>is a thing every nation fields, wishes for more to field, or wishes to field some outdated
Name even a single country giving up ALL of their APCs to replace with AFV
The need for large numbers of available mechanizdd/motorized transport became very apparent early on in the ukrainian war so no, the battle taxi is absolutely not dead nor being replaced by IFVs, which fulfill a different role.
No. APCs can ultimately carry more troops than an IFV. APCs are also useful for carrying supplies and non-infantry personnel. Does your Battalion HQ really need it's own Bradley's, or just something to carry the staff in?
Not really. They're still the most available, but Bradleys took over the role of transport for combat infantry a very long time ago. M113s have been almost solely used for transport of staff personnel, ambulance work, perimeter duties, etc since 2000. They're being actively replaced by the AMPV.
IFV cannot replace APC. The 2 man turret taking up ~4 seats, Cutting dismount from 10-9 to 6 seriously hurt and there is no way to replace each APC with 2 IFVs. Alternatively one can add an armored long bus to keep the other 20 infantries for IFVs to make another run.
I don't think the AMPV replacement is for APC transport roles, I just can't find one that carries 9+ troops. They look like merely a replacement for m113 as staffmobile
What if instead we give each member of a fireteam their own apc?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Some Anons who served in Stryker brigades did nearly that. Driver, Commander, Gunner and two or three dismounts. It's just enough door-kickers to check on something suspicious.
it carries command posts, Fire Direction Centers, is an Ambulance ect. ect.
The AMPV does all the jobs that the 113/1068 was still kinda barely hanging onto. None of those is "APC" in the traditional sense, if you want to make a case for APC's in the modern Stryker is the only one in US Service used in that role unless you wanna include the ACV, which doctrinially is used very differently.
How the frick can something the size of of a whole ass Bradley only seat for 4 dismounts and 2 crew? The Spartan (which is a tiny twink sized little APC that's like 1/3 the size of the AMPV) could seat 3 crew and 4 dismounts or 2 crew and 5 dismounts.
The APC is the basic b***h bare minimum. There's no reason to ever use a truck for troop transportation except in utter peacetime, so you might as well have a lightly armored vehicle to transport soldiers that keeps them safe(r) from bullets, shrapnel, and IEDs if possible.
The bradley being used as a chassis is really a smart move. Simplified logistics and it just werks.
>There's no reason to ever use a truck for troop transportation except in utter peacetime
Well that's just ridiculous
If you're 1,000km behind the frontline you don't need an APC for transport
Fair, but I'm thinking of recent conflicts where there is no frontline to speak of, and the only conflict liable to have +1000km distances within the country is Russia (and we're never going to have a land war invading to Moscow, that's nuke time) or Iran. And if I was the Us military in Iran I'd worry about insurgents in sistan and baluchistan even if it's 1000km+ from Tabriz.
But you still have a point that in Ukraine they'll use trucks to ferry troops from Lyviv to Kiev (500km), so I guess you're right but you see where I am coming from - in any kind of insurgent situation soft trucks are a huge liability because there is no front line. So unless it's pretty much just a war with Russia in Eastern Europe where NATO is holding the line rather than marching on moscow (as again, that's when nukes come out), trucks feel like a risk.
>APCs can ultimately carry more troops than an IFV.
Not inherently. IFV can be designed for any size group. Why are you making shit up? With the war everywhere Battalion HQ does need its own Bradley and it better be carrying SHORAD for drones too.
>Not inherently. IFV can be designed for any size group
Sure, as long as weight and size restirctions isnt a problem, wich in the real world, they happen to be.
The same goes for the M3 halftrack. It was never doctrinally intended to get into combat, just to transport the troops specifically as an APC. Yet still there are plenty of examples of M3s directly engaging enemies.
