Somewhat OT: ultimate IFV

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

They'd be a lot like the Nagmasho't -- simple built-up superstructures in the center with the troops riding in the center which is now vacated by the absent turret. More complicated conversions would probably be beyond the abilities of forward maintenance. Alternatively, there might be M-1 hulls with Bradley turrets or other turrets, perhaps some jury-rigged.

Don't know, yanking the turret of a M1 and trying to replace with it with a Brad turret would tie up quite a bit of resources; for one thing you will have a different sized turret ring, now you might strip the ring from a Brad chassis, but it will still leave you with the problem of welding in enough armor to fill the gap in between the different sized rings as well as supporting the weight of the Brad turret...

[Abbott Shaull]

That is one of the problem with the US Army. They didn't develop an Armor Car line or line of Light Tank or the various wide variety of support vehicles the Soviets, French, UK, and Germans had developed. The US seemed to okay with taking one chassis and stamping out as many vehicle that were to do roles that it wasn't made for. Look at the HMMWV as a replacement for Jeep, and it has been expect to take on roles that it wasn't designed for, much like the Jeep had been pressed into service for since WWII when it was only suppose to be a scout car to start with.

Interesting that in the Soviet Motorized Rifle Division, only one of the three Motorized Rifle Regiments were equipped with track IFVs. The other two Regiments would rely on wheeled based vehicles. Of course, there were some Division that had two of the Regiments equipped with tracks IFV/APCs, but these were large units that would be expected to be in the fighting right away. While some of the MRR in many MRD that were far enough back only equipment sets for one track and one wheeled regiments and the third Regiment would press into service whatever trucks/vehicle they could grab hold of to move forward with.

What I always got a chuckle out of was the equipment sets that the 9th Motorized Division was suppose to have for the Light Motorized and Light Attack Battalions. I have been trying to figure out what they were smoking when they came up those TO&E tables. I am sure they based some of it on what the 9th Test Division was working on.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

That is one of the problem with the US Army. They didn't develop an Armor Car line or line of Light Tank or the various wide variety of support vehicles the Soviets, French, UK, and Germans had developed. The US seemed to okay with taking one chassis and stamping out as many vehicle that were to do roles that it wasn't made for. Look at the HMMWV as a replacement for Jeep, and it has been expect to take on roles that it wasn't designed for, much like the Jeep had been pressed into service for since WWII when it was only suppose to be a scout car to start with.

Interesting that in the Soviet Motorized Rifle Division, only one of the three Motorized Rifle Regiments were equipped with track IFVs. The other two Regiments would rely on wheeled based vehicles. Of course, there were some Division that had two of the Regiments equipped with tracks IFV/APCs, but these were large units that would be expected to be in the fighting right away. While some of the MRR in many MRD that were far enough back only equipment sets for one track and one wheeled regiments and the third Regiment would press into service whatever trucks/vehicle they could grab hold of to move forward with.

What I always got a chuckle out of was the equipment sets that the 9th Motorized Division was suppose to have for the Light Motorized and Light Attack Battalions. I have been trying to figure out what they were smoking when they came up those TO&E tables. I am sure they based some of it on what the 9th Test Division was working on.

Yup! It was always a hoot to read the TO&Es...don't get me wrong, the FAV is a fun vehicle to drive! I can see it being used in a recon role...right up to the time somebody starts dumping 122mm ICM into the area. Now days, its a vehicle for the Special Forces, perhaps a better use than making up battalions of the thangs!

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

That is one of the problem with the US Army. They didn't develop an Armor Car line or line of Light Tank or the various wide variety of support vehicles the Soviets, French, UK, and Germans had developed. The US seemed to okay with taking one chassis and stamping out as many vehicle that were to do roles that it wasn't made for. Look at the HMMWV as a replacement for Jeep, and it has been expect to take on roles that it wasn't designed for, much like the Jeep had been pressed into service for since WWII when it was only suppose to be a scout car to start with.

