Basel
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2013
- Messages
- 9,504
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
i meant 12.7mm compared to 25mm or 30mm on an AFV.
The talha/M-113 can be modified in different ways. Maaz with Green Arrow and 12.7mm.
View attachment 439335
The three main aspects of an AFV. Fire power, mobility and protection. In this case, transport also which both IFV and APC are capable of.
IFV's are usually less armoured than an MBT, except a few like IDF APC/IFV Namer. This makes them vulnerable in direct combat. This is where the difference between direct confrontation and just a battle taxi role comes into play. The weight of an AFV increases as more armor, weapons, ammo, electronic gadgets are put onto it for protection and modernisation. The T-55 MBT started at around 35-56 Ton. The modernised variants are over 40 T. Namer IFV is 60 T. Acharzit APC is based on T-55 and is 44T.
This gives an idea that PA is confident bringing in 36+ Ton AFV like T-59, T-69 etc into direct combat. The other MBt's are 40+ T.
VN-17 is based on light tank VT-5. This light tank has been made out of necessity to operate in regions where heavier MBT's find difficult to operate. Still the Chinese brought it up to 33+ T weight category taking it to 36 T with armor upgrade package which makes it equal to T-59 in weight. VN-17 is 30 T in weight with 1000 HP engine so adding more weight (armor) and bringing it upto 35-36 T should not affect its mobility to a great extent.
VN-17 has a reactive armor, what kind? ERA or NERA. It shouldnt be ERA which is harmful to infantry.
Coming to fire power, VN-17's ATGM capability is good against armored targets and its 35mm auto cannon can be a good AAA weapon to combat UAV's or light helicopters just like AD Bofors guns. Against ground targets it could take out light vehicles and provide fire power at a good range. The 7.62mm can be used to engage infantry.
The major issue still stays.
If the IFV is lost in direct combat, how will the soldiers be transported to keep pace with the advance. Although this can still apply to M-113 also which can be lost in combat to mines and indirect fire but the probability of M-113 survival remains more because it might not be used in direct combat. The Maaz series don't carry troops so losing an ATGM carrier is still a loss but wont affect operational capability to a massive extent.
The cost and price factor will always be there.
Firstly because VN-17 carries lesser troops than M-113 so a VN-17 mechanised battalion would require more vehicles than an M-113 mechanised battalion.
Secondly, the cost price of a VN-17 is more than that of M-113. PA can probably raise 3-4 M-113 battalions instead of 1-2 VN-17 battalions. Conversely, PA can raise another MBT regiment instead of raising 1-2 VN-17 battalions. And this another factor to be considered, at nearly the same cost, PA can modernise more T-59 to AZ standard than inducting new VN-17's. Inducting an MBt will increase PA's offensive capability than inducting an IFV.
Another point is that the need of the hour is an MRAP, not exactly an IFV.
How would you place a mix of APC/IFV in a mechanised brigade or mechanised division considering operational capabilities?
The discussions which i have had with you in the past and the intelligent calibre that you possess, i expected a better reply from you
A-10 uses gattling cannon which is different. Also A-10 angle of attack is from top aiming for turret top where armor is thinnest.
Then 40 or 60mm gun can be adopted to enhance effects of DU rounds.