M3 half-tracks seeing direct combat was a rare occurence
and most of those instances were self-defense and mostly consisted of surviving long enough to break contact and then run, rather than an offensive attack
half-track drivers would drive away and then park far from the battle and then either stay put and just occasionally ping off targets with the .50
or leave the vehicle unattanded if possible and have the driver and commander proceed on foot to reinforce their dismounts
but never driving the half-track deliberately to the enemy by choice
worth noting that the humvee was also never intended for frontline combat initially, but then in GWOT we uparmored them
>worth noting that the humvee was also never intended for frontline combat initially, but then in GWOT we uparmored them
the armor was was for backline protection from buried explosives
not frontline protection from RPGs
>Isn't the line between APC and IFV becoming increasingly blurred altogether?
Did that line ever actually exist, in reality, not just in some "reformer"'s imagination? Soldiers have been trying to convert battle taxis to overwatch since the first chariots
The line exists. APCs are 2 crew(driver commander) and the weapon is pintle mounted on hatch ring, maybe gun shields, optics to at most a fully covered singleman turret/remote weapon station. IFV would have 3 crews(driver gunner commander) and 2 man turret with heavier weapon and fire control system. Without a dedicated gunner the APC commander would have too much to handle. With a turret and large gun sitting much backward, most IFV made it hard for open top because hydralic powered autocannon can mangle the hatch door and infantry, limiting their sky view and small arm fire on the move.
The only blurred line is some APC can have remote turret with great firepower like the dragoon on stryker but they don't have a dedicated gunner. It is said to be able to reload under armor. Again, APC would have too much responsibility on commander. Similarly stubby 30x113mm helicopter turrets are also made available to lighter vehicles at single man turret foot print.
Battle taxi, a misnomer that says vehicle has to leave dismounted and leave the area perhaps go to base, don't exist outside of transport aircrafts. All ground vehicles that have arms will be used at bare minimum a mobile reserve just outside of harms way and as organic supply unit, at regular they are a weapon squad for each rifle squad. Infantries are expected to operate independent of the APCs at times when APCs can be positioned elsewhere where their longer range weapon can cover and watch over the infantries and a slope to hull down.
Think of APCs as an armored truck. If you need to carry a bunch of shit around they are great, be it Officers, POGs or other assorted equipment that should stay away from the frontline.
where does the Strykers fit then?
Strykers feels like they were made for tactical combat transportation for COIN battlefield, and not for a near-peer battlefield.
strykers are IFV/APC hybrids
the stryker dragoon fits the formal definition of an IFV, having a large gun
it keeps 9 dismounts at the cost of combat endurance, the cannon only has a 200 round drum and needs to be serviced externally due to using a RWS rather than a turret that opens up into the vehicle
>and not for a near-peer battlefield.
SBCTs go in the armored division, a medium response unit
basically, they give an infantry-heavy option to armored divisions that can still keep up with the pace of maneuver
the 2 ABCTs, equipped with tanks and brads, are used for maneuver and combat
the SBCT, equipped with strykers, are deployed when they need infantry quickly and they cant spare something as logistically expensive as tanks
they were originally intended for asymmetrical combat, a quick response unit
but they adapt easily to conventional war, filling a gap between light trucks and heavy IFVs
A Stryker brigade can be anywhere in the world within three days as long as that place has airfields.
If that is your operational requiment for transporting a vehicle by air, it will naturally have to cut some corners.
Strykers came out long before Iraq. Please stop calling every vehicle used in GWOT "coin vehicles"
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
IIRC Strykers came about after the Gulf War when people realized that transporting large armored units over half the world takes time, and only the 82nd and some other support units was able to be sent in quickly as a stop gap to Saudi Arabia before the ships could arrive.
APCs are extremely useful for medevac, resupplying, troop rotation, moving troops anywhere where there's a risk of indirect fire; IFVs are used for direct assaults against prepared enemy positions.
>APCs/AMPVs are not for frontline transportation, but for backline transportation! >backline transportation:
Let's face it, APCs/AMPVs will be used exactly where IFVs are, which is around the frontlines. It's just a matter of whether the vehicle needs to do the support themselves or if there's another vehicle to do it for them (combined arms).
You can't always decide when the combat it's going to be in its most active phase. Of course, it's a different thing when the entire country is a potential combat zone with insurgent guerilla tactics and no clearly defined frontline. In that sense, the UKR-RUS war differs from many of the Middle East conflicts.
