> considering the hard lessons learned in Iraq and Yemen, how should the next-gen IFV be adapted?
> should the next IFV as lightly protected as the Bradley?
> it's literally an aluminium can. Not a joke.
> or should we use tougher armor like hardened steel? (Like the Germans and others are using)
> shouldn't we use a bigger gun as well ? (I'd prefer 35mm)
>should the next IFV as lightly protected as the Bradley?
the bradley isnt lightly armored, it has all-around .50cal protection
> it's literally an aluminium can. Not a joke.
its already all-around .30cal protection on just aluminum
it was uparmored in later variants with steel
>or should we use tougher armor like hardened steel?
the uparmoring uses add-on steel armor
>shouldn't we use a bigger gun as well ? (I'd prefer 35mm)
25mm gun can already penetrate enemy BMPs out to standard combat ranges
It'd kinda dumb to view these things in a vacuum. I think the single most important thing to consider is improving industrial ouput and streamlining production.
The Leo 2A7 is a wonderful piece of equipment, but it's literally assembled in fricking manufacturies. Would you rather have 12 Leo 2A7 or 300 shitty Type 99s?
Whatever the next IFV will be, it has to be standardized, production easily scalable, quick to deploy, relatively easy to learn. I am willing to sacrifice hardware performance if it means I can significantly increase production.
Personally, I am also in favor of relatively tough IFVs that can significantly support infantry and take some damage if need be.
So to answer:
- At least .50cal protection, preferably more
- If possible APS
- 40mm cannon
- Secondary large caliber weapon, independent of main weapon
- Smoke throwers
- tracked
Use the same hull for a variety of other vehicles - mortar, loiterung munition carrier, ATGM carrier, recon variant etc.
But as I said before: Worry about increasing production first.
>Secondary large caliber weapon, independent of main weapon
Bradley is still one of the best IFVs out there. It doubles as a tank destroyer with its anti armor capabilities. Next gen will be about APS and a larger caliber gun for cheaply disposing of drones. I imagine IFVs with smaller cannons 20-30mm will stick around for their usefulness in supporting infantry.
We really need to go back to WW2 thinking and have light(5-20t), medium(20-40t) and heavy(40-60t) platforms. Time and time again we learn the hard way that yes, protection is necessary and yes, protection requirements dictate weight, not the other way around.
>Time and time again we learn the hard way that yes, protection is necessary and yes, protection requirements dictate weight, not the other way around.
He says, after dictating weight because of protection requirements
I should have probably added that I would see any vehicle designed for an offensive role (IFV and tank) bumped up to the 40-60t bracket (essentially only weight limited by engineering equipment and infrastructure). The 20-40t bracket would be for a cost effective way of equipping reservist forces with a 40t gun platform (a la MPF) and a heavily protected tracked APC.
Why do you need light tanks if your combined IFV and APC systems are up armored and up gunned? And when infantry anti tank units kill mediums and heavies? Where do you get the need for speed and gun that is not solved?
Modern light tanks will just be drone scout carriers in the future.
If it's a land based drone carrier system, why not copy the carrier battle group idea on land?
Light tanks would be for marginal theatres where transport and terrain limits the deployment of larger vehicles. The usage of the scimitar tanks in the Falklands would be a good example of this.
The idea of IFV, Tanks, attack helicopters and other yesteryears hardware built for conflicts of the 20th Century, should be abandoned entirely.
All conflicts in which these vehicles have been employed have been lost. All. Of. Them.
Russia will lose too, and not because the Ukraine employs these, but because of the technological advancement making these hunks of metal completely obsolete. Highly mobile ATGM infantry, drones and reconnaissance/satellite intelligence allows for complete destruction of all armored elements. Therefore the concept should be abandoned. I know, boomers will tell me about le combined arms and big armor = big good, but fighting wars like this ended in devastating losses every time since world war II.
> highly mobile infantry
> no ifvs
are they supposed to run everywhere lmao?
If "Air-Land-Sea" is a priority, we need to work on hover trucks and such.
>Tank hugging a ridgeline
>Detect an ATGM launch
>Reverse back behind the berm
>Pop out again 10s later
>Shoot at the ATGM launch location
It's literally that easy
ATGMs have been important since Yom Kippur, but they aren't magic.
If direct fire, big gun, tanks become obsolescent it will be because guided or highly accurate artillery can do a similar job in combination with modern C2.
