Somewhat OT: ultimate IFV

[Panther Al]

Floating around the web and came across what has to be the oddest, yet most well armed and armoured IFV out there. Armed with a 125mm gun, autoloaded and using all the normal ammo types including missiles, a room for 5 in the back.

Its the Ukrainian BMPT-84, and the ammo and loader is mounted in a bustle that mimics the M1's in protecting the crew.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Hey Panther Al, that's a hell of an interesting vehicle.
There's a companion vehicle based on the T-72.
I was surprised to see that the modifications to make them into heavy IFVs haven't significantly cut their speed but I am curious for info about their overall mobility in comparison to the parent design.

More info here
BMT-84
BMT-72

[Abbott Shaull]

Sounds like they are going the Isrealis had gone with Merkava in having the ability to move infantry on MBT. Looking over the specs though I would hate to be one of those infantry men trying to climb out of either those vehicle while they were under fire.

It is interesting way to add some infantry capabilities to their Tank/Armor Companies while not compromising the effectiveness of the Company. Granted the dismounted would smaller than if they had been in the more traditional IFV equip platoon. Just another tool in their tool box.

[dragoon500ly]

I don't know about merging a IFV/tank design. It seems that there would be too much trade-off. But then I always thought that giving every Bradley a TOW system was a bad idea.

[TiggerCCW UK]

But then I always thought that giving every Bradley a TOW system was a bad idea.

I'm intrigued - why Surely it gives them a bit more punch and fexibility One of the criticisms I've heard levelled at the Warrior is its lack of ATGM - in fact, IIRC the big yellow book alludes to that.

[helbent4]

I'm intrigued - why Surely it gives them a bit more punch and fexibility One of the criticisms I've heard levelled at the Warrior is its lack of ATGM - in fact, IIRC the big yellow book alludes to that.

Tigger,

My understanding is that because they are armed with ATGM, Brads tend to tangle with things they shouldn't. Like, tanks.

That said, ATGMs are effective, if expensive, against bunkers and fortifications, so that could be useful.

There is a modern forerunner to the tank/APC combination (aside from the Canadian Kangaroo in WWII): the Israeli Achzarit, converted from captured T-55s.





I don't think this is kind of OT at all. I think that as conventional armoured warfare winds down, at least some tanks will be converted into heavy APCs.

Tony

[Mohoender]

Actually, that is an old concept that was recently revived as wiki reminded me: Canadian Kangaroo.

Another interesting exemple is the actual russian BTR-T.

About the BMT-72, I wouldn't like to be one of the infantryman carried inside, stuck and cramped between the turret and the engine.

-Waoom, waomm, BBRRRRR, RRRR!!!
- On my order, burst out.
- Waomm! What
- BBRRR! I said, on my order, burst out (Louder)!
- Waomm! BRRR! Huuu Did you say something (even louder)
- BRRRR! I said "get the f... out!!! (Screaming)

And, I'm not talking of the fact that the men have to go out by the top. Wasn't that one of the drawback of the early BTR-60.

[dragoon500ly]

I'm intrigued - why Surely it gives them a bit more punch and fexibility One of the criticisms I've heard levelled at the Warrior is its lack of ATGM - in fact, IIRC the big yellow book alludes to that.

And having that additional punch and flexibility is the problem. Let's pick on the Bradley. You have a 25mm auto cannon coupled with a 7.62mm co-axial and a twin TOW launcher. You have the ability to go after just about everything on the modern battlefield, right So what's so bad about that

TOW is a wonderful system, you stand an excellent of blowing up any tank out to about 3,500 meters. The trade off is that the missile takes about 30 seconds to reach maximum range. That's 30 seconds that you have to stand still and guide your missile onto your target. ATGMs have a rather significant black bast when they fire. The minimum training standard for a US tank crewman is to get an aimed round off every five seconds. That means that at maximum range, an AVERAGE US tank crew will place at least six rounds in the vinicity of the blackblast. Now that would break down to one Sabot round (to clear the tube) and then five HEAT rounds to hit the target or supress the area.

I was more impressed with the Warrior. You had a nice auto-cannon to kill BTRs/BMPs. Because you didn't have the extra weapons system, you saved money which allowed the fielding of more of the vehicles within a smaller time frame.

There was a Bradley variant that was discussed in Armor Journal. It pulled the turret and infantry compartment for a smaller turret mounting two twin TOW launchers and a larger number of reloads. It was proposed to either field one per platoon or to field two with the headquarters platoon. The proposal went one to recommend fitting a smaller one man turret to the Bradley, with the capability of firing Dragon if needed, the space freed up would allow another 2-3 infantry. This is the second problem of the IFV squad.

A Bradley squad is the smallest rifle squad in the Army. There is no cushion if the squad suffers losses.

Just a few things to consider....

[Panther Al]

Another problem with the idea of arming IFV's with atgw's is you are making that crew and vehicle do too many things: "Here, do all the roles of a light tank with a bare minimum of armour and while you are at support the smallish squad of crunchies and, if its not too much trouble, perform all the duties of a tank destroyer. Make sure you stay well trained in all roles and remember all those roles are more important that the other ones."

Its worse for the M3, add in a scouting heavy mission without adding the equipment to properly do it. In the ACR we found that the M1A2 was a much better scout vehicle, lower profile, quieter, much better optics (basically boiled down to getting grids to whatever we was looking at, with the brad it took work and at best you could only get a six digit grid. With the M1A2 not only was the gunner scanning, so was the TC and both could get a ten digit grid, at much longer range just by hitting a button), and they tended to survive much longer than the brads who often took up the support by fire mission. We used to joke that if you wanted to find the enemy all you had to do was look for the burning brads because they felt that the tow and bushmaster allowed them to fight tanks on even ground.