>Let's face it, APCs/AMPVs will be used exactly where IFVs are, which is around the frontlines.
no one is sending out their ambulance M113 to assault the enemy
while the company HQ of a mech company does have an APC, it will likely never see combat unless things go sideways and they are provided with an M2 brad specifically for instances when they might see combat but is more likely to be used as a replacement vehicle if a rifle platoon loses theirs
>no one is sending out their ambulance M113 to assault the enemy
You shouldn't classify the usage of an entire category of vehicles based on one outdated example. Patria AMVs and Eitan AFVs are absolutely frontline assault material when supported by tanks and IFVs. (assuming you need to transport soldiers via land)
>You shouldn't classify the usage of an entire category of vehicles based on one outdated example
AMPV usage will be identical to M113, its for specialist purposes not direct combat
the armor is to protect against infiltrators or straddling artillery, but not direct combat
Using Humvees like IFVs also goes against their design purpose, yet there they are when the situation calls for it.
The illusion of "proper use" often goes by the wayside in real circumstances, and commanding officers will look at the vehicles' characteristics creatively. M1283 on the frontlines? I doubt many would question that.
>The illusion of "proper use" often goes by the wayside in real circumstances,
Any improper use is user error to begin with
>and commanding officers will look at the vehicles' characteristics creative
No one is looking at the single AMPV in the entire company and think that its better in the front lines rather than being used to safely ferry the company commander
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Any improper use is user error to begin with
If it works and to a great effect, are you going to complain about it? >No one is looking at the single AMPV in the entire company and think that its better in the front lines rather than being used to safely ferry the company commander
An overly specific example to support your point? Great arguing there, buddy.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>An overly specific example to support your point >real world example bad
APCs have been replaced by IFVs in mech units, with existing APCs being for specialist purposes
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You can choose to do it like that, especially as the primary approach, but in the end there's not a whole lot of difference between using APC in similar situations. Many IFVs are just modular APC platforms with turret configurations anyway.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>but in the end there's not a whole lot of difference between using APC in similar situations
APCs were pushed out of the combat role because IFVs are more suited to the role
If APCs were ever meant to see heavy combat, the units would be rotated out for ones equipped with IFVs
The difference between the vehicle leaving combat and troops proceeding as a rifle unit, and the vehicle staying with the group is massive
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
There's nothing wrong with APCs staying in the fight. 12.7mm can still be used to fight the enemy infantry (quite effectively), especially with modern optics and you'll have more ammo than 30mm and you can bring antitank missiles or a fellow MBT/MPF against mechanized targets (are you really assaulting large enemy mechanized formations though? usually it's against entrenched enemy infantry).
Having a 30mm is nice and all, but it has its own limitations.
Whatever you choose for your army's military doctrine is not going to magically invalidate the adjacent options.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>There's nothing wrong with APCs staying in the fight
if there was nothing wrong, they never would have built IFVs to begin with
APCs were never intended to stay with their dismounts, and attempts to do so got them needlessly endangered, which is why the IFV was made to begin with
>12.7mm can still be used to fight the enemy infantry
the .50 is only good for local defense and, maybe if you are desperate, suppressing the enemy while dismounting
but even that is largely just a last resort, because the only people who even have APCs are the people who shouldnt be shot at all, only reason your mortar team is getting assaulted with machine guns is if you made a mistake
>Having a 30mm is nice and all, but it has its own limitations.
having a 30mm is better than a machine gun for the purposes of actually seeing fighting
>Whatever you choose for your army's military doctrine is not going to magically invalidate the adjacent options.
in order to prevent misuse of equipment, most armies do not even issue APCs to mech infantry
they only get a handful which are already attached to specialist units
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Well, it's not like trying to convince you is make a difference, so I give up... I already made my key arguments.
One good reliable theory is that this war isn't anything. It's just pieces of dirt in hell. So we israelites can just keep eating and having a good time with our horse shoes
Every single armored vehicle should be fitted with an AA turret in either 7.62/5.56 or programmed detonation 30/35mm etc.