>ATGM waits until tank pushes from the berm
>lights it up
One, how will you detect every launch
Secondly. If your protection is a berm you will be targeted by top down munitions that fly up first, but not every place you fight will have berms.
>Technology is evolving
>Ergo all current technology is obsolete
Imagine someone in 1935 saying tanks are obsolete becaust anti-tank guns.
>Mom look! I posted on PrepHole!
>All conflicts in which these vehicles have been employed have been lost. All. Of. Them.
US lost Iraq? Wow tell us more moron-kun.
Did the US lose Afghanistan?
>Did the US lose Afghanistan?
First that's irrelevant to the claim that every single conflict was lost.
As far as Afghanistan, the war? No. We obliterated the Taliban with ease, and the remainder fled under Pakistan's nuclear umbrella. People saying we should have gone to war with Pakistan too are morons. The rebuild effort after? I'd argue yes, but it's debatable since we literally weren't losing anyone at the end and just packed up and left. In terms of personnel and budget expenditure we could have stayed another decade, but is that sunk cost fallacy thinking? I don't know. I lean towards yes at this point with the example of Ukraine and Russia. The Afghans could have easily maintained their country at that point. But like Russians they're a shit people who are fine under a boot. That being the case I'm glad we cut that exposure.
Wow tell us more moron-kun.
>Wow tell us more moron-kun.
lmao you're the one who claimed the US lost both Iraq 1 and Iraq 2. Nice cope and seethe though thirdie.
I visit this board twice a year boss
I'm not even the anon that you were replying to kek
>All conflicts in which these vehicles have been employed have been lost. All. Of. Them.
What the frick are you talking about?
Next gen IFVs have to have battlefield mapping AI using a sensor suite and a next gen acoustic counter-battery or simply counter fire system to add intel to the battlenet system. Possibly a google car camera suite.
I think IFVs will end up becoming the primary source of infantry direct fire support on the battlefield, MBTs will end up as rarer and more specialised vehicles.
If that is the case, you want a main gun that is sufficient to do anti-fortification work and has a decent HE/shrapnel charge to kill infantry behind cover.
IMO 40mm and up is necessary for this.
I think anti Armor missiles might not be as essential if we continue to see this proliferation in beyond line of sight anti Armor weapons, it might be enough to simply have a light loadout of 2 to 4 missiles ready in the tubes with no reloads carried.
I think heavily protected IFVs are perhaps a fools errand, better to have more IFVs that can protect against the most common battlefield threats (IE artillery shrapnel, HMGs ect) rather than a few logistically cumbersome IFVs that can still be destroyed by heavy threats.
I think survivability should focus on ruggedness rather than sheer Armor protection, preventing the possibility of catastrophic kill by storing ammunition outside and away from the crew and passenger compartment, for example in unmanned turret systems.
Technology like APS can be used as long as it is not to costly or burdensome.
No, we need missile warheads that impact then dig or drill, becoming almost a tunneling drone. That is the next step.
>MBTs will end up as rarer and more specialised vehicles.
other way around
the events in europe has actually brought MBTs back to prominence with armored divisions concentrating everyones tanks once again
IFVs are also being concentrated into the armored divisions to act as accessories for the MBT, they cant replace the tank because their entire existence revolves around supporting the tank in combat
Is it even going to be armored?
Why not an army of pickups with drones and 50 bmgs? I could field a dozen light armored trucks for the cost of a single Bradley
Civilian vehicles get absolutely destroyed by even light shrapnel.
Unprotected fuel and coolant tanks get fricked up super easily.
God, seems I got shadowbanned in leftist pol for shitting on chinks.
Dennis thread
You mean armatard
Are these TOW tubes?
What did this ifv do before explosion?
Aluminum is better.
Steel is fine for militaries that don't intend to travel distances regularly, but keeping weight down is integral for shipping and transit.
The only weight saving you get from using aluminium instead of steel is from not having to have internal dividers for structural rigidity.
Only for airlift and modern airlift gives few fricks.
>and modern airlift gives few fricks
This is not true at all. Mass and volume limits are real. There's a finite amount of airlift capacity on the entire globe, and not all of it can take the biggest and heaviest items.
Quints quints of truth. Even for America, the backbone of our air transports is still the C-130. Yes we have heavy lift that can carry anything, but you can't just land a C-5 on any rando short runway or dirt strip.
