Western support-tank?

[Rythm]

Not if you can put it low enough so that the main turret can traverse over it (albeit limiting the downward angle). Perhaps put it on the forward deck or something. I´m no engineer but im certain it is doable.

I always want extra armour. My life may depend on it one day after all. If weight goes beyond MLC50, and one has to label it something different than an IFV, thats fine by me. The price would of course be very high. But that, at this stage, doesnt interest me. I want to know if it is doable and why noone has done it (except for the BMP-T and to a lesser extent the Namera).

I mean, if two armies who recently have seen a lot of MOUT decide to bring in MBT-level armour on lighter vehicles (to some extent this also applies to recent US vehiclemodifications, altough they havent gone all the way yet), then this might be a lesson worth considering, exploring and perhaps even make a prototype of those ideas.

 

[Waylander]

Not if you can put it low enough so that the main turret can traverse over it (albeit limiting the downward angle). Perhaps put it on the forward deck or something. I´m no engineer but im certain it is doable.

Have you seen how big an RWS with something like a .50 cal or an AGL is?
Take things like the Stryker or Fennek ones as an example.
http://www.kmweg.de/produkte/fennek.jpg
http://www.army.mil/features/strykeroe/stryker-(front-view).jpg

They are not small. And one has to add the controls in the inside. The back of an IFV is already very cramped for a squad in full gear.

I don't see the benefits are big enough to restrict the firing arc of the turret, raise the price and making the room for the squad smaller.

I always want extra armour. My life may depend on it one day after all. If weight goes beyond MLC50, and one has to label it something different than an IFV, thats fine by me. The price would of course be very high. But that, at this stage, doesnt interest me. I want to know if it is doable and why noone has done it (except for the BMP-T and to a lesser extent the Namera).

It is fine that you want extra armor and don't care if it goes beyoind MLC50 (IMHO more MLC60...) but you haven't addressed the problems a bigger size and a bigger weight cause in an urban environment (narrow streets, bridges,...).

And you can't ask the question why nobody else does it without considering this and the higher price. This is an important part of the answer to this question.

And there have already been opinions in Israel that the Namera is an expensive piece of equipment for hauling infantry around while fielding a .50cal peashooter.

I mean, if two armies who recently have seen a lot of MOUT decide to bring in MBT-level armour on lighter vehicles (to some extent this also applies to recent US vehiclemodifications, altough they havent gone all the way yet), then this might be a lesson worth considering, exploring and perhaps even make a prototype of those ideas.

Yeah the russians have seen a lot of MOUT but before they had BMP-2 (and now 3) to ride their infantry into the thickes urban environment. Do you want to enter a MOUT environment with a vehicle which is possibly penetrated on the sides by a .50cal?

The problem of the Israelis is that they really like their HAPCs but they don't have the MBT hulls anymore to build a HAPC with surplus hulls. So they have to use a Merkava hull.
Making it a much more expensive HAPC than the ones before. For sure it gives your infantry very good protection, but the armament is little more than self defense.

 

[Rythm]

I have to apologize at this point, waylander. I dont know how i can bring my points over to you more clearly than i have done so far. Sorry.

And no, this is not intended as a flame, so please dont take it as such.

 

[Waylander]

I haven't taken it as a flame.
Sorry, if I sounded a little bit rough.

Let's say it is because we are no native speakers and the others wouldn't be happy about us speaking german.


I see were you are heading and what your ideas are.
I just wanted to show were IMHO the problems are and what the reasons are for not many countries doing it.

I see the benefits of a heavily armored urban fighting vehicle with enough room for a squad and plenty of firepower for an urban environment.

IMHO these benefits just don't outweight the disadvantages of such a vehicle.

 

[Chrom]

They are intended to operate with two tanks in a urban environment, I thought this was supposed to take the place of a tank, you said it yourself that tank capabilities in this type of environment is limited, I would think that they would use them the other way around, with infantry. also are you stating that Russia will be using them in open terrian settings.

