Infantry Combat Vehicles

RE: Infantry Combat Vehicles

Pics of M-80A and Romania MLI-84M.
Attachments:

RE: Infantry Combat Vehicles

The Yugoslav arms industry experimented (not entierly unsuccessfuly) with the ICV concept and came up with the BVP M80 and it’s succesor the M80A. Now, I’d what I’d really like are some pics of these rare but useful ICVs and maybe some pics of other little known armour from nations such as Romania etc.

RE: Infantry Combat Vehicles

“Israeli development of MBT based APC is not solely derived from the needs of urban warfare, but from many other factors, many far more influential. “

Yes, I know. Sorry I wasn’t more clear.

“If you have enough MBTs and are really interested in protecting the lives of your troops then the MBT APC is a good idea… “

RE: Infantry Combat Vehicles

Israeli development of MBT based APC is not solely derived from the needs of urban warfare, but from many other factors, many far more influential. At the bottom of all these was something very fundamental: what is an an APC? Is it simply a protected transport vehicle, ment to solely deliver the troops to the front line, or is it a fighting vehicle which particpates in battle? Should troops fight on foot or from within their APCs? The answers to these questions have always had a lot of bearing on the nature of APCs, affecting a range of characteristics such as mobility, firepower and protection. One always comes at the expense of the another.
Up to the 1982 war IDF APCs were almost exclusively lightweight, lightly armored APCs such as the M-113. But statistics collected during the war and various wargames had shown that 50% of IDF infantry fatalities were caused by hits scored on their APCs. Subsequently the IDF saw the need to provide APCs exposed to enemy fire with a whole lot more protection. Thus were born the Nagmashot and Puma, and the first to receive MBT APCs were the combat engineers – not because these fight more urban battles but because the engineers are the spearhead of any offensive, tasked with destorying enemy barriers and fortifications, and are the most likely to come under heavy enemy fire. They, unlike others infantry, are also in a whole lot more need of their APCs in battle, as they use these for mineclearing, scaling barriers etc.

—————————————-
” So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! “

RE: Infantry Combat Vehicles

Converting tanks be used as an APC is almost as expensive as converting old tanks to modern tanks standard. (ie latter usually involves new gun, new FCS, and new optics/TIs).

However if you fight in an urban environment then the extra armour is needed.
If you have enough MBTs and are really interested in protecting the lives of your troops then the MBT APC is a good idea… especially as I said if you ever fight in an urban area…

Lets just say that BTR-80As are fine for peacekeeping in cities due to their mobility but in a hostile city during peacemaking duties then I’d rather be in a MBT based APC than anything else as a grunt if I need to get across town in a hurry.

Obviously Israel and now Russia has special needs, whereas western countries like US and UK, while they want to protect their troops they also want to have light mobile APCs that can be transported by their C-17 aircraft in numbers rather than one per C-17 or 2-3 per C-5.
They already have heavy tanks which make deployment slower… increasing the weight of the Bradley has made it almost MBT APC weight.

RE: Infantry Combat Vehicles

A little on Israeli tank-derived APCs (photos in same order): The Achzarit, depicted in two of Hawk’s photos, is used by infantry units and is based on the T-54 & T-55 chassis. The Puma, used by combat engineers, is based on Centurians. Besides these two, you’ve also got the alien-looking Nagmachon based on M-48s and the Nakpadon based on Centurians.
With the mess going on right now, there’s an abundance of photos of Israeli armor of all sorts at Yahoo News. Simply go the the slideshow section, they’ve got one dedicated to the Middle East. A venerable treasure for armor enthusiats.

—————————————-
U.N. Representative: So, Mr. Evil –
Dr. Evil: It’s Dr. Evil, I didn’t spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called “mister,” thank you very much.

Attachments:

RE: Infantry Combat Vehicles

“The small vehicles with Milan-Argentine/Brasil vehicles????”

It’s EE-3 from Cyprus.

