APC query

[zraver]

You are asssuming that because a vehicle can carry fewer dismounts a mech-unit will have fewer infantry with IFV rather than APC. This is not the case. The lesser ability of IFVs to carry personnel means that you need more vehicles to move a given number of infantry. Which makes your mech-inf unit more expensive. (where you used to need 3 M113 APCs to move a platoon of infantry around today you need 5 M2/3 Bradley)

That can be true, but is not always the case. The Soviets and the Indians went with 3 viehicle platoons with IFV's.

Indian Armor TOEs

However, you are right that upfront cost goes up with IFV's. In a lot of situations, the increased cost and reduced infantry is worth it. I was simply saying an IFV equipped unit is not automatically superior to an APC unit in all settings.

On a side note, I think 5 vehicle platoons are a mistake, as are 3. 4 is the obvious right number. it can easily divide and leave each unit with a wingman. It can do leaping or bounding over watch by 2's. It can cover the cardinal points etc.

You might have some infantry becoming IFV drivers , gunners and commanders if you make the switch from APC to IFV and a limited by a requirement that the total number of unit personnel does not grow. (from 33 infantry + 6 crew = 42 personnel to e.g. 24 infantry + 12 crew = 36 personnel rather than 30 infantry + 15 crew = 45 personnel).

Uhm 33+6= 39 last time I checked.

 

[Penguin]

That can be true, but is not always the case. The Soviets and the Indians went with 3 viehicle platoons with IFV's.

Indian Armor TOEs

I was talking about what number of APC and IFV you need to transport a given number of infantry e.g. one platoon of 33 soldiers.
Clearly infantry platoon sizes may vary from one military to the next.

You talk about '3 vehicle platoons'. Is this 3 platoons of X number of infantry carrying vehicles per vehicle platoon (infantry = 3 * X vehicles * Y dismounts per vehicle) or a single vehicle platoon comprising 3 vehicles (infantry = 3 * Y dismounts per vehicle)

In russian service, a single BTR-50 APC carried 2 crew (driver, commander) plus 16-20 infantry. These infantry could not fight from within the vehicle. The vehicle only has a pintlemounted (H)MG. Its successor, the BMP-1 IFV, carried 3 (commander, driver and gunner) plus 8 infantry, which could fight from within the vehicle. The vehicle had a turret with a 73mm gun, coaxial MG and an ATGW launcher

On a side note, I think 5 vehicle platoons are a mistake, as are 3. 4 is the obvious right number. it can easily divide and leave each unit with a wingman. It can do leaping or bounding over watch by 2's. It can cover the cardinal points etc.

Different units would use different vehicles. In an armor unit, you'ld want IFVs to match mobility of tanks and have a fighting on the move capability (stabilized turret system). But not all mounted units are to accompany tanks. So you'ld want to give an infantry unit to have APCs: some armor protection (against shrapnel and small arms fire, but not against other armored vehicles armed with missiles or cannon) and some mobility (without there being a need to keep up with tanks and fight on the move like tanks)

Uhm 33+6= 39 last time I checked.

Whoops ;-) Well, I suppose I was thinking about how old and forgetfull I am getting.

 

[Ratus Ratus]

Different units would use different vehicles. In an armor unit, you'ld want IFVs to match mobility of tanks and have a fighting on the move capability (stabilized turret system). But not all mounted units are to accompany tanks. So you'ld want to give an infantry unit to have APCs: some armor protection (against shrapnel and small arms fire, but not against other armored vehicles armed with missiles or cannon) and some mobility (without there being a need to keep up with tanks and fight on the move like tanks)

Your logic seems to slide somewhere as I don't follow it at all.
It is a poor assumption that an IFV will travel at a tank speed while an APC/IMV/ICV will be slower.
What you should consider here is the type, wheel or track. That has more of a relation of maintaining contact with the tanks.
Also what stops an APC/IMV/ICV from fighting on the move?
The restriction is going to be the weapon system on the vehicle. This comes back to my original question why the exposed MG mounts on the Pakistan APCs.
Though it would appear they decided to put a big shield around them for their current fight, though some look more like large buckets.
(Bucket head.. funny how that terms comes haunting back so often).

 

[fatman17]

ASIA PACIFIC
Date Posted: 15-May-2008

Jane's Defence Weekly

Armoured recovery vehicle is latest addition to Talha family

Christopher F Foss Jane's Land Consultant - Kuala Lumpur

Key Points
The Al Hadeed armoured recovery vehicle is the lastest addition to HIT's Talha series of armoured personnel carriers

The Al Hadeed will be able to recover vehicles weighing up to 20 tonnes


Pakistan's Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) unveiled the Al Hadeed armoured recovery vehicle (ARV) - the latest addition to its Talha series of armoured personnel carriers (APCs) - during April's Defence Services Asia exhibition in Kuala Lumpur.