For urban operations compostions might be changed to 2 BMP-T for 1 tank. And yes, they will be used everywhere, included open terrain. Or do you think what enemy infantry doesnt exist in open terrain? Also, while BMP-T is called "IFV" it is in fact differs from most IFV's in the sence what crew is not expected to dismount, but rather stay inside like in tank and control various weapon.

 

[Chrom]

Just using a MBT hull isn't going to save your day. Such a hull would need MOUT upgrades just like a normal tank hull due to it being vulnerable on the sides and rear.

A Puma for example which is build from the start with an all around threat of CE weapons in mind has a better side and rear protection than a plain normal Leo hull.

And a special vehicle like the BMP-T is so substitute for real infantry in my eyes.
Yeah, it has some nice firepower but sometimes you just need the mech infantry to go out on foot and do their job. Some surpressive fire (ok a lot of surpressive fire... ) and blowing holes into buildings is not the answer to everything hence I do wonder about the idea of replacing traditional mech inf with it.

Maybe because it is cheaper...

BMPT-likes vehicles is not expected to be sub-par to MBT in armor or firepower. It is projects like Israel Akhzarit instilled such wrong perception. Russian aproach is different - BMP-T is expected to have completely new hull, on par with future MBT. While protection against CE is indeed more important currently - but very same is also true for MBT!!! As you propose to use MBT in urban fighting and infantry-heavy enveronmet... Understand, BMP-T due to its role facing EXACTLY same threats as MBT.

BMP-T is not intended to COMPLETELY replace infantry in all situations - only in some sututuations, while taking major part of infantry work in others.

 

[eckherl]

For urban operations compostions might be changed to 2 BMP-T for 1 tank. And yes, they will be used everywhere, included open terrain. Or do you think what enemy infantry doesnt exist in open terrain? Also, while BMP-T is called "IFV" it is in fact differs from most IFV's in the sence what crew is not expected to dismount, but rather stay inside like in tank and control various weapon.

Chrom - I do not see the point in using this vehicle in conjunction with MBTs, it has ample firepower to support ground pounders in a urban setting does it not, in all cases it should be better. I am fully aware that the five man crew is to fight while under armor, for use in open terrian you could of at least given me the excuse that it can engage slow moving helicopters, this vehicle does have a rather limited stabilization system to use in open terrian.

 

[Chrom]

Chrom - I do not see the point in using this vehicle in conjunction with MBTs, it has ample firepower to support ground pounders in a urban setting does it not, in all cases it should be better. I am fully aware that the five man crew is to fight while under armor, for use in open terrian you could of at least given me the excuse that it can engage slow moving helicopters, this vehicle does have a rather limited stabilization system to use in open terrian.

This vehicle in any case offers much better anti-infantry capabilities than plain MBT. Enemy infantry is one of the main threats on the current battlefield, even for MBT. As such, it makes sense to replace MBT with something what is is better in anti-infantry role.
Even in open terrain 2+ km shots are rarery needed, especially against small targets (btw, wasnt your presented argument about moslty sub-2km ranges even in tank combat?). At such 1-2km ranges generally the weapon is ok.
Either way, infantry at 2+ km range is much less dungerous and could be dealt with usuall stuff like artillery, aviation, ATGM's and tank guns.

Also, keep in mind - however bad is BMP-T, the naked infantry with puny M-16 is much, much, much weaker!

Ok, lets name logical chain why modern army NEED BMP-T like vehicle:

1. MBT need support - it cant operate alone. Note - this is accepted by ALL specialists. MBT CAN'T do many things well.
2. Support -> infantry + ifv
3. Infantry is VERY fragile, VERY slow, and VERY weak in firepower
4. Current IFV also quite fragile, some of them cant move with tanks, some of them have weak weapon
5. We need vehicle what can support MBT.
6. This vehicle should be: protected as MBT, move over difficult terrain as MBT, have enouth firepower to replace IFV's and infantry in support role.
7. BMP-T conception - here we are!

Of course, BMP-T is not ideal, it have many deficiences - but it is first of such kind, the conception will be developed and rewoked.

