.
Not everyone is the US Army or the Bundeswehr.
And again, I am NOT saying the APC is better than the IFV. I may have to repeat this 1,000 times but I am not saying the APC is better. I am saying that in the old days and in some poorer armies today that's all you have.
But what you and Kato is impying: that the APC will retreat after dropping off its infantry load, is pure fantasy. Maybe that's how you do it in your countries but that's not how it is here and many other parts of the world.
Not only will it be a serious blow to morale for the dismounted troopers to have your only big gun and protection retreat in the midst of a fight, leaving you... it is also gonna create a corresponding rise in morale in the enemy to see that you have such cowardly tankers.
Furthermore, with everything moving forward in the confusion of a battlefield, and then suddenly your APC is moving in the OPPOSITE direction, it will create a SERIOUS traffic jam. Not every battlefied is the wide open plains of Russia or deserts of Iraq.
In all the Israel battles, the APC retreating as SOP (Standard Operation Procedure) was simply unheard. Trucks do that, APC do not.
Even the atacking Egyptian columns of Yom Kippur had APCs and many were lost to tank fire. But hey, war is hell. How else do you expect dimounted infantry to reach enemy lines along with the charging tanks.
Your description of the APC's role would take us back to to WW1.
With all due respect, sir.
Except no one ever called the M113 "Gavin" (except Sparky of course, and whoever he convinced of it...).
edit: http://home.comcast.net/~genericdad/m113gavin.html (just gotta link it)
Last edited:
The APC I was riding best not bug out,there supposed to provide a base of fire for the advancing squad with thier heavier firepower.M2s/MK19s and assorted LMGs.Hopefully for the crew from behind some cover but never the less provide covering fire for the squad.
Nickname assignment must be in a TM I never saw?
Nickname assignment must be in a TM I never saw?
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
It's unofficial.
Never questioned his credentials.
Myself, I have never been near a tank except in the training grounds. I was foot infantry all the way - served as a rifle platoon radioman, S2 intel at Battalion and Brigade level.
Waylander knows his army's doctrine well, no question.
I am speaking from historical POV. My older brother was a M113 commander in the 1970s. And also together with accounts of the actual combat use of APC in the past irregardless of doctrine.
If you also think that I am speaking in a APC vs IFV context, you are seriously mistaken and really ought to understand this:
The APC is, and should be, replaced by the IFV. But before the IFV was available in the 70s, people made do with the APC.
APC does not "vs" IFV. That's like saying Rifle vs Assault Rifle.
So please rise above your own perception that I am speaking out "for" APC over IFV. Please, this is getting really tiresome.
How much respect should I show? As you said this is a debate.
Should I just accept that APC only drop off infantry 2 to 3km from the battle and retreat cos their weapon and armour is not good enough?
This runs in the face of armoured infantry doctrine, of what armoured infantry was developed for in the first place.
Should I respect their opinion so much that I do not argue my point?
I will try to be polite but I certainly do not relish Kato implying that I am bringing down the standard of this thread.
If you want to tell people to be polite, you should have done that earlier.
If you worked with the M2 surely you know what the nick name was that we had for it, it has been around since WW2.
http://www.specialoperations.com/mout/pfg.html
(for 1982)
(for 1982)
Oh, and the proper nickname for the M113 is "Zippo".
Never stated or thought that you preferred a APC over a IFV, I actually agree with you on alot of your opinions in regards to both, M113s were pretty much what I was used to my infantry support in having until the late eighties when the units I have worked with started recieving bradleys, then we had to teach them that they were not tanks. We had M113s in South Korea all the way up to the early nineties, they were very slow and we had to always slow down so that we did not lose our infantry support. It is truly amazing on how many countries still use them for infantry support, a true testiment to the reliability that it has shown through out the decades.