Was the MICV worth it?

[kato13]

copeab 07-15-2008, 03:35 AM Until the late 1960's, APCs (wheeled or tracked) were merely battlefield taxis, getting troops as close to the fighting as possible, then having the soldiers dismount and continue on foot. Then along came the BMP and everything changed.


Everyone began trying to best the BMP, including designs like the Marder and the M2 Bradley. But, in the end, was the path worth it? When it comes down to it, MICVs are oversized light tanks carrying an understrength rifle squad.


Brandon

********************

GOF 07-15-2008, 06:28 AM Marder was designed before BMP, having started in 1960 as replacement for SPz12 (Spz12 should be considered as the first MICV but too few in number to have big influence or to be remembered muchly).

Marder development was slow but it was only Western vehicle available when BMP appeared

Was considered for US but too heavy for strategic lift Did have influence on Bradley design as in what not to do. Marder was good but too high, too expensive, too maintenance intensive and had too few troops


Was Bradley or Warrior worth it? If the Cold War was still on I reckon people would say yes. They fit in with blitzkrieg style warfare very well but was NATO really going to do anything other than fight a defence?

********************

Neal5x5 07-15-2008, 09:52 AM The Bradley has earned a place in units engaged in hostile territory. I remember back in 1991 that the commander on the ground in Mogadishu requested armor (M1s and M2s) but was overruled by the SecDef in DC. Then, the Blackhawk Down battle occurred, and it wound up being Pakistatani and another UN armored group that rumbled in and got the US soldiers out of there. Had there been Bradleys or even uparmored HWWMVs in the column from the outset, things likely would have gone very differently.

********************

Raellus 07-15-2008, 03:23 PM I say yes. I'm sure most infantrymen, finding themselves in the midst of a conventional war, would agree that IFVs were worth the time, effort, and money spent developing and building them. Otherwise, we might as well prepare to fight another WWI where exposed infantry have to assault on foot through MG and artillery.


The Bradley has proven its worth in Desert Storm and the opening phase of Iraqi Freedom. Quite simply, it does what it was designed to do. It protects infantry from shell fragments and small arms fire and its armament allows it at least a fighting chance to protect itself from most battlefield threats. Bradleys routinely destroyed opposing APCs and IFVs in Iraq and they even managed to destroy a few MBTs as well (including a couple of tank kills with the 25mm cannon). Older APCs like the great M113 can't make similar claims.


Are IFVs perfect for every mission? No. They're not even perfect for the mission they were designed to accomplish. There's really no perfect weapon system, though.

********************

Targan 07-16-2008, 03:28 AM Had there been Bradleys or even uparmored HWWMVs in the column from the outset, things likely would have gone very differently.True, that.

********************

Hangfire7 07-16-2008, 11:58 AM As for early APCs we can also look to the first AMTRACs used in the Pacific campaign of WWII or the Halftracks used on all sides in all theaters of WII.


And as with the Bradley and a few other vehicles, what was their purpose?


A means of KEEPING THE INFANTRY UP WITH THE ARMOR, as well as giving them some protection from small arms fire and shrapnel thus giving them better survivability on the battlefield. And then the idea of turning into virtualy little tanks with turrets, macvhingeungs, autocannons and antiarmor missiles gave the vehicle the bility to give support to the troops when dismounted as well as a means of defense from larger more poerful machines on the battlefield.



So basicaly:


Ability to keep up with the tanks


Protect the infantry inside <who will do a traditional as well as temp role of holding objectives until follow on forces arrive>


Provide fire support for the infantry plus the abilty to defend against other armored vehicles.

********************

copeab 07-16-2008, 12:27 PM So basicaly:


Ability to keep up with the tanks


Protect the infantry inside <who will do a traditional as well as temp role of holding objectives until follow on forces arrive>


Provide fire support for the infantry plus the abilty to defend against other armored vehicles.


I think that a mix of dedicated APCs and dedicated fire support vehicles would be more effective than a vehicle that tries to be both.


Brandon

********************

TiggerCCW UK 07-16-2008, 01:18 PM I think that a mix of dedicated APCs and dedicated fire support vehicles would be more effective than a vehicle that tries to be both.


Brandon


Quite possibly, but in these budget conscious days I doubt the funding would be available for that.


I think that MICV's are useful for what they were designed for - a full on war with a mechanised organised regular military opponent. They're not so hot in the brushfire wars/insurgencies that we're seeing now. It was a similar problem here in NI in the early years of the troubles - Landrovers weren't well enough armoured, FV432's would have been overkill, so they dug Saracens and Pigs out of storage. Its the same issue using a Bradley or Warrior as a patrol vehicle - looks bad, gives the enemy a propaganda victory and is over specd for the job. I think that the future lies with lighter wheeled vehicles rather than the like of Bradleys etc. Wheeled vehicles are usually cheaper, less confrontational (generally), don't chew the roads up as much and don't usually require the same level of maintenace/logistic support as a tracked vehicle.


OTOH I also wouldn't advocate binning all the 'true' MICV's - you never know whats waiting round the corner.

********************

Webstral 07-16-2008, 01:26 PM Good post, Raellus!


The viability of the IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) typified by the BMP and M2 series is a real question. As with all other questions of this sort, I suppose the real question is whether the IFV is a worthwhile investment given the role it is supposed to play, versus whether the vehicle types can be useful.


The IFV was supposed to go into combat alongside the MBT. It was supposed to fight and survive in the meeting engagements that were supposed to be highly characteristic of conventional warfare in an East v West showdown, a showdown involving a proxy for one of those parties, or a Sino-Soviet engagement. I’ve never really been able to get my head around the thinking, since (as copeab points out), the IFV is really a big light tank with an undersized infantry squad onboard. It’s not boss enough to go toe-to-toe with other tanks, nor is it a cost-effective troop transport.