 

[eckherl]

This vehicle in any case offers much better anti-infantry capabilities than plain MBT. Enemy infantry is one of the main threats on the current battlefield, even for MBT. As such, it makes sense to replace MBT with something what is is better in anti-infantry role.
Even in open terrain 2+ km shots are rarery needed, especially against small targets (btw, wasnt your presented argument about moslty sub-2km ranges even in tank combat?). At such 1-2km ranges generally the weapon is ok.
Either way, infantry at 2+ km range is much less dungerous and could be dealt with usuall stuff like artillery, aviation, ATGM's and tank guns.

Also, keep in mind - however bad is BMP-T, the naked infantry with puny M-16 is much, much, much weaker!

Ok, lets name logical chain why modern army NEED BMP-T like vehicle:

1. MBT need support - it cant operate alone. Note - this is accepted by ALL specialists. MBT CAN'T do many things well.
2. Support -> infantry + ifv
3. Infantry is VERY fragile, VERY slow, and VERY weak in firepower
4. Current IFV also quite fragile, some of them cant move with tanks, some of them have weak weapon
5. We need vehicle what can support MBT.
6. This vehicle should be: protected as MBT, move over difficult terrain as MBT, have enouth firepower to replace IFV's and infantry in support role.
7. BMP-T conception - here we are!

Of course, BMP-T is not ideal, it have many deficiences - but it is first of such kind, the conception will be developed and rewoked.

This vehicle was designed specifically for urban and mountain warfare, lessons learn from past experiences from both type of scenarios, do not get me wrong, you know that I like this vehicle for what it was specifically designed to do, if Russia feels that they need additional infantry support other than what a BMP 2 or 3 will give along with MBT support in open terrian then they will most certainly use them, I just do not see the need for it in that type of scenario.

 

[Rythm]

But wouldnt it be best to combine the concepts of BMP-T and Puma?

Would i be the companycommander of such a vehicle, especially during MOUT, i would love to be able to kick out my squads and let them clear some types of targets. like trenches and buildings i want to keep intact.

 

[Waylander]

@Rythm
And how do you want to squeeze the infantry sqaud into a BMP-T?
And say exactly what a BMP-T offers what a Puma doesn't offer?
What can 2x30mm do what a lonely can't do and what do 4xATGMs do what 2xATGMs can't do.

@Chrom
Your argument that current IFVs are too fragile is too far fetched. What does a BMP-T offers when it comes to protection against enemy handheld weapons what a Puma doesn't offer?

And about the capabilities of a BMP-T while operating with tanks instead of infantry.
A BMP-T cannot enter a little village and search it or enter heavy wood while the whole combined arms force needs to secure this heavy wood because of the intention to cross a passage or to secure a barrier (like mines).
The dismounted infantry of an IFV can.

 

[Rythm]

@Rythm
And how do you want to squeeze the infantry sqaud into a BMP-T?
And say exactly what a BMP-T offers what a Puma doesn't offer?
What can 2x30mm do what a lonely can't do and what do 4xATGMs do what 2xATGMs can't do.

I said:

But wouldnt it be best to combine the concepts of BMP-T and Puma?

Would i be the companycommander of such a vehicle, especially during MOUT, i would love to be able to kick out my squads and let them clear some types of targets, like trenches and buildings i want to keep intact.

earlier i wrote:

so, if one would somehow fit a RWS with an AGL with ample storage for ammo, next to the main turret of a Puma, you would pretty much have what i desire? Except for the frontal arc armour wich possibly could be added thru bolt-on armour?

and

What i mean is the combination of a) a vehicle as protected as a MBT (like those i mentioned) but at the same time b) equipped with weaponry like i described. And preferbly with a small (say 4-man) infantery section.

also

I see such a vehicle as a supplement to current vehicles. Of course you cant ditch the PanzerGrenadiere all together, nor can you ditch the MBTs 120mm weapon for certain targets. The vehicle i propose would be filling the void between these two. Rapid-fire autocannons for heavy suppresive fire, AGLs for indirect suppresvie fire (and also to be able to lay suppressive fire in a second direction at the same time as the 30mm pounds a different angle), ATGMs for bunkerbusting. Rebro radios could be interesting to fit inside too in a urban scenario. All heavily armoured.