>Put 60mm and 81mm autonomous mortars on them. These can be directed onto targets by drones or, ideally, through infantry men's ridle fire control system or some light weight device.
>Need an ability to rapidly charge UAVs and UGVs
>Ideally it can interface with autonomous UAVs that scan for threats. Infantry can move with a drone screen up that looks for threats/targets and can detect ATGM launches. Lighter than air drones offer the possibility of long loiter times to fill gaps in coverage due to charging times and can be used to route comms via open space/laser to avoid location detection.
>Integrated data link with other elements and a unified battle space software so that screens can show feeds from drones and can have way points, incoming fire missions, and out of sight threats IDed by other elements shown on screen.
>Investigate the possibility of some models carrying field gun level artillery. Yeah, it didn't work perfectly for the Stryker, but as artillery gets increasingly autonomous the concept improves.
>Optionally manned. Can navigate autonomously and weapons systems can be used autonomously. Allows infantry to bring the vehicle in empty for fire support like a UGV. Maybe make HMG/40mm grenade turrets modular so the can be withdrawn and parked in windows.
>Weapons data link with drones so that the approximate beaten zone of plunging fire shows up on a drone feed. Allows you to target/better suppress out of sight enemies at significant distances with the autocannons, HMG, etc.
>Active protection. Some sort of interception system and a last ditch EFP system. Dedicated anti-drone support can come from a UGV or other vehicle.
data link with drones so that the approximate beaten zone of plunging fire shows up on a drone feed. Allows you to target/better suppress out of sight enemies at significant distances with the autocannons, HMG, etc
Useful for mortars and in some instances for these but you really need a modular way to adjust the amount of propellant to make it as effective as it could be, which isn't practical outside of mortars and artillery. Maybe you could engineer some way to mess with the exit velocity to get the arc required for a target, but it seems like that might get fragile and frick up if not calibrated right.
If coil guns ever become a thing (DARPA had a hybrid Humvee with a 105mm) then you could easily adjust rate of fire and velocity. It won't be any time soon, but when/if they come in, then drones can guide much cheaper autocannon fire to arc onto targets at high rates from a wide variety of angles. Probably works better with HE so that low velocity isn't as much of an issue for some angles.
The purpose of an APC is to transport the infantry as an armored troop transport truck. An IFV is nothing more than an APC that emphasizes firepower making it closer to being a light tank. Beyond that, you use them to cross open terrain quickly and support the infantry from overwatch positions. That's about it. Armor is primarily there to protect from artillery and mortars, any armor that protects more than that is a potential plus at the risk of making it heavier and shittier. The dream of charging through the open fields is a fricking meme and always has been, because unless you are in pure tank country type terrain then the infantry ALWAYS lead. I don't just mean the infantry hand railing roads through forest passages, I mean the infantry dismounting and attacking the enemy position until they have either cleared it completely or have wiped out most AT threats, armor during that either sit in an overwatch position or park somewhere hidden and wait to get called in.
Anything that goes beyond that is a meme that will unfortunately be learned the hard way through blood in the next war (in regards to the US).
>muslims being muslims
okay
>An IFV is nothing more than an APC that emphasizes firepower making it closer to being a light tank.
IFV has a totally different role from an APC
APCs act independently from the dismounts after dismounting, after which they either leave for a more protected area or do occasional overwatch fire
IFVs will follow troops directly into battle and act as an additional squad member when the troops are outside the vehicle allowing for quicker re-mounting if needed and allowing the heavy weapon to be brought to bear
they maneuver organically with the tank elements
while infantry lead tactically, tanks lead operationally, with the armored element being used to breakthrough and maneuver, while the infantry provide local security or contest possible avenues of attack
>IFVs will follow troops directly into battle
>*dies from recoilless rifle*
>*dies from rocket launcher*
>*dies from AT mine*
>*dies from tank trap*
>*dies from c-wire getting stuck in the wheels*
>*dies from anti material rifle*
>*dies from molotov wienertail choking the engine*
IFV's do the exact same job APC's and half tracks did before them. Just with some more firepower.
>while infantry lead tactically, tanks lead operationally, with the armored element being used to breakthrough and maneuver, while the infantry provide local security or contest possible avenues of attack
What in the actual frick is any of that?
