btw thanks for your detailed explanation on artillery pieces OPSSG. That was very kind of you.
You are welcome.
Try to read more before you ask about what you don't understand. That way, we can focus our answers/responses on what you don't understand.
The vehicle looks impressive, that grill on the side seems to be becoming more popular these days.
That's called slat or caged armour. It's used to protect the passive armour underneath from certain threats, like RPGs. You should read up on that basics on how it works (and it's limitations) for yourself. It is important to remember that modern armour protection engineering is about providing different layers of protection (the analogy is that of an onion - when one layer is defeated, the next layer provides protection/mitigation of effects). Hence, it is common to talk about the
survivability onion (please read post #4 of this thread and it's associated links for more info).
The profile of the vehicle seems to be a little to big though, dont you think? It would make a nice large target. In Indian army they made a big fuss about the taller profile of Arjun MBT compared to russian equivalents(they are still making a fuss
). though Arjun's profile is closer to most western tank designs I am told.
With regards to Indian media/blog reports on the Arjun, there's quite a bit of misinformation. Or at least there is an attempt by individuals to twist information (without regard to context) to best support their arguments. Some of these individuals are more interested in trying to 'win' an argument rather than provide a balanced view point (as engineering is about making compromises work). I've learnt over time that I do not want to comment on such matters - there is already a
old thread on the topic. I've had more than enough of unproductive discussions on forums, so I will not wade in on the Arjun.
How big is the profile issue in ICVs and IFVs?
I agree with what was written by Waylander and would add the following additional comments:
An APC like the Warthog/Bronco (as a troop carrier) have different characteristics from an IFV (or Infantry Fighting Vehicle), which are used by armoured infantry (and are engineered accordingly to different requirements).
In a conventional battle, an IFV will typically operate with MBTs as part of an armoured brigade / division / corp. Typically, an IFV carries a turreted automatic cannon of 20mm or more and it will stick around once it has dropped off its armoured infantry to support them. Basically, IFV equipped armoured infantry, working with MBTs are called armoured or heavy ground forces. Armoured forces are ideal for offensive operations or for counter-attacks in mobile defensive operations. However, traditionally structured heavy forces are not ideally suited for fighting insurgencies and certain types of terrain (as their heavy equipment could get bogged down by certain types of terrain). This is not to say that MBTs cannot be used as direct fire support for light infantry (which are being used by the Danes and the Canadians in Afghanistan).
IMO, the dividing line between IFVs and APCs is not the thickness armour but the presence or absence of offensive armament (which affects your dismounted infantry tactics). The Israeli Namer has tracks and more armour than any IFV on the planet, but it is classed as an APC due to the lack of offensive armament. APCs are armoured taxis, usually with machine guns for self-defence. After it has dropped off its infantry it will retreat to cover. Therefore APC equipped infantry will have slightly different tactics and roles. APC or ICV equipped infantry, working with light tanks tend to be called medium ground forces. An ICV is for motorised infantry and they play a slightly different role from armoured infantry.
Now for the all important context, below:
(i) Singapore actually has armoured infantry, who are mostly carried in Bionix II IFVs and they are meant to function as part of a heavy or armoured spearhead (along with our Leopard 2A4 MBTs and supported by tracked self propelled howitzers) to seek gaps in against a broad enemy front in a conventional war. We often use the Bronco (hence the horse reference in the Bronco name) as a logistics support vehicle and as a 120mm mortar carrier (as part of our armour spearhead). Please see the relevant videos below:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja6s4sZ6t_g]Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQdsUlr1674"]CGI of the 120mm SRAMs[/ame]
(ii) The Royal Marines are currently using the British made Viking in an unconventional war against insurgents in Afghanistan. The Royal Marines are an elite light infantry force (with a particular focus on ship to shore maneuver) and the key characteristic of light infantry is mobility. By virtue of the Viking's smaller size, it can carry less troops and less armour. And the Warthog is purchased as a UOR to replace the Viking in Afghanistan (they have lost a few guys to IEDs in the Vikings, including a LTC). Like the Viking (IIRC, about 50 Vikings are in Helmand and 27 of these have been damaged by mine or IED explosions), the Warthog is an All-Terrain-Tracked-Carrier (ATTC) is designed to travel off-road. ATTC enable the Royal Marines to navigate Afghanistan’s difficult, mountainous terrain (which would defeat other wheeled vehicles like the American made
MRAPs). In Afghanistan, support fires (scoped rifles, machine guns and bunker busters) are available at company and platoon level, which means that the troops are heavily laden. ATTCs give the Royal Marines mobility over difficult terrain that would defeat other wheeled protected vehicles. Further, the Warthog, with it's armour, HMG mount and smoke generators enables continued tactical movements by infantry over difficult terrain, when in contact with the enemy (it is especially useful when deployed in an over-watch position to support dismounted troops). This is crucial in terrain where cover and concealment may not be available. So it is important to understand the context and role of the equipment.
Click here for more on 'light infantry tactics' and I'm sure the British members of our forum will be able to tell you more about the Royal Marines in Afghanistan.
The best way to explain is this. You can use knife to open a tin can but a can opener will do a better job. Because the Singapore army fields both light heli-mobile light infantry (our Guards units) and armoured or heavy infantry we have a mix of tools to respond to different threat scenarios. The Terrex ICV bridges the gap between light infantry and armour, with a medium force, thereby giving us more tactical choices.
For some less intelligent commentators, the 'best' is often defined as 'whatever the Americans are using.' However, I believe that that is the wrong yard stick. The correct yard stick is the equipment's suitability for your specific tactical considerations. IMO, people who like to make the 'best' equipment arguments generally do not understand how appropriate tactics can save lives.