The Puma is the nearest choice, but it lacks AGLs and ATGMs. ATGMs can be retofitted as per specifications (Eurospike MR?), but is it at all possible to retofitt a H&K 40mm AGL on say a remote weapon station? And preferably a 7.62mm MG on a KMW remote station covering the rear. Also i do think that the Puma would need additional frontal armor for this kind of operation (MOUT/FIBUA), but this can too, as i understand it, be retofitted.

and also

No, i dont see any point in twin 30mm cannons. I never said i did either.

and finally

Like a 30mm cannon, ATGM and at least 2 MGs or AGLs. Together with a small compartment for infantery.

Now, i really hope this once and for all answers those questions you keep repeating. If not, PM me and i can expalin it in german for you

 

[Waylander]

I see what you want.
You want the eierlegende Wollmilchsau.

This is exactly the problem.
Build a vehicle which is protected frontally like an MBT, features heavy all around protection against MOUT threats, fields numerous weapons (autocannon, ATGMs, some MGs and AGLs in RWS) and is able to transport infantry. Do you also want it to be well motorized?

Such a vehicle is going to be big, heavy, expensive and it is goint to have problems with the firing arcs of the turret and the different RWS.

The arguments I gave for staying with infantry in IFVs was often directed to Chrom and the concept of BMP-T which replaces infantry. I think I made this clear with marking to whom my comments are directed.

The arguments I gave for why such a vehicle you envision is not practicable were IMHO also clearly marked.

Those being:
- price
- weight
- size
- difficult weapon mounts

I know what you said.
But still you haven't adressed these problems. You keep saying what you envision for such a vehicle without facing the problems.

When I say it is going to be expensive you say you don't care for price. When I say that such a heavy armor is going to cause problems and ask why such a vehicle needs that much armor you answer that one can't have enough armor.
When I mention the problems in an urban environment caused by size and weight you don't adress it at all.
When I say that a modern RWS interferes with turret operations you just say that you want RWS with AGLs.
When I say that instead of a RWS one can use the firing platform provided by the half closes backdoor for handheld weapons (MG 3/4, (A)G36, PzFst3,...) you don't adress it.

As I said before. I see were you are heading for but as I said before there are certain disadvantageds which outweight the advantages of such a vehicle.

If you still think that I don't understand you just PM me, as you said, and explain it to me in german.

 

[eckherl]

@Rythm
And how do you want to squeeze the infantry sqaud into a BMP-T?
And say exactly what a BMP-T offers what a Puma doesn't offer?
What can 2x30mm do what a lonely can't do and what do 4xATGMs do what 2xATGMs can't do.

@Chrom
Your argument that current IFVs are too fragile is too far fetched. What does a BMP-T offers when it comes to protection against enemy handheld weapons what a Puma doesn't offer?

And about the capabilities of a BMP-T while operating with tanks instead of infantry.
A BMP-T cannot enter a little village and search it or enter heavy wood while the whole combined arms force needs to secure this heavy wood because of the intention to cross a passage or to secure a barrier (like mines).
The dismounted infantry of an IFV can.

Exactly - you still need infantry on the ground to clear out a town, where the BMP-T would come in handy is if the dismounts stumbled on a choke point, thus the reason for the design. A Puma would give good armor protection with a cannon that has a good high angle of engagement, also you can use it for all battlefield scenarios be it defensive, offensive and urban support. I find it hard to believe that the German army did not take all these factors into consideration when they accepted it for service.

 

[Chrom]

This vehicle was designed specifically for urban and mountain warfare, lessons learn from past experiences from both type of scenarios, do not get me wrong, you know that I like this vehicle for what it was specifically designed to do, if Russia feels that they need additional infantry support other than what a BMP 2 or 3 will give along with MBT support in open terrian then they will most certainly use them, I just do not see the need for it in that type of scenario.