Actually I felt it was something of an advantage - although a minor one due to the vehicles used. For every new vehicle type the need for parts and personnel grows. Yes, I agree the roles some vehicles are forced to take is a problem, "The Pentagon Wars" shows a great example of that, but it does mean its a couple less vehicle types to support, even if its the wrong one.

I'm not a huge fan of the stryker to say the least, but then I am a huge fan of the concept behind the equipping of the stryker brigades: all its armoured vehicles are based on the same platform yet has been modified in ways to suit the assigned mission. You get all the flexibility of tailored machines for the assigned role without needed an army of different mechanics and a mountain of spares (just somewhat larger quantities of both to account for more actual vehicles being supported)

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Don't know, yanking the turret of a M1 and trying to replace with it with a Brad turret would tie up quite a bit of resources; for one thing you will have a different sized turret ring, now you might strip the ring from a Brad chassis, but it will still leave you with the problem of welding in enough armor to fill the gap in between the different sized rings as well as supporting the weight of the Brad turret...

Where there's a will there's a way! No seriously, that's why I think that most such vehicles are going to be Nagmasho't-like things -- easy to do.

[Panther Al]

Another thing I thought of was that you would see the return of jagdpanzers: a turret ruined but the hull is fine and so is the gun, or a IFV loses it turret but they have a spare 120 laying about...

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Another thing I thought of was that you would see the return of jagdpanzers: a turret ruined but the hull is fine and so is the gun, or a IFV loses it turret but they have a spare 120 laying about...

That's still going to take a lot of technical know-how, parts, heavy duty tools, etc. It might be easier in some cases to just repair the turret.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Raellus

That's still going to take a lot of technical know-how, parts, heavy duty tools, etc. It might be easier in some cases to just repair the turret.

Rae,

I guess if that's your only option, then you'd see quick and dirty versions. Agreed, a modern turret isn't just the composite and reactive armour, it's also the optics and stabilisation for the main gun.

That's why I'd just go with the HIFV concept, because you really just have to make something of an armoured superstructure. With a smaller engine you'd have less fuel use (which is reduced along with the weight in the first place) and maybe enough room for a passage out the back.

Tony

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by helbent4

I guess if that's your only option, then you'd see quick and dirty versions. Agreed, a modern turret isn't just the composite and reactive armour, it's also the optics and stabilisation for the main gun.

True, but you're still going to need optics and some degree of stabilization for the gun in a turretless TD.

I agree that the HIFV (or HAPC) is going to be much easier to produce. The less you have to muck about with complex moving parts, the better.

I think modern versions of the "Kangaroo carrier" turretless tank APC would be a fairly common sight in the T2K world.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Yup! It was always a hoot to read the TO&Es...don't get me wrong, the FAV is a fun vehicle to drive! I can see it being used in a recon role...right up to the time somebody starts dumping 122mm ICM into the area. Now days, its a vehicle for the Special Forces, perhaps a better use than making up battalions of the thangs!

Now I think they would do great as a scout vehicle, and I rather see the one used now, not the two man trash they had in the guide. It got to me when they said they could place a TOW on it considering the the old Jeeps couldn't and was one of the driving forces of getting rid of them over the HMMWV.

You are right they would be fun as long as they didn't get caught in a barrage coming down in the same grid location as the vehicle was traversing. Then again I wouldn't want to be in Deuce and Half or HMMWV when that happen either. For that matter in any where near that location...

[Abbott Shaull]

The thing is with the Striker in making a vehicle for all possible jobs, I have no complaints about it. I think not placing a true Armor with this unit is abandoning the progress they had made with converting the old Armor and Mechanized Brigades into Heavy Brigades.

I understand why the US Army went with the M2, but shortly after they were adopted the Army did test the LAV-25 that is in the US Marine Corps inventory and they for whatever reasons during testing it wasn't adopted. The M2 replacing the M113 APC which the Army had several various support vehicles that continued to soldier on because the US Army couldn't/wouldn't fund enough variants to replace all of the M113 variants that are in the inventory.