The ifv as a vehicle has its own issues that the Israelis have found and has caused this whole slog to the heavy-apc. Tanks can't fight in townsH we know this so the average tactic is to have a tank platoon support by fire while the infantry push across the ground and into the town. As mentioned the israelis have found this lacking as even a haphazard at defence will eat them alive, and even a IFV's turret has limitations in MOUT. Hence the tank based apc's. They have tank armour in order to survive the rush into the town, large (relatively) squads, and with the remote weapons stations with their high angle capacity, they are just the ticket.

[Raellus]

The Bradley is a product of the era in which it was designed. An IFV is primarily an offensive weapon and here's where the criticisms seem to lie. A TOW II is not a very effective offensive weapon; an MBT is, and that's one of the knocks on the Bradley and its ATGMs. Why send an IFV to do a job that an MBT does much better But, one must remember that the Cold War designers were anticipating their drawing board IFV having to weather waves of Soviet MBT before taking to the offensive. NATO simply didn't have enough MBTs and dedicated AT vehicles to do the job and so a secondary AT capability was built in to the Bradley. As many of you have pointed out, the result is a hybrid that's not all that great at any of its intended roles- a jack of all trades and master of none, if you will.

Perhaps a better use of funds would have to build most Bradleys without TOW launchers and designate one or two Bradleys per platoon as FSVs with TOW launchers and reloads in the back instead of infantry.

The heavy APC concept is not new but it's not necessarily a condemnation of the IFV concept either. The Israeli Achzarit was a response to the relative vulnerability of the M113 series, still by far the most common APC (if not AFV) in Israeli service. They Israelis needed a more survivable yet cost effective alternative so they converted a couple hundred of their captured T-54/55 MBTs into heavy AFVs. The Israelis simply could not afford to buy Bradley IFVs or develop and manufacture their own, more heavily armed IFVs. They are currently working on a heavy APC/IFV based on the Merkava hull but the projected cost per vehicle is pretty steep.

The BMP-T concept is almost as much a vote of no confidence of MBTs as it is APCs/IFVs. It is a vehicle designed primarily for urban warfare, an area where Russian experience in Grozny revealed serious shortcomings in both IFV (i.e. BMP series) and MBT design. For example, Soviet MBTs don't have the ability to elevate their main guns enough to engage the upper stories of tall buildings at close range. Also, their coaxial machine guns and turret-mounted AA HMG were found not to provide enough protection against dismounted AT hunter-killer teams. The BMT-T was designed to overcoming those weaknesses as well as provide some additional AT capability. That's why it has 2-3 30mm AGLs, MGs, autocannon, and bunker-busting ATGMs. It's not really an APC at all. The large crew operates the many weapons systems. IIRC, there's the driver, two GL operators, a main armament operator, and a commander.

[Panther Al]

Oh to be sure: for the 80's russian horde the bradley wasn't a bad IFV, not great, but not bad either. The TOW, which I'll grant is damn good missile even today does have its weaknesses though, shared by about every wire guided system: flight time, and bodies of water over which they must fly. At any rate I think for the time the germans got it right (remember they started working on the Marder in the 50's so they should get credit for starting the whole IFV thing, they just didn't build them till much later because they felt it was more important to get jagdpanzers fielded - whoops) when they modified the Marder to be able to mount the squads Milan- allowing it to take a tank destroyer role when conditions favoured or demanded yet not letting the crew get any delusions of being able to square off against tanks. You may think I am not of fan of IFV's by all this plus earlier bits favouring the heavy-apc concept, but I do think there is a role for the cannon (only) medium IFV, and that's in low intensity conflicts. Tanks are not needed in large quantities nor is heavy constant fighting expected, it role is to provide a presence that can intimidate yet be light and flexible enough that it can be airlifted anywhere easily, and being tracked it would be also treated by those who might be hostile as more of a tank that can't be killed instead of "ohn its just a car with some armour...".

[Targan]

There was a Bradley variant that was discussed in Armor Journal. It pulled the turret and infantry compartment for a smaller turret mounting two twin TOW launchers and a larger number of reloads. It was proposed to either field one per platoon or to field two with the headquarters platoon.

Sounds like the M920 M2 Hellfire AT Vehicle described in the T2K V1 US Army Vehicle Guide, with two twin TOW launchers instead of the quad Hellfire launcher. Except that the M920 had no turret at all, the Hellfire gunner's position was inside the hull. Similar concept though.

[TiggerCCW UK]

Just a few things to consider....

Thanks I hadn't thought of the Bradley crews getting an invulnerability comlex and trying to take down tanks

[dragoon500ly]

Sounds like the M920 M2 Hellfire AT Vehicle described in the T2K V1 US Army Vehicle Guide, with two twin TOW launchers instead of the quad Hellfire launcher. Except that the M920 had no turret at all, the Hellfire gunner's position was inside the hull. Similar concept though.

Except that the Armor Journal was talking about this prior to GDWs release date. It was in a article discussing various proposed Bradley variants, this also included mounting a 90mm cannon, the 75mm Aeries auto-cannon, the 4.2-inch and 120mm mortars, a ambulance and a command version.

[Targan]

Except that the Armor Journal was talking about this prior to GDWs release date. It was in a article discussing various proposed Bradley variants, this also included mounting a 90mm cannon, the 75mm Aeries auto-cannon, the 4.2-inch and 120mm mortars, a ambulance and a command version.

Indeed. I imagine the GDW writers used such sources to postulate what sorts of variants would be fielded in the Twilight War. The M18 described in the US Army Vehicle Guide is a Bradley variant with a 120mm mortar.