SPECIFICALLY is a bit wrong perception. It is just what in urban warfire tank ineptness became more aparrent. We can also say what BMP-3 was specifically designed for "urban and mountain warfare" with Afganistan lessons learned...
Again, BMP-3 cant be compated to BMP-T - the protection level differs considerably. However good is BMP-3 it still cant take a hit from enemy MBT or even good ATGM. So, to prevent losses, it will be forced to drive behind MBT's and take other countermesures which would affect its effectivity on battlefield. Obviously, this is also true for open terrain - mainly becouse there are no such thing as "open terrain" especially when we speak about hiding infantry.

 

[Chrom]

@Rythm
And how do you want to squeeze the infantry sqaud into a BMP-T?
And say exactly what a BMP-T offers what a Puma doesn't offer?
What can 2x30mm do what a lonely can't do and what do 4xATGMs do what 2xATGMs can't do.

BMP-T is not IFV. It is TANK. Tank designed to combat other threats than enemy MBT's. While BMP-T weapon is still not ideal - currently it have separate FCS for crewmembers and all its weapon could be used simulatiously. It is still much better than Puma or any other IFV what can usually employ only 1 weapon at time.

@Chrom
Your argument that current IFVs are too fragile is too far fetched. What does a BMP-T offers when it comes to protection against enemy handheld weapons what a Puma doesn't offer?

First, even against RPG's and ATGM's PUMA (and other IFV's) cant compete with tanks. PUMA might be able to withstand 70x-style RPG - but 90x RPG will almost certainly penetrate it even frontally. Same for ATGM's. And why you forget enemy tanks? Or do you think enemy infantry will be without tanks? And enemy tanks will be without infantry?
Again, any other IFV will be easy target for enemy tanks, forcing IFV's to take cover, distance, etc and greatly reduce its "support" to tanks. BMP-T will be able to withstand some hits. That is why it will be used even in "open" terrain.

And about the capabilities of a BMP-T while operating with tanks instead of infantry.
A BMP-T cannot enter a little village and search it or enter heavy wood while the whole combined arms force needs to secure this heavy wood because of the intention to cross a passage or to secure a barrier (like mines).
The dismounted infantry of an IFV can.

This will be still a job for infantry - enter every wooded house. But cover tanks while they are driving throu a city, road or swamp - is a job for BMP-T. Cover infantry while it enters wooden house - is a job for BMP-T.

BTW, about weight: Oddly, BMPT-T weights about as much as up-urmored PUMA.

 

[kato]

one can use the firing platform provided by the half closes backdoor for handheld weapons (MG 3/4, (A)G36, PzFst3,...) you don't adress it.

...

wait, what? see highlight.

 

[Waylander]

Did I made a mistake?
The Panzerfaust 3 (or Bunkerfaust in a MOUT scneario) can be used there. At least I have seen it being used from the top hatches of a Marder so I don't think it is not possible to use it from the firing platform which is formed when the Puma partially opens its backdoor.

 

[kato]

Did I made a mistake?
The Panzerfaust 3 (or Bunkerfaust in a MOUT scneario) can be used there. At least I have seen it being used from the top hatches of a Marder so I don't think it is not possible to use it from the firing platform which is formed when the Puma partially opens its backdoor.

The Panzerfaust 3 still has quite a backblast. If the Puma partially opens its backdoor, this would suggest to me that the soldiers are still standing inside the vehicle somehow. Meaning either the backblast goes straight inside the vehicle, or washes off some surface directly behind the soldiers (definitely not the 0.8m safety distance to the back).

From the top hatches of a Marder - of course no problem. Our recon guys trained that from the top hatches of their Fuchs too, at least theoretically.

 

[Waylander]

I don't find the picture now (got a new notebook and so I have to get my archive in order...) but for me it looked like the guys looking out at the back have the space to use a PzFst3.

But maybe I have a wrong picture in my head.

Edit:

There it is I found it.


For me it looks like one can use the PzFst3 there.

BTW, on the PSM side one can read that there will also be a hatch on top for the squad.
I just haven't seen pictures of this so far of people using it or a top view of the Puma..
Should be the hole on the right end of the top hull armor which one can see on this picture.
http://www.psm-spz.com/downloads/puma_9_gr.jpg