Also the M3 it seems after it was almost to late, they realized was in general a bad idea. Since it seemed that they were still working on the perfect formula for the Divisional Cavalry Squadrons. Some are/were listed with M1s, other M3s, and still other were HMMWVs for different Armor and Mechanized Divisions.

[Panther Al]

Hrm, for div cav I'm not sure what the ideal to&e would look like, but equipment wise I think the division level assets would be best at the light armoured car/humvee level as their task is much more defined in scope than the corps level regiments that are supposed to bust the line and muck about in the enemies rear - where heavy armour (and the weight that comes with it) becomes an asset not a deterrent.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah, I would think HMMWV based/decent Armor Car would of done the job at division level.

It seemed to be what many scout platoons were using at Battalion level too. Largely due to the size of the M3s was listed as the main disadvantage. Where as HMMWV they would have smaller foot print and still have comparable number or more dismounts.

[jimbo4795]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Now I think they would do great as a scout vehicle, and I rather see the one used now, not the two man trash they had in the guide. It got to me when they said they could place a TOW on it considering the the old Jeeps couldn't and was one of the driving forces of getting rid of them over the HMMWV.

I don't know about the Army, but The Marine Corps had TOW Jeeps. 2nd Tanks had a whole company of TOW Jeeps (~70). We transitioned to the HMMWV in '86.

[pmulcahy11b]

A vehicle I thought was really interesting was the M274 (?) Mechanical Mule with a 106mm recoilless rifle mounted on it. An interestingly light -- and vulnerable -- antiarmor vehicle.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

A vehicle I thought was really interesting was the M274 (?) Mechanical Mule with a 106mm recoilless rifle mounted on it. An interestingly light -- and vulnerable -- antiarmor vehicle.

Don't forget the old Marine Corps Ontos...six 106mm recoilless rifles, could be fired one at a time, volleys of two or all six! You had to step outside to reload, but pity the poor T-55 that caught a volley of 6 HEAT rounds!

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by jimbo4795

I don't know about the Army, but The Marine Corps had TOW Jeeps. 2nd Tanks had a whole company of TOW Jeeps (~70). We transitioned to the HMMWV in '86.

Just prove that Marines will do something that the Army said was impossible. Okay, it could fire the TOW. I think largely the issue was carrying extra rounds for the TOW was an issue.

Wow that seems like large company...

[jimbo4795]

A normal "gun" jeep carried 2 reloads for the TOW. The Squad Leader's Jeep didn't have a TOW system on board, he just carried 8 reloads (IIRC). In the early 80's, AT(TOW) Company, 2nd Tk Bn, had ~50 "gun" jeeps. The ~ 20 remaining jeeps were a mixture of Squad Leader (armed with Mk-19s) and Radio vehicles.

[Abbott Shaull]

Still a significant amount to mass for an anti-armor ambush. The next thing is to think how many of the gun jeeps would be soon destroyed after they tripped their ambush...

[Abbott Shaull]

Honestly 70 for one company. That is just crazy but doing the math on the number of HMMWVs that a Lt. Motorized Company would required to have decent amount of dismounts, while having a good mix of weapons mounted on them. One way to cut down on the number of HMMWV would be to have one platoon on HMMWVs armed and the rest of company cargo-troop carriers driving the other two platoons and dropping them off behind the line battle far enough, much like the M113 Mechanized units were suppose to deploy....

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Just prove that Marines will do something that the Army said was impossible. Okay, it could fire the TOW. I think largely the issue was carrying extra rounds for the TOW was an issue.

Wow that seems like large company...

Had to check on this one but the Army did field TOW armed jeeps. Near as I can confirm, the 82nd Airborne, 101st Air Assault, the 2nd Infantry, the 6th, 7th, and 25th Light and the 10th Mountain were all armed at one time or another with this one.

The TO&E is a bit more difficult to pin, it looks like each division basically set up or modified it their way but it looks like 18 TOW- jeeps with 9 ammo-jeeps and about 84 men.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Still a significant amount to mass for an anti-armor ambush. The next thing is to think how many of the gun jeeps would be soon destroyed after they tripped their ambush...

Yeah, those things would be extremely vulnerable to artillery fire.