The Al-Hadeed ARV, which has yet to enter quantity production, is fitted with a roof-mounted hydraulically operated crane that can lift 3 tonnes.

A hydraulic winch is mounted in the rear of the vehicle leading out through the lowered rear ramp. It can be used to recover vehicles weighing up to 20 tonnes when the two rear hydraulic stabilisers are lowered.

There are at least two fire-support versions of the standard Talha APC. The Mouz is fitted with a pedestal-mounted Swedish Saab Bofors Dynamics RBS-70 laser-guided surface-to-air missile (SAM) system. This can also be removed from the Mouz and deployed on the ground. A roof-mounted 12.7 mm machine gun (MG) is provided for local defence.

The Maaz is armed with the locally manufactured 3,000 m range Baktar Shikan anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW) and a 12.7 mm MG for local defence.

Baseline Talha APCs entered quantity production for the Pakistan Army several years ago and a batch of vehicles has also been supplied to the Multi-National Security Transition - Command - Iraq, which were delivered in 2006.

The Talha APC is very similar to the now BAE Systems Ground Systems M113 series APC that was manufactured under licence at HIT. Many of these have been upgraded by HIT to the enhanced M113A1/M113A2 standard.

Also expected to enter production at HIT in 2008 or 2009 is the Saad APC. This is similar to the Talha but has a longer chassis and six road wheels on either side, giving it greater internal volume and payload.

While the M113 series and Talha are powered by a US Detroit Diesel 6V-63 series engine coupled to an Allison TX 100-1 automatic transmission, the Saad has a new German powerpack.

This consists of an MTU 6V TE20 V-6 diesel developing 350/400 hp, coupled to a German ZF LSG 1000 automatic transmission. This gives a higher power-to-weight ratio and increased top speed.

HIT has also proposed an armoured infantry fighting vehicle (AIFV) based on the upgraded M113 called the Al-Hamza. This has firing ports in the rear troop compartment and a roof-mounted Chinese WAT 314T turret, armed with a 25 mm cannon and 7.62 mm co-axial MG.

Finally, there is a stretched load carrier based on a modified M113 series chassis called the Al-Qaswa.

The HIT facility continues to upgrade older main battle tanks (MBTs) for the Pakistani Army as well as continuing production of the Al Khalid MBT, which was developed in association with China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO).

Further enhancements of the Al Khalid are now under way, including enhanced protection and the installation of a defensive aids system to enhance survivability against ATGWs.

COMMENT
The US-developed M113 series APC has been used in large numbers by the Pakistan Army for many years and is its standard vehicle in this class.

Further development of this vehicle by Pakistan has not only saved valuable foreign exchange but also allowed the country to offer enhanced versions such as the Talha on the export market.

old article but interesting news!

 

[XYON]

i am sure u were on the forum with a different call sign!

A Rose by any other name.............

 

[Penguin]

Your logic seems to slide somewhere as I don't follow it at all.

It MY fault because YOU don't follow !?!

It is a poor assumption that an IFV will travel at a tank speed while an APC/IMV/ICV will be slower.

It is not an assumption at all.
- Fact is that the MICV (which are all tracked) was designed to keep up with the tanks in the field (i.e. same degree of mobility) and to be effective while buttoned-up and on the move. Which meant a) a - preferably stabilized - turret system armed with weapons that could take out a counterpart i.e. the other side's MICV and b) facilities in the vehicle hull which would allow the personnel carried to use their personal weapons while under armor and safe from NBC weapons i.e. firing ports and vision blocks. This is what pioneering vehicles like BMP1 and Marder brought.
- MICVs were developed in part precisely because the APCs couldn't keep up with tanks. However, since the introduction of the MICV, and because MICVs are expensive relative to upgrades to existing APCs, the mobility of APCs has been improved (witness e.g. the development of M113 A1 through A3 and now the MTVL).
- IMVs are a much much more recent development and fall outside the discussion about tanks: AFAIK the IMVs are not specifically meant to or suitable for accompany tanks.

What you should consider here is the type, wheel or track. That has more of a relation of maintaining contact with the tanks.

pls read about the development history of armor

Also what stops an APC/IMV/ICV from fighting on the move?

- no suitable vehicle-weapon (i.e no cannon or atgw).
- no stabilization of main vehicle weapon(s) and sights.
- no way for mounted infantry to effectively use their weapons from within the vehicle.