The radar component should be standardized throughout your whole force while the weapon should be scaled depending on if it's an APC, a IFV, or some utility vehicle.
and they were never used in frontline combat
the fact that they were uparmored means they were used that way to midwits when it was still only ever used as a transport and convoy escort
Factually untrue from both a design standpoint and a doctrinal standpoint. The primary purpose of an APC is to carry troops to the front then withdraw to a safer area of the combat zone. They can be used for fire support and mobile cover as needed, but generally speaking they dump their troops then reverse to a designated area.
IFVs on the other hand are meant to carry their troops right up to the point of contact and then fight alongside them from then on.
You can see this in the Army manuals for M113s and Bradley's. During a mounted ATK with an M113 a platoon or squad will be engaged and make the flanking movement while the M113 is used as a base fire with the .50 cal from a protected position. A Bradley can either be the base of fire or maneuvering element in an ATK.
to me, APCs kind of imply that the infantry is the primary combat unit and that armored fighting vehicles are a secondary combat unit meant to support the infantry.
while IFVs kind of imply that armored fighting vehicles are the primary combat unit and that infantry are a secondary combat unit meant to support AFVs.
Both are true. That is the "combined" part of combined arms.
you'd think that in a peer fight for modern warfare, you'd always used AFVs as the primary mode of combat (a.k.a. mechanized/armored warfare).
for what purpose would fighting primarily with infantry units be more beneficial than mech/armor units?
motorized infantry are almost as effective as mech infantry when used for defensive fighting for holding cities, with the benefit of being much cheaper than mech infantry.
Good point. People don't understand the idea of strategic mobility or realize that the military does in fact take cost effectiveness into consideration when analyzing combat capabilities.
For example, you can mobilize the entire 82nd Airborne in like 30 days and drop them directly into the combat zone from a staging base. Whereas the 1st Armored division would take significantly longer to mobilize because you have to wait for all their equipment and vehicles to be airlifted or sailed over. Planes can only carry so many tanks (not to mention support vehicles like fuelers and wreckers) at a time and they do so at significant cost. Shipping it by sea would be cheaper and allow more vehicles at once, but it would take a lot a longer to get them there.
motorized infantry have been trading in their BTRs for BMPs, and M113s were replaced by M2 brads on a 1:1 basis, so when cost is not an issue they get replaced by IFVs the moment its possible
the US Army just bought like 5000 turretless bradleys. so no
No, and honestly if we dont look at costs than every APC should actually be a tank like the merkava
they just need to be replaced by devilfish.
>a chimera isn't enough
report to the local commissar
>is a thing every nation fields, wishes for more to field, or wishes to field some outdated
Name even a single country giving up ALL of their APCs to replace with AFV
They have the old and ran out of money. That is no argument for APC, it argues for not being poor.
The need for large numbers of available mechanizdd/motorized transport became very apparent early on in the ukrainian war so no, the battle taxi is absolutely not dead nor being replaced by IFVs, which fulfill a different role.
That's interesting, I guess it really just is like a armored truck with tracks, and trucks will never be obsolete
you just know the first guy is autistic as shit
No. APCs can ultimately carry more troops than an IFV. APCs are also useful for carrying supplies and non-infantry personnel. Does your Battalion HQ really need it's own Bradley's, or just something to carry the staff in?
Are M113s going to remain the standard US APC for awhile?
Not really. They're still the most available, but Bradleys took over the role of transport for combat infantry a very long time ago. M113s have been almost solely used for transport of staff personnel, ambulance work, perimeter duties, etc since 2000. They're being actively replaced by the AMPV.
IFV cannot replace APC. The 2 man turret taking up ~4 seats, Cutting dismount from 10-9 to 6 seriously hurt and there is no way to replace each APC with 2 IFVs. Alternatively one can add an armored long bus to keep the other 20 infantries for IFVs to make another run.
I don't think the AMPV replacement is for APC transport roles, I just can't find one that carries 9+ troops. They look like merely a replacement for m113 as staffmobile
What on earth is the point of a four man APC, like it literally has no weapon other than a machine gun and can carry four fricking people?
each vehicle carries a fireteam
What if instead we give each member of a fireteam their own apc?
