APC query

[Ratus Ratus]

One thing that has intrigue me with the many different Pakistan armoured personnel carriers, be it an APC, ICV or IFV: Talha, Saad and M113
Most appear to mount a single 12.5mm MG but this is totally out in the open, though the Saad is suggested to mount a larger MG.
The only vehicle mounting any form of covered weapon station is the Al-Hamza.

I find this lack of protection on these vehicles interesting as it eventually limits the weapon use as the operator, vehicle commanded, as to be exposed to incoming fire.

The M113 we used in Vietnam were quickly up armoured in this area with V shields for the weapon operator/vehicle commander for his protection.
Later we moved to various turret systems mounting various combinations of .30 and .50 cal MGs, eg twin 30s, 30 and 50, single 30 or single 50.
Even now we still have all M113s mounting a turret and at least a .50MG.

The push for remote weapon stations is also one of the many option for various IMV, ICV and APCs being covering in our up armour programs.

So why are these Pakistan vehicles so exposed for the weapon operator?

Also why have not some at least been mounted with something a little more effective, like a turret and a 25mm chain gun?
That would start brining them closer to an IFV which honestly at present they are not.

 

[Super Falcon]

talha and saad are copies of USA APC i think if im not wrong

 

[Aamir Hussain]

Dear All:

That is exactly why I started the other thread on IFV's for PA going forward. The M113 in its final souped version is inadequate from a number of angles.

What we might need is a tureted veh. with a proper quick firing canon with auto loader and have the ability to carry ATGW and - 6 to 8 man Infanftry Squad/section

 

[Zulfiqar]

Also why have not some at least been mounted with something a little more effective, like a turret and a 25mm chain gun?
That would start brining them closer to an IFV which honestly at present they are not

PA had tested an IFV(don't know the designation or origin). It looked a lot like Talha. I have a picture of it in a Book called Pakistan Army Green Book (published in 1990 for the services books club). It had a Chain Gun and a coaxial machine gun as well.The turret looked more conventional in shape as compared to Al-Hamza.

I am not sure why we did not pursue it.

As for the protection, the book did discuss the modern trends in protection( at that time) but i don't know why we didn't opt for add on armor.Perhaps for budgetary reasons.

PA did realize the problems and this is why we saw many pictures of M-113s in swat with shields for vehicle commander and sand bags attached to the side for added protection. Well its not much but its a start.

What we might need is a tureted veh. with a proper quick firing canon with auto loader and have the ability to carry ATGW and - 6 to 8 man Infanftry Squad/section

Yes we need a dedicated IFV that can carry a squad and fire ATGMs.

Right now PA has dedicated squadrons for use in anti-tank role with a TOW or Baktar Shikan on top of it.

The book also had a picture of an M-113 with two recoilless rifles. It was obviously dropped in favor of APCs with ATGMs.

IIRC we still have some M-901 hammer heads but they are very low in number.

 

[fatman17]

Armoured Personnel Carriers

HIT has developed a number of M113A1 variants for the Pakistan Army. These include:

1. The Maaz is a modified M113A1 fitted with a Baktar Shikan anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW). The shape of the M113A1 has been modified, extending its nose slightly and adding additional diesel fuel tanks on the back.

2. Mouz - Modified M 113 fitted with RBS 70.

3. Talha - Modified M 113 APC.

4. Saad - Modified M 113 APC.

5. Al-Hamza - Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) (25mm cannon).

6. Al-Qaswa - logistics vehicle.

7. Sakb - Command post vehicle.

8. Al-Hadeed - Recovery vehicle (modified Talha)

the other reasons is the use of mechanised division and brigades.

The "Riposte" is simple in concept: it is intended that the two strike corps conduct a limited advance along narrow fronts with the objective of occupying indian territory near the border, probably to a depth of 40 to 50 km. Pakistan considers that international pressure would result in a ceasefire after a maximum of three weeks of conflict, enough time to gain some territory to be used in subsequent bargaining. there would be acceptance of Indian penetration, which would be inevitable given the comparitive lack of mobility within the Infantry heavy divisions. Independent Armoured and Mechanized Brigades are intended for quick counter attack and exploitation and would add considerable weight to advances by the strike corps.

The "Riposte" is practiced at all levels. Major excercises involve the crossing of water obstacles and minefields at night with emphasis on subsequent break-out and rapid advance. So far as has been seen, the concept has been adequately translated into workable plans which are continuously being refined. However, complete mechanization of the strike corps and other formations was slowed by the effects of US sanctions and it will take some time for them to achieve desired mobility, although US army surplus equipment is now being rapidly delivered, and local manufacture and rebuilding of US supplied AFV/APC has received considerable impetus, thus improving the mechanization process.

the use of APCs/IFVs is now being developed for the CI theatre.

 

[XYON]

What our APCM113 needs is in effect a Remote Weapons Station or an RWS. The said RWS is being currently developed by NESCOM. This RWS will incorporate the POF manufactured 7.62 and 12.7mm Chinese Machine Guns. NESOM is currently facing some integration problems of the platform with the said weapons system. However the same would be ironed out hopefully soon enough. The same RWS would then also be incorporated on the MBT's.