 

[zraver]

I was talking about what number of APC and IFV you need to transport a given number of infantry e.g. one platoon of 33 soldiers.
Clearly infantry platoon sizes may vary from one military to the next.

bad analogy, since few miltaries use the same size platoons. Instead the number of dismounts seems to be tied to the number of transports in the platoon and the transports dismount capacity. For a 3x BMP-1 platoon this would be 21 dismounts.

In russian service, a single BTR-50 APC carried 2 crew (driver, commander) plus 16-20 infantry. These infantry could not fight from within the vehicle. The vehicle only has a pintlemounted (H)MG. Its successor, the BMP-1 IFV, carried 3 (commander, driver and gunner) plus 8 infantry, which could fight from within the vehicle. The vehicle had a turret with a 73mm gun, coaxial MG and an ATGW launcher

Infantry can't really fight from inside an IFV, it was more of a morale move. Experiance shows that those infantry fighting ports do little but waste ammo. The BMP was designed to fight on a nucelar battlefeild.

Different units would use different vehicles. In an armor unit, you'ld want IFVs to match mobility of tanks and have a fighting on the move capability (stabilized turret system). But not all mounted units are to accompany tanks. So you'ld want to give an infantry unit to have APCs: some armor protection (against shrapnel and small arms fire, but not against other armored vehicles armed with missiles or cannon) and some mobility (without there being a need to keep up with tanks and fight on the move like tanks)

huh?

Speaking from my experience here, but in the US we use the company team concept. Units are whole during peace time for admin purposes, but in the field or at war 3 battalions (1 armor 2 infantry or 2 armor 1 infantry) are mixed. This insures that each team has a mix of assets. A typical team might look like this command track section (2 x m2) 2 infantry and 1 armor platoons (8x m2 4x M1) organic plus the first sergeants APC (M113), the medic APC (M113), maintenance APC (M113), 2 hummer, a 5 ton truck (cargo), a 5 ton truck (tool) and a M-88 wrecker. 1 captain, 2 Lt, 1 first sgt, 3 platoon sgt, 6 tankers E-1 to E-6, 19 Bradley crewmen (E-1 to E-5), 72 riflemen (E1 to E-6) 2-3 admin types, 2-3 medics, 4 drivers, 6-8 mechanics for a total personnel strength of 117-121.

 

[Penguin]

bad analogy, since few miltaries use the same size platoons. Instead the number of dismounts seems to be tied to the number of transports in the platoon and the transports dismount capacity. For a 3x BMP-1 platoon this would be 21 dismounts.

It's not an analogy, it's an example. You either take a fixed number of people you want to be able to move around and then provide them with the necessary vehicles, or you you decide on the number of vehicles you are willing to provide and then that also give you the number of people you can actually move.

Infantry can't really fight from inside an IFV, it was more of a morale move. Experiance shows that those infantry fighting ports do little but waste ammo. The BMP was designed to fight on a nucelar battlefeild.

That's what I said, NBC-protected. And that's what the initial idea was: fight from the vehicle - in the 1950s, 1960s! Anyway, clearly the experience with ICVs since then has show that fighting from the vehicle far from ideal. Hence you see newest vehicles without firing ports etc (e.g. CV-90) and older vehicles getting theirs obscured (e.g. Marder, Bradley, Warrior).

huh?

Speaking from my experience here, but in the US we use the company team concept. Units are whole during peace time for admin purposes, but in the field or at war 3 battalions (1 armor 2 infantry or 2 armor 1 infantry) are mixed. This insures that each team has a mix of assets. A typical team might look like this command track section (2 x m2) 2 infantry and 1 armor platoons (8x m2 4x M1) organic plus the first sergeants APC (M113), the medic APC (M113), maintenance APC (M113), 2 hummer, a 5 ton truck (cargo), a 5 ton truck (tool) and a M-88 wrecker. 1 captain, 2 Lt, 1 first sgt, 3 platoon sgt, 6 tankers E-1 to E-6, 19 Bradley crewmen (E-1 to E-5), 72 riflemen (E1 to E-6) 2-3 admin types, 2-3 medics, 4 drivers, 6-8 mechanics for a total personnel strength of 117-121.

So here you have a mix of M1 Abrams tank, M2 Bradley, M113 and wheeled transports.

A 'light' -strategically mobile- unit might get wheeled or tracked APCs like Mowag Piranha, while a 'heavy' unit might get Bradleys. A heavy unit will likely also have tanks, which a light unit won't have. Wheeled APCs and older tracked APCs don't have the same mobility as modern ICVs, needed to accompany modern MBTs. That's all I was saying.