Some Anons who served in Stryker brigades did nearly that. Driver, Commander, Gunner and two or three dismounts. It's just enough door-kickers to check on something suspicious.
it carries command posts, Fire Direction Centers, is an Ambulance ect. ect.
The AMPV does all the jobs that the 113/1068 was still kinda barely hanging onto. None of those is "APC" in the traditional sense, if you want to make a case for APC's in the modern Stryker is the only one in US Service used in that role unless you wanna include the ACV, which doctrinially is used very differently.
How the frick can something the size of of a whole ass Bradley only seat for 4 dismounts and 2 crew? The Spartan (which is a tiny twink sized little APC that's like 1/3 the size of the AMPV) could seat 3 crew and 4 dismounts or 2 crew and 5 dismounts.
EVEN THE PROTOTYPE WEASEL 2 APC COULD SEAT 2+4.
Wiesel 2 was powered by Cold War era Teutonic Space Magic?
The APC is the basic b***h bare minimum. There's no reason to ever use a truck for troop transportation except in utter peacetime, so you might as well have a lightly armored vehicle to transport soldiers that keeps them safe(r) from bullets, shrapnel, and IEDs if possible.
The bradley being used as a chassis is really a smart move. Simplified logistics and it just werks.
>There's no reason to ever use a truck for troop transportation except in utter peacetime
Well that's just ridiculous
If you're 1,000km behind the frontline you don't need an APC for transport
Now do 10, 20, or 30km behind the front lines.
>You don't need it for 1,000km back
>Yeah but what about 10km back???
You really got me there
Fair, but I'm thinking of recent conflicts where there is no frontline to speak of, and the only conflict liable to have +1000km distances within the country is Russia (and we're never going to have a land war invading to Moscow, that's nuke time) or Iran. And if I was the Us military in Iran I'd worry about insurgents in sistan and baluchistan even if it's 1000km+ from Tabriz.
But you still have a point that in Ukraine they'll use trucks to ferry troops from Lyviv to Kiev (500km), so I guess you're right but you see where I am coming from - in any kind of insurgent situation soft trucks are a huge liability because there is no front line. So unless it's pretty much just a war with Russia in Eastern Europe where NATO is holding the line rather than marching on moscow (as again, that's when nukes come out), trucks feel like a risk.
>APCs can ultimately carry more troops than an IFV.
Not inherently. IFV can be designed for any size group. Why are you making shit up? With the war everywhere Battalion HQ does need its own Bradley and it better be carrying SHORAD for drones too.
>Not inherently. IFV can be designed for any size group
Sure, as long as weight and size restirctions isnt a problem, wich in the real world, they happen to be.
the periscopes look so cool, I love shiny colorful optics
Stryker currently fills the APC roll
3 IFVs
or
1 MBT and 2 APCs
Anon, the new meta is one T-62 Obr. 2024 and 3 golf carts.
May I interest you with 2 motorcycles and an ATV?
Only if I get to install premium EW cope cages on them.
Fine but on the condition you also install the battering ram wooden panels.
Da Tovarish, now we win
The Namer is bretty good.
Not expeditionary though. IDF fights next door so it's ideal for them.
Isn't the line between APC and IFV becoming increasingly blurred altogether?
Even the much maligned M113 was basically getting IFV'd until the Bradley entered service.
the m113 was never an IFV in American infantry doctrine, ever.
I saw a Vietnam war documentary where they used it to close in on the enemy, support fire, drop soldiers off in combat, etc.
The same goes for the M3 halftrack. It was never doctrinally intended to get into combat, just to transport the troops specifically as an APC. Yet still there are plenty of examples of M3s directly engaging enemies.
M3 half-tracks seeing direct combat was a rare occurence
and most of those instances were self-defense and mostly consisted of surviving long enough to break contact and then run, rather than an offensive attack
half-track drivers would drive away and then park far from the battle and then either stay put and just occasionally ping off targets with the .50
or leave the vehicle unattanded if possible and have the driver and commander proceed on foot to reinforce their dismounts
but never driving the half-track deliberately to the enemy by choice
>worth noting that the humvee was also never intended for frontline combat initially, but then in GWOT we uparmored them
the armor was was for backline protection from buried explosives
not frontline protection from RPGs
>Isn't the line between APC and IFV becoming increasingly blurred altogether?
