Calibre of the IFV gun

[Manfred]

What got me started on mortars was how handy they are for indirect fire, and the ability to fire "searching" rounds into dead ground. They would be a handy thing for an isolated Platoon commander, either in the mountains of Afganistan or a Bagdad slum.

Too bad my idea for a rack of ready-use ATGMs was a non-starter. I thought it would be a good thing for Scouts ambushed by tanks.

Waylander- I did not know that German units in Afganistan had armor. I would have loved to see the looks on the faces of those Muj when a tank with a big black cross on it went rolling by.

(yeah, yeah, I know, not tanks, but its not like those illiterate swine know the difference)

 

[gf0012-aust]

What got me started on mortars was how handy they are for indirect fire, and the ability to fire "searching" rounds into dead ground. They would be a handy thing for an isolated Platoon commander, either in the mountains of Afganistan or a Bagdad slum.

My understanding from people who have been there is that mortars are generally useless in defensive work - esp as the op forces are usually entrenched in reverse sloped ridges..

 

[Chrom]

My understanding from people who have been there is that mortars are generally useless in defensive work - esp as the op forces are usually entrenched in reverse sloped ridges..

Hmm, i guess in that case most other weapons are even more useless. I mean, how you can hurt them then?

 

[extern]

Lets build a fantasy vehicle! A 30mm cannon side by side with a 40mm Grenade Launcher would be nice, but adding ATGMs would make for a turret that is almost as large as one on a Main Battle tank...

Easy...

 

[eckherl]

Easy...

Now that would be more effective than a BMP3, give the indirect fire engagements back to the Artillery support. IFV commanders will have their hands full fighting armored vehicles and helicopters.

 

[extern]

Now that would be more effective than a BMP3, give the indirect fire engagements back to the Artillery support. IFV commanders will have their hands full fighting armored vehicles and helicopters.

I think thats RuArmy BMP-2 modernisation is still for a low-scale conflict mainly and it's infantry centric. Those who expects bigger enemy, still prefers 100mm\30mm combination:

 

[eckherl]

I think thats RuArmy modernisation is still for a low-scale conflict mainly and it's infantry centric. Those who expects bigger enemy, still prefers 100mm\30mm combination:

I wonder why they haven`t gone to a higher velocity 100mm on the BMP3 so that they can also use it for counter IFV engagements.


I would think for fighting a larger military force that they would be more concerned with enemy vehicle and air assets over providing indirect fire in taking out structures and infantry. Russia has so much artillery assets now that this would keep any infantry man hunkered down in a foxhole sreaming.

 

[extern]

Russia has so much artillery assets now that this would keep any infantry man hunkered down in a foxhole sreaming.

You are right about defensive scenarios - even towed artillery in quantity whould be pretty enough in such case, but if one looks on the Chinese efforts near Taiwan, it's obvious different thing... They really need infantry forces with great tactic mobility to have their arty support with them on the moving floatable platform.

 

[eckherl]

I wonder why they haven`t gone to a higher velocity 100mm on the BMP3 so that they can also use it for counter IFV engagements.


I would think for fighting a larger military force that they would be more concerned with enemy vehicle and air assets over providing indirect fire in taking out structures and infantry. Russia has so much artillery assets now that this would keep any infantry man hunkered down in a foxhole sreaming.

This is what tankers say when they encounter IFV`s that think they are tanks
YEE HAW!

 

[Manfred]

My understanding from people who have been there is that mortars are generally useless in defensive work - esp as the op forces are usually entrenched in reverse sloped ridges..

Um... WHAT?

The reverse slope is the prefered position, but that does not mean that you do not have OPs on the crest. You also have positions far behind the ridge, ready to fire on the skylined enemy as they come over the top.

IFVs and other armored vehicles are not intended for defense, anyhow. They are for assault, and a mortar that can be fired on the move would be a handy thing. Consider the worth of such a weapon while attacking the reverse-slope position.
The higher up the chain of command you have to go to get fire support, the longer it takes to arrive. This is why mortars are available at the Company level.

As unit density keeps decreasing, and troops become sepperated, having mortars available at the platoon level might be a good thing to have soon.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Um... WHAT?

The reverse slope is the prefered position, but that does not mean that you do not have OPs on the crest. You also have positions far behind the ridge, ready to fire on the skylined enemy as they come over the top..

Well, I can only go on some of the after action reports that have been commented on. Pinned down troops in afghanistan had problems using mortars against reverse slope emplaced taliban. the easiest way to dislodge those emplacements was with air support.

IFVs and other armored vehicles are not intended for defense, anyhow. They are for assault, and a mortar that can be fired on the move would be a handy thing. Consider the worth of such a weapon while attacking the reverse-slope position.
The higher up the chain of command you have to go to get fire support, the longer it takes to arrive. This is why mortars are available at the Company level.