Still, the Army is the world of the generalist. There is a formula devised by some Pentagon thinktank genius regarding specialization of weapons systems and the complexity of the environment, plus the rate of movement of the various players. In a nutshell, the thinktank maintains that the Air Force, which operates in a relatively simple environment using fast-moving platforms can make the best use of highly specialized systems. The Navy can make use of some specialization, but there is still a requirement for some generalization. At the other end of the spectrum is the Army, which has slow-moving systems operating in a complex environment. A wide variety of threats may challenge any given system, and highly-specialized units may find themselves unable to fight effectively. The Bradley acknowledges this by combining ATGM with a 25mm autocannon, plus an MG.


There is no doubt that the IFV is a useful addition to anyone’s arsenal, if the choice is between having them and not having themâ€â€�especially if you’re not the one paying for them. A cost-benefit analysis may not be so generous. Does the IFV deliver enough firepower to make the upgraded firepower (vis-ÃÂ*-vis the APC) worth the expense? Does the IFV deliver enough additional survivability to make it worth the expense? Does the IFV’s improved firepower and survivability make it worth the reduced troop-carrying ability vis-ÃÂ*-vis the APC? I don’t know that enough IFV have gone into combat under the conditions for which they were designed for anyone to have an informed opinion. Desert Storm was fought under pretty darned well near optimal conditions for the Coalition, except for the weather. Optimal conditions tend to conceal weaknesses.


If we apply the question to Twilight: 2000, I think any commander would be delighted to get hold of IFV. In the post-attack US, the Bradley is probably a wonderful platform�darned well near ideal, perhaps. There aren’t going to be many anti-armor weapons capable of defeating an M2. Homemade mines and all the other counter-mobility hazards we would expect at a marauder encampment present a problem, of course. However, in the absence of said obstacles, the Bradley is capable of delivering serious firepower on a defensive position and of dropping off a light squad for flanking or rear attacks. Even better than a tank, in lots of ways.


Webstral

********************

newyorkronin 07-16-2008, 08:58 PM If we apply the question to Twilight: 2000, I think any commander would be delighted to get hold of IFV. In the post-attack US, the Bradley is probably a wonderful platform�darned well near ideal, perhaps. There aren’t going to be many anti-armor weapons capable of defeating an M2. Homemade mines and all the other counter-mobility hazards we would expect at a marauder encampment present a problem, of course. However, in the absence of said obstacles, the Bradley is capable of delivering serious firepower on a defensive position and of dropping off a light squad for flanking or rear attacks. Even better than a tank, in lots of ways.

Webstral


I read somewhere that an M2 in Fallujah took 19 RPG rounds in one battle with its occupants a bit shaken but otherwise unharmed. That's all I need to hear about IFVs.


I have no military experience but here's what I've learned from playing the PC game Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis:


Before going over a hill or coming out of forests where there will suddenly be long lines of sight, I stop the M113 or Bradley first to dismount everyone and crawl from cover to recon with binoculars first. Each dismounted infantry is an every pair of eyes to scan the horizon instead of sitting the back wondering what's going on. If I spot enemy armor, I can pop a few shots at it with my M16 and duck back. The dumb AI will send the tank over to hunt me down and the M2 will be sitting in ambush, TOW ready. But sometimes the AI will not charge straight at me but swing around to one of my flanks. Or, I can have the Bradley carefully inch up the hill just enough to stick its turrent over the crest and launch a TOW.


My point is, the infantry goes first because it has more eyeballs and is much more quieter. The APC stays back and watches our flanks. If my squad encounters a lot of enemy, then I order the APC to return to formation. If I keep the APC in front, it is more prone to be destroyed by ATGMs or hidden enemy AT teams.


I also note that this PC game does not have artillery but if it did, I would definitely want a battle taxi for shelter. And if it had artillery like the armor game Steel Beasts, where massive HE/ICM/FASCAM bombardments follow your tank platoon around like locusts every two or three minutes, I would want APCs to move squads out of kill zones quickly.


For APCs operating in urban areas, especially around high rises, I would want some kind of turret that allows full or near 90 degree elevation for an MG or grenade launcher to maintain constant suppressive fire at any window that is visible from the vehicle's position street-level. I would think an autocannon with HE round is ideal for that. HE autocannon rounds has a casualty radius that can injure enemies behind cover if it detonates on something above or behind them. I think an autocannon round has flatter trajectories and accuracy than grenade launchers as well as being more compact, so more ammo can be carried on board.


I'm not sure if this is true, but I understand that some tanks and APCs can generate smoke screens out of their exhausts in addition to launching smoke cannisters. This would greatly aid infantrymen by concealing their movement across open urban areas.

********************

copeab 07-17-2008, 04:19 AM If we apply the question to Twilight: 2000, I think any commander would be delighted to get hold of IFV. In the post-attack US, the Bradley is probably a wonderful platform�darned well near ideal, perhaps. There aren’t going to be many anti-armor weapons capable of defeating an M2. Homemade mines and all the other counter-mobility hazards we would expect at a marauder encampment present a problem, of course. However, in the absence of said obstacles, the Bradley is capable of delivering serious firepower on a defensive position and of dropping off a light squad for flanking or rear attacks. Even better than a tank, in lots of ways.

Webstral


This really depends on the campaign. I see the autocannon ammo being hard to come by and TOWs practically extinct, so the M2's firepower advantage over an M113 isn't nearly as great. Now add to that the M113 can carry a lot more stuff internally (people or gear) and is more fuel efficient; the M2 doesn't really seem that good of a deal to me in T2K.


Brandon

********************