 

[zraver]

Wheeled APCs and older tracked APCs don't have the same mobility as modern ICVs, needed to accompany modern MBTs. That's all I was saying.

That is not entirely true. Mobility is a relative concept. Track for example are better in mud and soft sand, but much less mobile on roads, hard surfaces and firm soils. Even then a tracks advantage is not nearly as wide as it once was. Modern technology and simple solutions have greatly narrowed the gap. A wheeled unit with a secure line of march is probably twice as fast as a tracked unit. An average track speed is 45km/h vs 80-90km/h for a wheeled unit. Another example is in an area where mines/IEDs are a threat. If a track hit s a mine, the entire unit has to stop and then sit and repair or abandon the vehicle. In Iraq Strykers have taken mine/IED hits and lost 1-2 wheels and were able to keep rolling. This along with the superior speed allows the unit to keep up the momentum and initiative. The tracks one real insurmountable advantage is weight. A track can bear more weight that a similarly sized wheeled platform. This translates into armor and armament. In a high threat environment, the extra weapons and armor translate into a mobility advantage as well.

 

[Zulfiqar]

OK here are some images from Pakistan Army Green Book series.Sorry about the quality as i don't have a scanner.I may have jumbled up the years as there are two books. However, you won't find these images anywhere on the internet.I will upload 2-3 more images soon.

IIRC This is from Pak Army Green Book 1990.

This is an M 113 with quad Anza Launchers and 2 anti aircraft guns (14 mm IIRC).These were networked with Giraffe radars for general direction towards the target.

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/3121/image001xgm.jpg

This one is from Pak Army Green Book 1992. It is a prototype of an IFV with a cannon and a co-axial machine gun.

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/7722/image004icb.jpg

I am not sure what happened to both of them.

 

[Zulfiqar]

I just found out that these pictures are available on Pakdef.info

PIFV

An AIFV (now named as PIFV where P-stands for Pakistan) was assembled in HIT from Semi-Knocked Down Condition in early 1991. The vehicle was put to user trials in early 1991.

http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/gallery/images/pifv01.jpg

http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/gallery/images/pifv_02.jpg

BATAAR

PA M-113 BATTAAR has a twin 106mm Recoilless Rifle (RR) mounted on APC-M113A2. BATTAAR has been indigenously produced in 502 Central Workshop EME - picture circa 1990.

http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/gallery/images/mi113_03.jpg


ANZA SAM and twin barrel 14.5 millimeter gun equipped M113A2, also indigenously produced in 502 Central Workshop EME - picture circa 1990. The system is also integrated with Girafee Radar providing and electronic fire control system has provided the system a high degree of accuracy and reliability.


http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/gallery/images/mi113_04.jpg


Source:

http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/gallery/pifv.html

http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/gallery/m113.html

 

[fatman17]

was the PIFV ever put in service?

i know the APC with RR and the Anza mounted APC's are in service!

 

[Zulfiqar]

I don't know but we haven't seen it in action anywhere in the last 19-20 years(it was tested in 1991). If we had such thing in service then we would have actively marketed its local version like other HIT products.

 

[Penguin]

That is not entirely true. Mobility is a relative concept. Track for example are better in mud and soft sand, but much less mobile on roads, hard surfaces and firm soils. Even then a tracks advantage is not nearly as wide as it once was. Modern technology and simple solutions have greatly narrowed the gap. A wheeled unit with a secure line of march is probably twice as fast as a tracked unit. An average track speed is 45km/h vs 80-90km/h for a wheeled unit. Another example is in an area where mines/IEDs are a threat. If a track hit s a mine, the entire unit has to stop and then sit and repair or abandon the vehicle. In Iraq Strykers have taken mine/IED hits and lost 1-2 wheels and were able to keep rolling. This along with the superior speed allows the unit to keep up the momentum and initiative. The tracks one real insurmountable advantage is weight. A track can bear more weight that a similarly sized wheeled platform. This translates into armor and armament. In a high threat environment, the extra weapons and armor translate into a mobility advantage as well.

When the purpose is to have an infantry carrying vehicle that can accompany tanks 'in the field' (wherever that may be), then that vehicle must have the same off-road capability as tanks. That wheeled vehicles are faster than tanks on hard surfaces is totally irrelevant in this case (the faster vehicle can always drive slower, while the reverse is not the case).

M1A2 Abrams SEP
Road: 42 mph (67.7 km/h)
Off-road: 30 mph (48.3 km/h)
U.S. Army Fact Files
Specifications: M1A1 / M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank - Army Technology

Leopard 2
Max Road 72
Max Off-Road 45
Average Cross-Country 40
Battle tank Leopard 2 Kampfpanzer Leopard 2