In the meantime, the Army is using a local based 'boxed' solution to protect the MG operator on an APC or tank by surrounding him with some armour plating in order to limit overall exposure to in-bound small arms fire.

 

[fatman17]

What our APCM113 needs is in effect a Remote Weapons Station or an RWS. The said RWS is being currently developed by NESCOM. This RWS will incorporate the POF manufactured 7.62 and 12.7mm Chinese Machine Guns. NESOM is currently facing some integration problems of the platform with the said weapons system. However the same would be ironed out hopefully soon enough. The same RWS would then also be incorporated on the MBT's.

In the meantime, the Army is using a local based 'boxed' solution to protect the MG operator on an APC or tank by surrounding him with some armour plating in order to limit overall exposure to in-bound small arms fire.

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

 

[Penguin]

Pakistani tested a M113 with a chinese overhead weapon station. This station (or any other one man turret system) could easily be fitted to the 5-roadwheel Talha or stretched 6-roadwheel Saad APCs. Much in the same way that the Americans manufacturers have done e.g. with the M113 with a German 25mm Kuka OWS and the M113 successor, the stretched, uparmored and upengined MTVL (which - in its EIFV version - even mounts the complete turret of the M-2/3 Bradley IFV). China offers serveral suitable one man turrets. A good US candidate system would be the Sharpshooter oneman turret, developed in the 1970s for use in the AIFV/YPR-765, currently produced by FNSS in Turkey.

IMHO it is mainly a matter of cost.

 

[Zulfiqar]

One of the shields used in a tank. Note that we are viewing the back side of the tank. Location Lower Dir.

 

[zraver]

One thing to note, is that IFV's have greatly reduced dismount squads and the squad itself often has less dismountable heavy weapons. A BMP-2 only carriers 7 dismounts (IIRC 5 riflemen, 1 machine light gunner, 1 grenadier). A M-113 carries 11 dismounts and the commander and driver can dismount the .5cal and leave the vehicle and bring that to 13 dismounts including a heavy machine gun. A typical load out might include 7 riflemen, 2 grenadiers and a medium machine gun crew.

While the IFV offers a lot of advantages over a pure APC, in some cases having more infantry is better than having light cannon. One possible example, would be in trying to push an enemy infantry unit out of a town. Since most such assaults will be given armor and artillery support, light cannon is not really required. But lots of dismounts to go room by room are.

The big thing to remember when fighting with APC's vs IFV's is that open field engagements are a very bad idea. You need to keep sight lines limited and ranges within the infantry's AT weapons envelope. If a BMP-2 unit catches a M113 unit past about 500m its going to be a slaughter.

 

[Ratus Ratus]

One thing though re APC vs IFV as an example with the US even in 1985 the Mech Inf pl with the M113 was down to a 9, (total of carrier team and dismount team), man squad/section mounted in 4 M113s. There can be a bit of a variance depending on this being a J-series TOE or and H-series TOE.
The M2 series has a squad of 9 not counting the vehicle pers. That is the paper version reality is always different.

In reality many western armies the size of a dismount squad/section has reduced, with a believed compensation of increased firepower.

My initial query was more related to the perceive exposure of the Pakistan APC commander when using the vehicles MG.

 

[zraver]

My initial query was more related to the perceive exposure of the Pakistan APC commander when using the vehicles MG.

Updating the M113 with a remote weapons stations would not be cost effective. The chassis is just too old, too poorly protected and too slow. Pakistan might be better served by the Ukrainian BTR-4. If offers the fighting ability of the IFV with the mobility and resistance to IED attacks of wheels. Although perhaps not as mobile in some terrains, it has superior road speed and the cost should be fairly low.

http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/btr4.php?menu=m1.php

 

[Ratus Ratus]

they don't seem to hug the wheeled concept too much.
besides the Talha, Saad are not M113s but their version. Bit like the Canadian M113S3+s, ie Mobile Tactical Vehicle Light (MTVL) stretched M113s. Also a few other little mods.

side issue anything ever come of the LAV-EFSS? (120mm mor in turret on LAV base)

 

[S-2]

"The M2 series has a squad of 9 not counting the vehicle pers."

I think that includes the dismounts of six and vehicle commander, gunner, and driver for a total of nine.

 

[Penguin]

One thing to note, is that IFV's have greatly reduced dismount squads and the squad itself often has less dismountable heavy weapons. A BMP-2 only carriers 7 dismounts (IIRC 5 riflemen, 1 machine light gunner, 1 grenadier). A M-113 carries 11 dismounts and the commander and driver can dismount the .5cal and leave the vehicle and bring that to 13 dismounts including a heavy machine gun. A typical load out might include 7 riflemen, 2 grenadiers and a medium machine gun crew.

While the IFV offers a lot of advantages over a pure APC, in some cases having more infantry is better than having light cannon. One possible example, would be in trying to push an enemy infantry unit out of a town. Since most such assaults will be given armor and artillery support, light cannon is not really required. But lots of dismounts to go room by room are.

The big thing to remember when fighting with APC's vs IFV's is that open field engagements are a very bad idea. You need to keep sight lines limited and ranges within the infantry's AT weapons envelope. If a BMP-2 unit catches a M113 unit past about 500m its going to be a slaughter.

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)

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).