[Panther Al]

True, but I can't imagine a easier or cheaper way to slow down an armoured thrust to allow time for heavier units to take the field than a pair of tow jeeps hiding behind just about anything from an anthill to a tree.

[jimbo4795]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Still a significant amount to mass for an anti-armor ambush. The next thing is to think how many of the gun jeeps would be soon destroyed after they tripped their ambush...

The TOW critters would 'always' brag about "two guys in a jeep" taking out tanks. The normal tanker response was "yeh, but you have to hit us, we only have to get close."

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

True, but I can't imagine a easier or cheaper way to slow down an armoured thrust to allow time for heavier units to take the field than a pair of tow jeeps hiding behind just about anything from an anthill to a tree.

It's a valid concept and the Israelis had some good success with TOW Jeeps vs. Syrian armor in the hilly terrain around Lebanon c.'82. But, against massed Soviet artillery on the central European plain, it would be a bit more dicey. Stealth, concealment, and speedy displacement would be key to battlefield survival for Jeep-mounted ATGM units.

[Panther Al]

Not to sound harsh, but if I was a divisional/corps commander who was using them as a form of ablative speedbumps, I wouldn't expect to get many back: they are regretfully, considering their mission, pretty much expendable. All they need to do is buy time. Rough on them? Sure. Mean of me? Yep. The correct military decision in the situation? Absolutely.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Not to sound harsh, but if I was a divisional/corps commander who was using them as a form of ablative speedbumps, I wouldn't expect to get many back: they are regretfully, considering their mission, pretty much expendable. All they need to do is buy time. Rough on them? Sure. Mean of me? Yep. The correct military decision in the situation? Absolutely.

Might sound harsh, but have to agree its the correct decision. But look at it this way. West Germany (as an example) is a nation with a lot of possibilities for a defender, on average there is a built-up area of some size roughly every 1,200 meters, the natural cover also has the advantage of not being as dense as what Americans are used to. While the TOW/jeeps are highly vulnerable to everything from 5.45mm and up, they have the mobilty and cover to inflict a lot of damage. So there is a fair chance that losses would not be as heavy as one would expect.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Had to check on this one but the Army did field TOW armed jeeps. Near as I can confirm, the 82nd Airborne, 101st Air Assault, the 2nd Infantry, the 6th, 7th, and 25th Light and the 10th Mountain were all armed at one time or another with this one.

The TO&E is a bit more difficult to pin, it looks like each division basically set up or modified it their way but it looks like 18 TOW- jeeps with 9 ammo-jeeps and about 84 men.

They may have. It wasn't until after 1980 they started to receive the Jeep. I know one of the driving force behind was to have vehicle that could have launcher and some what more supply of missiles.

[Panther Al]

As far as APC's go, it looks like the Israeli's got off the dime and bought into the Namer in a big way: the local factory is making 100 of them, and since the factory can only make so many they outsourced another 300 Namers to the GDLS Lima Army Tank Plant here in Ohio.

Pretty sad in way: more and more countries are outsourcing to America these days.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

As far as APC's go, it looks like the Israeli's got off the dime and bought into the Namer in a big way: the local factory is making 100 of them, and since the factory can only make so many they outsourced another 300 Namers to the GDLS Lima Army Tank Plant here in Ohio.

Pretty sad in way: more and more countries are outsourcing to America these days.

The vehicle itself is little more than the current tank chassis minus tank turret. Wonder how long it would be before they had made this vehicle with the consideration that they have been using Merkava tanks at times to move fire team size infantry units into the field. One would think that the US and NATO would look and follow the example since the have they most experience in armor warfare since the end of WWII. Yet, that another story....

Yeah, well someone has to put Americans to work. It been one of those things that has amazed me during the last 8 years how many factories that we allowed to closed. Instead of keeping people in work to build up the military. We have in many cases reduced the military even though they can barely keep up with the current missions they are tasked with, let alone other conflicts that we could be dragged into. We sit here and wonder why nations such as Iran, North Korea and to extent Russia have out right ignore us.

JMHO.