As unit density keeps decreasing, and troops become sepperated, having mortars available at the platoon level might be a good thing to have soon.

I wasn't talking about VBM's, I was talking about small unit events sans insertion by helo.

 

[Chrom]

Um... WHAT?
IFVs and other armored vehicles are not intended for defense, anyhow. They are for assault, and a mortar that can be fired on the move would be a handy thing. Consider the worth of such a weapon while attacking the reverse-slope position.
The higher up the chain of command you have to go to get fire support, the longer it takes to arrive. This is why mortars are available at the Company level.

As unit density keeps decreasing, and troops become sepperated, having mortars available at the platoon level might be a good thing to have soon.

Hmm, dont think so. There is a reason why RuA is fully mechanized, and other armies follow that example. Basicaly that mean what every squad have own BMP/BTR vehicle what serve as command point and heavy weapon support in defence as well as in offence. I never heard what IFV's are meant mostly for offencive war - its just wrong. Btw, towed artillery cant provide good direct fire support in defencive war as its lack protection against splinters, and also is not mobile.

 

[Waylander]

The whole mechanized part of the Bundeswehr was meant mainly for defense during cold war.
Mobile and armored defense is an important part of our combined arms doctrine (As it is in nearly every western army).

@Chrom
About the 100mm being bulky or not.
I also don't think that it is very bulky.
My question was just if it is possible to replace the 30mm on the BMP-3 with a 35mm or if you breach some weight or dimension borders of the turret/vehicle?

 

[Chrom]

The whole mechanized part of the Bundeswehr was meant mainly for defense during cold war.
Mobile and armored defense is an important part of our combined arms doctrine (As it is in nearly every western army).

@Chrom
About the 100mm being bulky or not.
I also don't think that it is very bulky.
My question was just if it is possible to replace the 30mm on the BMP-3 with a 35mm or if you breach some weight or dimension borders of the turret/vehicle?

I dont see much problem doing that. But in the same time i guess its just not worth the effort disigning completely new gun and ammos for such insignificant increase in armor penetration.

 

[eckherl]

I dont see much problem doing that. But in the same time i guess its just not worth the effort disigning completely new gun and ammos for such insignificant increase in armor penetration.

With future armor upgrades on western designed IFV`s, they will not have a option but go to a bigger caliber.

Even the U.S and UK are going to a bigger caliber because the ammunitions we are using are stretched in armor penetration capability at maxed out engagement ranges.

 

[Manfred]

I feel like I'm speaking a foriegn language here...

I never heard what IFV's are meant mostly for offencive war - its just wrong. Btw, towed artillery cant provide good direct fire support in defencive war as its lack protection against splinters, and also is not mobile.

Chrom; seriously?
This is so basic, I can't believe I have to go into this, but here goes.
Going back to the Halftracks of 75 years ago, APCs were invented in order to allow the infantry to accompany tanks into combat by providing cross-country mobility and a reasonable amount of protection. A tank is an armored gun platform who's primary asset is it's mobility.
In an age when a man in a foxhole with a 10,000 dollar missle can destroy a multi-million dollar tank, why build tanks? Because that man cannot fire his missle while running 50 kph across the battelfield. Tanks exist in oder to make successful assaults or counter-attacks.
IFV is a fancy name for an APC with a turret and weapon systems. In spite of the fact that some commanders like to use them for light tanks (not something I like) the basic purose remains the same.

Towed guns are more effective in the defense than in the assault. Yes, they are vulnerable, but far more plentiful given their lower price. Also- they can be emplaced in protected positions. I prefer Self-propeled guns because their ability to shift positions gives the crew a higher chance to survive a battle, and thus become more proficient as they accumulate experiance. If I had a limited proportion of SP guns, I would hold them in reserve and deploy the towed assets in the front line.

I am a little confused about the talk about attack vs. defense. First I hear that Mortars are worthless for defense since defenders prefer the reverse slope, and then all of a sudden the talk is about attacking reverse slopes... and how mortars cannot reach that dead ground.
Which is it?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Btw, towed artillery cant provide good direct fire support in defencive war as its lack protection against splinters, and also is not mobile.

Obviously you've never read the history of the battle for Fire Support base Coral in Vietnam.

Suffice to say, towed 105mm artillery pieces firing over "open sights" in a direct fire role is very useful in certain situations. Obviously the persons involved would prefer NOT to have been in such a dire situation, but your enemy is not always that accomodating...

Here's an image of one of the Australian 105mm guns that was "over run" and recaptured intact, the next day.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/rar/coral01.jpg

edit: actually this is more likely the first time an AUSTRALIAN gun has been over run since the Boer war...

