Worlds toughest IFV

[Ratus Ratus]

Any hit's a bad hit in an IFV-any IFV. JMHO.

Oh, you can have such a positive outlook at times ..

 

[S-2]

"Oh, you can have such a positive outlook at times ..."

The faster my IFV is moving, the more positive my outlook becomes. I don't want to live (or die) in it.

It's a big target. I'm a small target. Please drive very fast to my destination and let me get small again.

 

[Shiny Capstar]

It's a big target. I'm a small target. Please drive very fast to my destination and let me get small again.

Exactly the thinking that made me decide that I wanted to be Light Infantry

 

[Ratus Ratus]

Originally Posted by S-2
It's a big target. I'm a small target. Please drive very fast to my destination and let me get small again.

Exactly the thinking that made me decide that I wanted to be Light Infantry

It is the reason to climb up the food chain vey quickly.

 

[echo 1]

"It is slow yes, but again do you really want to be going 50 to 100 miles or even Km an hour in the middle of a crouded city."

I don't know...if making a "thunder run" through Baghdad by way of introduction is what you've in mind, it sorta helps.

IFVs and armor operate very carefully in cities. You rarely plan mounted assaults beyond the LOS of covering fire. That covering fire, btw, must be able to elevate to the highest possible target. In many cases, this isn't possible.

On the open battlefield, though, there's no substitute for speed when mounted in an IFV. None of the aforementioned vehicles will take a hit from modern ATGM much less 120-125mm main tank gun fire. You'd best move fast across open ground into dead-zones to survive.

Sir I respect what you are saying espically about open battle fields but again this vechile was designed and will only be used in urban warfair. And for urban warfare it is one of the best there is. Other wise like you said this vechile could only take so much damage in open battlefield before it became its operators finial resting place.

 

[Penguin]

that is not the correct picture of the tarmour...as the specifications suggest that t is equipped witha 125mm main gun...a co-ax machine gun and an anti-aircrat gun...all that is visible are the smoke grenade launchers...surely it is the wrong pic or an incomplete one...
this link has the specifications of the tarmour and a quite hazy pic...Ordnance Factory Board

It is the correct picture.
Tarmour Heavy Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com

It is a T-55 conversion. That means the turret and gun are removed. You don't put an main tank gun on such a conversion. Even if this weren't the case (e.g. in the ukrainian BMT-72 approach), note that the T-55 doesn't come with a 125mm gun. There is an exception, the Pakistan's Al Zarrar upgrade, which was developed with Ukrainian assistance and in which the original gun is removed and replaced by a 125mm gun. This does however require that the entire turret is raised about 5cm through modification of the turret run, otherwise there wouldn't be enough space inside to accomodate the bigger gun.

 

[Penguin]

But they all have big flat bottoms. So how IED resistant are they?

Since they are converted MBTs, as IED resistant as MBTs are, I recon.

 

[Penguin]

I am not impressed with the Indians in this case it is a box on tracks. This vechile is ment to take out snipers, and insurgents in building. That is what the armor is designed to stop. Look at any European and US IFV in Iraq non of them can defeat RPGs coming in from high areas. It is slow yes, but again do you really want to be going 50 to 100 miles or even Km an hour in the middle of a crouded city. This vechile can protect and deploy small unit to take out special priority targets. In modern war fair when was the last time you saw more then 7 men entering a single building on raids.

The boxy shape is due to the use of advanced laminate armors, which don't 'round' very well. Same reason why e.g. turrets of original German Leo 2, British Chally, US M1, Japanese Type 90 and Italian Ariete are all boxy.

Few if any infantry fighting vehicles are designed primarily with defence against top-attack in mind. Some tanks and some SPGs have top attack protection using ERA, but here too, this is not the main area of threat for armored vehicles (only in specific senarios e.g. urban/fibua).

 

[Penguin]

I don't really like it, carries only 5 troops and it's slow as hell. As pointed out above it doesn't seem to have been developed to tackle mines very well either, it represents a decade or two old combat tactics.

Depending on the heavy APC in question crews vary 2-3 and personnel 5-10.

Weight range 38-50 tons. Max road speed invariably 50-60km/h. Do note that that is on optimal road surface. Rough and off-road terrain spead are more likely around 40km/h max (as with most MBTs).

Armored Vehicles | Military-Today.com

 

[Ratus Ratus]

Quote:
But they all have big flat bottoms. So how IED resistant are they?
Since they are converted MBTs, as IED resistant as MBTs are, I recon.

I think you missed the implied subtly of the rhetoric..

They are not IED proof in fact possibly less IED proof than some of the wheeled varieties..

 

[Penguin]

I think you missed the implied subtly of the rhetoric..

They are not IED proof in fact possibly less IED proof than some of the wheeled varieties..

In principle, since you can always scale up the amount of explosive and improve its AP-capabilities, nothing is ever "IED proof". Besides, not all IEDs work bottom up: there are 'horizontally oriented' roadside variations too (much like an off-road mine). But sure enough, a v-shaped armored hull will fare better than a flat surface. Of course, heavy APCs were not designed per se to counter IEDs. It should be no surprise therefore that there may be far lighter vehicles that are more IED resistant. I'm sure you can develop a vehilcle that is highly resistant to top-attack and beats a tank at this at much lower weight. This should fare better against top attack than current heavy APCs (though the Ukranians have an interesting vehicle based on T-64, which probably does better cover higher angles). BTR-T and the like are much more general purpose vehicles.

 

[echo 1]

excellent point penguin.
question I have been working on an IFV design but dont know how to get online anyone help me?

 

[Keysersoze]

Exactly the thinking that made me decide that I wanted to be Light Infantry

Exactly the reason I hated the armoured coffins.

 

[Keysersoze]

Sir I respect what you are saying espically about open battle fields but again this vechile was designed and will only be used in urban warfair. And for urban warfare it is one of the best there is. Other wise like you said this vechile could only take so much damage in open battlefield before it became its operators finial resting place.

Dude in a urban environment armour is dead without infantry in advance of it. Even MBT's would take a beating because they can't cover all the angles. (HEnce the TUSK upgrades to the M1) In OBUA you get the troops out and let them clear areas and use armour as mobile pillboxes for support. Or to break strongpoints

 

[echo 1]

Dude in a urban environment armour is dead with infantry in advance of it. Even MBT's would take a beating because they can't cover all the angles. (HEnce the TUSK upgrades to the M1) In OBUA you get the troops out and let them clear areas and use armour as mobile pillboxes for support. Or to break strongpoints

Did you even read my first post? What did it say in there?