Did that line ever actually exist, in reality, not just in some "reformer"'s imagination? Soldiers have been trying to convert battle taxis to overwatch since the first chariots
The line exists. APCs are 2 crew(driver commander) and the weapon is pintle mounted on hatch ring, maybe gun shields, optics to at most a fully covered singleman turret/remote weapon station. IFV would have 3 crews(driver gunner commander) and 2 man turret with heavier weapon and fire control system. Without a dedicated gunner the APC commander would have too much to handle. With a turret and large gun sitting much backward, most IFV made it hard for open top because hydralic powered autocannon can mangle the hatch door and infantry, limiting their sky view and small arm fire on the move.
The only blurred line is some APC can have remote turret with great firepower like the dragoon on stryker but they don't have a dedicated gunner. It is said to be able to reload under armor. Again, APC would have too much responsibility on commander. Similarly stubby 30x113mm helicopter turrets are also made available to lighter vehicles at single man turret foot print.
Battle taxi, a misnomer that says vehicle has to leave dismounted and leave the area perhaps go to base, don't exist outside of transport aircrafts. All ground vehicles that have arms will be used at bare minimum a mobile reserve just outside of harms way and as organic supply unit, at regular they are a weapon squad for each rifle squad. Infantries are expected to operate independent of the APCs at times when APCs can be positioned elsewhere where their longer range weapon can cover and watch over the infantries and a slope to hull down.
APCs are an outdated concept which has been replaced by IFVs in modern warfare.
APCs were replaced by IFVs in rifle platoons, but APCs still see use for specialist vehicles like mortar carriers, HQ platoons, ambulance, etc,
AMPV is a true APC, with only machine guns for self-defense and not being used for direct combat and will replace the M113
so APCs in the tactical combat role are gone, but still useful in the logistics rear-guard role?
Think of APCs as an armored truck. If you need to carry a bunch of shit around they are great, be it Officers, POGs or other assorted equipment that should stay away from the frontline.
It's where the leaders, medics, mechanics etc sit. They need something tracked to keep up with a tracked unit.
FMTV (M1083) = strategic transportation
IMV (JLTV) = operational transportation
IFV (Bradley) = tactical (combat) transportation
APC (AMPV) = tactical (logistics) transportation
simple as
where does the Strykers fit then?
Strykers feels like they were made for tactical combat transportation for COIN battlefield, and not for a near-peer battlefield.
strykers are IFV/APC hybrids
the stryker dragoon fits the formal definition of an IFV, having a large gun
it keeps 9 dismounts at the cost of combat endurance, the cannon only has a 200 round drum and needs to be serviced externally due to using a RWS rather than a turret that opens up into the vehicle
>and not for a near-peer battlefield.
SBCTs go in the armored division, a medium response unit
basically, they give an infantry-heavy option to armored divisions that can still keep up with the pace of maneuver
the 2 ABCTs, equipped with tanks and brads, are used for maneuver and combat
the SBCT, equipped with strykers, are deployed when they need infantry quickly and they cant spare something as logistically expensive as tanks
they were originally intended for asymmetrical combat, a quick response unit
but they adapt easily to conventional war, filling a gap between light trucks and heavy IFVs
A Stryker brigade can be anywhere in the world within three days as long as that place has airfields.
If that is your operational requiment for transporting a vehicle by air, it will naturally have to cut some corners.
Strykers came out long before Iraq. Please stop calling every vehicle used in GWOT "coin vehicles"
IIRC Strykers came about after the Gulf War when people realized that transporting large armored units over half the world takes time, and only the 82nd and some other support units was able to be sent in quickly as a stop gap to Saudi Arabia before the ships could arrive.
>will replace the M113
Many a contender have made such claims but have fallen to the wayside. The M113 will be deploying Terran troops on Mars.