 

[Chrom]

Obviously you've never read the history of the battle for Fire Support base Coral in Vietnam.

Suffice to say, towed 105mm artillery pieces firing over "open sights" in a direct fire role is very useful in certain situations. Obviously the persons involved would prefer NOT to have been in such a dire situation, but your enemy is not always that accomodating...

Here's an image of one of the Australian 105mm guns that was "over run" and recaptured intact, the next day.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/rar/coral01.jpg

edit: actually this is more likely the first time an AUSTRALIAN gun has been over run since the Boer war...

Obvously, such guns a mere "poor man" choice. If an country can equip its forces with self-propelled guns - it will do it. There is zero doubt what any armored self-propelled gun will be much more effective and much more surviable. There is also zero doubt what such guns lost its importance as anti-IFV assets long ago. They can do they job, and its better to have them than nothing. Its mostly intended as pure defencive asset what is deployed against enemy what is not expected to use counter-artillery fire.

To eckherl: No, its more likely what anti-IFV role requirement will be removed from autocannons. ATGM's and higher caliber cannons will take the role. Its farly easy to achieve frontal protection even against 75mm autocannons, while its almost impossible to instal even 57mm high-ballistic autocannon on IFV.

 

[Chrom]

I feel like I'm speaking a foriegn language here...

I never heard what IFV's are meant mostly for offencive war - its just wrong. Btw, towed artillery cant provide good direct fire support in defencive war as its lack protection against splinters, and also is not mobile.

Chrom; seriously?
This is so basic, I can't believe I have to go into this, but here goes.
Going back to the Halftracks of 75 years ago, APCs were invented in order to allow the infantry to accompany tanks into combat by providing cross-country mobility and a reasonable amount of protection. A tank is an armored gun platform who's primary asset is it's mobility.
In an age when a man in a foxhole with a 10,000 dollar missle can destroy a multi-million dollar tank, why build tanks? Because that man cannot fire his missle while running 50 kph across the battelfield. Tanks exist in oder to make successful assaults or counter-attacks.
IFV is a fancy name for an APC with a turret and weapon systems. In spite of the fact that some commanders like to use them for light tanks (not something I like) the basic purose remains the same.

Towed guns are more effective in the defense than in the assault. Yes, they are vulnerable, but far more plentiful given their lower price. Also- they can be emplaced in protected positions. I prefer Self-propeled guns because their ability to shift positions gives the crew a higher chance to survive a battle, and thus become more proficient as they accumulate experiance. If I had a limited proportion of SP guns, I would hold them in reserve and deploy the towed assets in the front line.

I am a little confused about the talk about attack vs. defense. First I hear that Mortars are worthless for defense since defenders prefer the reverse slope, and then all of a sudden the talk is about attacking reverse slopes... and how mortars cannot reach that dead ground.
Which is it?

I dont know who said what mortars are useless. In fact, they are useally more usefull than direct fire artillery. Tanks are multi-role vehicle in modern army, they excell in both offence and defence. Its just the fact what without the tanks NO offence ever possible - thats why sometimes they are described as offencive weapon. Some goes for other IFV's. I repeat, in modern mechanized army there is NO separate tank or infantry regiments. They are all combined and do both offence and defence together.
Btw, a 10-cent bullet can kill a soldier which cost may be 500k $ to replace. And what?
Also, the primary asset of modern IFV is not mobility - trucks are just as mobile. The primary asset is they WEAPON, which with mobility become another level in effectivity. As such, weapon on any IFV is even more important than anything else - at least, in hot war. Of course, in simply peacekeeper situation soldiers comfort, anti-mine and anti-RPG protection might be more important and you could sacrifice firepower and frontal armor for it. Than it better called APC than IFV. Either way, in modern army IFV serve as heavy weapon carrier. You just cant get along with only ATGM's in infantry hands and artillery support from 25km afar.

P.S. There is distinct difference between APC and IFV. Many confusion arise when you mix them. The primary role for APC is TRANSPORT. Anything else is secondary. The primary role for IFV is FIRESUPPORT (infantry or tanks), anything else is secondary. Modern armies trying to get away from pure APC's, most recent developments show the trend to equip any armored vehicle what is likely to get near front line with powerfull weapon and sofisticated FCS.

 

[old faithful]

Just an opinion,defensive positions are not entirly selected because its on a reverse slope. Its not always the first option. Ever tried attacking up a steep hill? Ever sat in low ground being hit with CS gas? Defensive positions are selected for a variety of reasons,its not fair to say "the reverse slope is the prefered position" any more than it is to say "wheeled AFV,s are prefered over tracked". Every situation is different and selected on its merrits.