>IFV's do the exact same job APC's and half tracks did before them. Just with some more firepower.
as mentioned above: IFVs do not do the same job
reflected in ABCT formations, bradleys are directly mated to CABTs within the brigade because they fight directly alongside the tanks and go wherever they go
and reflected in mech training, where they have small heavily armed fireteams that accompany the bradley
APCs, in this case the stryker, are all in their own SBCT with their own set of tactics
the stryker is more pro-active than M113s ever were however, and while doctrinally are supposed to peel off from the squad after dismounting they are encouraged to return to provide support with their .50s and mk19s when the situation demands
Strykers are embedded in SBCT's in the exact same say. Your argument makes no sense.
>Strykers are embedded in SBCT's in the exact same say.
SBCTs operate more closely to APCs, with the stryker just being an armored taxis
though with more leeway to actually fight unlike an M113
bradleys are doctrinally paired up with M1 abrams
a CABT has both bradleys and M1 abrams
and while a stryker will only fight if the tactical situation calls for it, a bradley always follows its dismounts and effectively acts as a vehicle-sized weapon team
this is because of a different use-case for IFVs over APCs
the M2 bradley crew are part of the dismounted fire team and fight as a single element
an APC like the M113 has the APC crew act as separate armored element that maneuvers independent of its dismounts
Strykers originally used the MGS in the same role as an Abrams and was slated to get light tanks up until the Army decided to do a frickywucky on that.
>Strykers originally used the MGS in the same role as an Abrams
the stryker MGS was an assault gun that was handed out in small number, each brigade only got a handful and each one was primarily armed with HE
its closer to the MPF or the M8 GMC of old
M1 abrams has a totally different role within an ABCT
>That just straight up isn't true.
hence why the M113 was used in that example instead of the stryker, because true doctrinally pure APCs are rarely used today
>an APC like the M113 has the APC crew act as separate armored element that maneuvers independent of its dismounts
That just straight up isn't true. The Stryker is under the command of the squad leader within the infantry platoon.
>>*dies from recoilless rifle*
>>*dies from rocket launcher*
>>*dies from AT mine*
>>*dies from tank trap*
>>*dies from c-wire getting stuck in the wheels*
>>*dies from anti material rifle*
>>*dies from molotov wienertail choking the engine*
You do realize that APCs die from all of these, plus other stuff like HMG rounds? The IFV can at least support the infantry with firepower when they dismount, while an APC would have to dismount much further away from a hot zone thanks to other IFVs and tanks. There's a reason why the US Military abandoned the M113 in favor of the Bradley, and in the Gulf War where tanks and BMPs were everywhere, they were proven right in their change.
The IFV dies the same just like an APC would and the only reason why Bradley's were effective in the Gulf war was both due to the terrain being perfect for armored warfare and the technological gap between Coalition forces and Iraqi forces.
the reason bradleys were more effective than M113s is because they had better firepower than them and so could actually follow the troops into battle instead of hanging back
tank optics are vastly superior to ATGM optics and the armored box they are attached to are much harder to disable with light artillery or mortars
ATGM crew can be detected and smoked in less than the time it takes for the missile to travel
The moment you build an IFV impervious to .50, your enemy switches their IFV main gun to a 20MM cannon. You make your IFV resistant to mines and they made the mines more powerful. You add applique armor to degrade ATGM effectiveness, they build a new generation of more powerful ATGMs. You maximize protection and it becomes too heavy for use. You give it too many toys (cannon, ATGMs, etc..) and you don't have room for dismounts. Complete overmatch against all threats is impossible.
There is always going to be a balancing act of trade offs. You're looking for sweet spots where you have overmatch against a certain level of targets, and a capability to deal with realistic threats.
With that in mind, armoring against man portable small arms (.50) is probably a sweet spot since it forces the enemy to use dedicated vehicle borne cannons. Equally, adding applique armor against a majority of man portable RPGs is probably smart too. After that, you're armament should likely be the smallest cannon capable of piercing anything short of a tank. For tanks, an ATGM launcher is needed for emergencies. Give it good optics, thermals, etc.. and build it as reliable, light, fast, and cheaply as possible.
After all that, congratulations, you designed a Bradley.
The feds have this tech, you could make an IFV/tank that isn’t limited by terrain or weight, and you could give it unreal armor. Only way to effectively deal with it would be EMP and no one has EMP weapons.