APCs are extremely useful for medevac, resupplying, troop rotation, moving troops anywhere where there's a risk of indirect fire; IFVs are used for direct assaults against prepared enemy positions.
The Ukrainians war has shown accurate artillery + drone spotters make the IFV and APC ideas obsolete
Infantry belongs in trenches and bunkers
>Infantry belongs in trenches and bunkers
Yep, lets just go back to WW1 fighting, surely that is the best option for offensive ground operations.
Ukrainian war has only shown how third world countries should fight.
>Infantry belongs in trenches and bunkers
How do they get there vatnig, golf carts?
Armored segways
>How do they get there
By drunk chechens with broomsticks.
I'm leet I'm nine and I fight dirty
Whorin 'round in my APC
>APCs/AMPVs are not for frontline transportation, but for backline transportation!
>backline transportation:
Let's face it, APCs/AMPVs will be used exactly where IFVs are, which is around the frontlines. It's just a matter of whether the vehicle needs to do the support themselves or if there's another vehicle to do it for them (combined arms).
You can't always decide when the combat it's going to be in its most active phase. Of course, it's a different thing when the entire country is a potential combat zone with insurgent guerilla tactics and no clearly defined frontline. In that sense, the UKR-RUS war differs from many of the Middle East conflicts.
>Let's face it, APCs/AMPVs will be used exactly where IFVs are, which is around the frontlines.
no one is sending out their ambulance M113 to assault the enemy
while the company HQ of a mech company does have an APC, it will likely never see combat unless things go sideways and they are provided with an M2 brad specifically for instances when they might see combat but is more likely to be used as a replacement vehicle if a rifle platoon loses theirs
>no one is sending out their ambulance M113 to assault the enemy
You shouldn't classify the usage of an entire category of vehicles based on one outdated example. Patria AMVs and Eitan AFVs are absolutely frontline assault material when supported by tanks and IFVs. (assuming you need to transport soldiers via land)
>You shouldn't classify the usage of an entire category of vehicles based on one outdated example
AMPV usage will be identical to M113, its for specialist purposes not direct combat
the armor is to protect against infiltrators or straddling artillery, but not direct combat
Using Humvees like IFVs also goes against their design purpose, yet there they are when the situation calls for it.
The illusion of "proper use" often goes by the wayside in real circumstances, and commanding officers will look at the vehicles' characteristics creatively. M1283 on the frontlines? I doubt many would question that.
>The illusion of "proper use" often goes by the wayside in real circumstances,
Any improper use is user error to begin with
>and commanding officers will look at the vehicles' characteristics creative
No one is looking at the single AMPV in the entire company and think that its better in the front lines rather than being used to safely ferry the company commander
>Any improper use is user error to begin with
If it works and to a great effect, are you going to complain about it?
>No one is looking at the single AMPV in the entire company and think that its better in the front lines rather than being used to safely ferry the company commander
An overly specific example to support your point? Great arguing there, buddy.
>An overly specific example to support your point
>real world example bad
APCs have been replaced by IFVs in mech units, with existing APCs being for specialist purposes
You can choose to do it like that, especially as the primary approach, but in the end there's not a whole lot of difference between using APC in similar situations. Many IFVs are just modular APC platforms with turret configurations anyway.
>but in the end there's not a whole lot of difference between using APC in similar situations
APCs were pushed out of the combat role because IFVs are more suited to the role
If APCs were ever meant to see heavy combat, the units would be rotated out for ones equipped with IFVs
The difference between the vehicle leaving combat and troops proceeding as a rifle unit, and the vehicle staying with the group is massive
There's nothing wrong with APCs staying in the fight. 12.7mm can still be used to fight the enemy infantry (quite effectively), especially with modern optics and you'll have more ammo than 30mm and you can bring antitank missiles or a fellow MBT/MPF against mechanized targets (are you really assaulting large enemy mechanized formations though? usually it's against entrenched enemy infantry).
Having a 30mm is nice and all, but it has its own limitations.
Whatever you choose for your army's military doctrine is not going to magically invalidate the adjacent options.
>There's nothing wrong with APCs staying in the fight
if there was nothing wrong, they never would have built IFVs to begin with
APCs were never intended to stay with their dismounts, and attempts to do so got them needlessly endangered, which is why the IFV was made to begin with
>12.7mm can still be used to fight the enemy infantry
the .50 is only good for local defense and, maybe if you are desperate, suppressing the enemy while dismounting
but even that is largely just a last resort, because the only people who even have APCs are the people who shouldnt be shot at all, only reason your mortar team is getting assaulted with machine guns is if you made a mistake
>Having a 30mm is nice and all, but it has its own limitations.
having a 30mm is better than a machine gun for the purposes of actually seeing fighting
>Whatever you choose for your army's military doctrine is not going to magically invalidate the adjacent options.
in order to prevent misuse of equipment, most armies do not even issue APCs to mech infantry
they only get a handful which are already attached to specialist units
Well, it's not like trying to convince you is make a difference, so I give up... I already made my key arguments.
One good reliable theory is that this war isn't anything. It's just pieces of dirt in hell. So we israelites can just keep eating and having a good time with our horse shoes
Every single armored vehicle should be fitted with an AA turret in either 7.62/5.56 or programmed detonation 30/35mm etc.
The radar component should be standardized throughout your whole force while the weapon should be scaled depending on if it's an APC, a IFV, or some utility vehicle.
You don't need to turn every single vehicle into a hybrid when you can just mix specialized vehicles together.
You will never get the volume tequired with specialized vehicles. Do you not realize the scale of the drone threat???
no you just have to give the gavin wings i mean legs
worth noting that the humvee was also never intended for frontline combat initially, but then in GWOT we uparmored them
and they were never used in frontline combat
the fact that they were uparmored means they were used that way to midwits when it was still only ever used as a transport and convoy escort
APCs and IFVs are the same thing.
Factually untrue from both a design standpoint and a doctrinal standpoint. The primary purpose of an APC is to carry troops to the front then withdraw to a safer area of the combat zone. They can be used for fire support and mobile cover as needed, but generally speaking they dump their troops then reverse to a designated area.
IFVs on the other hand are meant to carry their troops right up to the point of contact and then fight alongside them from then on.
You can see this in the Army manuals for M113s and Bradley's. During a mounted ATK with an M113 a platoon or squad will be engaged and make the flanking movement while the M113 is used as a base fire with the .50 cal from a protected position. A Bradley can either be the base of fire or maneuvering element in an ATK.
project in urban warfare where you need to cross a street with one to shadow in a walk 40 feet of death
or to recover someone
to me, APCs kind of imply that the infantry is the primary combat unit and that armored fighting vehicles are a secondary combat unit meant to support the infantry.
while IFVs kind of imply that armored fighting vehicles are the primary combat unit and that infantry are a secondary combat unit meant to support AFVs.
Both are true. That is the "combined" part of combined arms.
you'd think that in a peer fight for modern warfare, you'd always used AFVs as the primary mode of combat (a.k.a. mechanized/armored warfare).
for what purpose would fighting primarily with infantry units be more beneficial than mech/armor units?
>for what purpose would fighting primarily with infantry units
Like in any terrain that isn't an open field or desert, you stupid frick?
motorized infantry are almost as effective as mech infantry when used for defensive fighting for holding cities, with the benefit of being much cheaper than mech infantry.
Good point. People don't understand the idea of strategic mobility or realize that the military does in fact take cost effectiveness into consideration when analyzing combat capabilities.
For example, you can mobilize the entire 82nd Airborne in like 30 days and drop them directly into the combat zone from a staging base. Whereas the 1st Armored division would take significantly longer to mobilize because you have to wait for all their equipment and vehicles to be airlifted or sailed over. Planes can only carry so many tanks (not to mention support vehicles like fuelers and wreckers) at a time and they do so at significant cost. Shipping it by sea would be cheaper and allow more vehicles at once, but it would take a lot a longer to get them there.
motorized infantry have been trading in their BTRs for BMPs, and M113s were replaced by M2 brads on a 1:1 basis, so when cost is not an issue they get replaced by IFVs the moment its possible