BTR-T
Tip 89
BTR-80A
Attachments:

RE: Infantry Combat Vehicles

Guys,
Sorry i failed to mentioned the images posted do not represent my fav. IFV .They were meant to show some images.
MALAYSIAN ARMY SIBMAS 90MM AFSV
SPANISH ASCOD IFV
BMP 3
BTR 80A
AL FAHD APC
MALAYSIAN ARMY STORMER APC
M3 BRADLEY HITFIST
CV 90/40 IFV
PIRANHA III WITH DELCO TURRET
VAB NG 6X6 WITH DRAGAR TURRET

Isreali modified Centurion and T55/57 chasis into an APC -due to the lack of armour protection on their M113 Zelda.Nice concept-which offer a maximum protection for troops on the frontlines.
German Wiesel is not an APC nor an IFV -more of a recce armed vehicle .Last images posted by Hawk 75 also failed to fall into this category since it’s a tank killer/hunter-not even a tank due to its light armour.
Hawk 75,
The BMP look alike -with the new turret -is a new development?Very nice.
The small vehicles with Milan-Argentine/Brasil vehicles????
IMAGES:
MALAYSIAN MADE ADNAN AIFV based on the M113A3
SIBMAS 90MM AFSV

Attachments:

RE: Infantry Combat Vehicles

>I especially like the Israeli APCs derived from tanks.

I first saw those ‘APC’ types on the news and thought interesting and innovative idea and probably cheap! What tank chassis has been used I wonder? Could they be an old Merkava?

Regards, Glenn.

RE: Infantry Combat Vehicles

Tomel… in post 6 one of the vehicle pictures was a BMP-3… I think you misidentified it as a BMP-2E… the large sight on the right hand side of the turret above the ditching log is a French Thermal imager… suggesting it is for export.
Also the BTR-90 is actually a BTR-80A. The BTR-90 has a BMP-2 turret and a slightly different chassis.

Hawk, nice pics…

I especially like the Israeli APCs derived from tanks. (From memory they call them Kangaroo or something…).

From their experience in Chechnia the Russians have designed a new type of armoured vehicle specially for Urban warfare.

Confusingly it is called BMP-T.

It is not an armoured personel carrier.

It is based on a T-72 chassis and is armed with 1 30mm 2A72 cannon (as mounted on the BMP-3… it is a chaingun), plus a coaxial 7.62mm PKT MG. In the front corners of the hull are two 30mm AGS-30 30mm automatic grenade launchers and four ready to launch Kornet 5.5km range ATGM. The Kornets have FAE warheads and are used for destroying rooms and bunkers rather than taking on armour.
The layout of seating is 3-2, with the driver front centre and the AGL gunners sitting either side of him. (They aim the hull mounted AGLs with a fibreoptic sight.)
Behind them in the turret is the gunner and vehicle commander.

The BTR-T is a different vehicle based on T-55s and is designed as an upgrade that costs less than a new tank. It involves replacing the turret with a mini turret with one or two weapon positions. The weapons for each position include a 2A72 30mm autocannon, a 2A38 twin barrel 30mm cannon (as used in the Tunguska SPAAG), a twin Kornet or Konkurs launcher, NSV-12.7mm HMG, or AGS-17 30mm AGL.
There is a driver and gunner/commander in the single turret.
Five troops sit in the rear compartment.

Both vehicles have tank level armour, but also are probably quite expensive.

Both vehicles are in response to chechen tactics which were based on Russian urban anti tank tactics and proved very effective.

(Basically you had a team of one RPG soldier with a loader… both also armed with AK-74s and about 8 RPG rockets between the two of them. The other two members of the team included one MG (PK belt fed MG not LMG), and one sniper with an SVD. (Note the Soviet definition of a sniper is not the same as the western one… the guy with the SVD in this case would not use his rifle at more than 4-500m normally.)

The RPG gunners job of course is to fire repeatedly at enemy armoured vehicles. The loaders job is to make sure the RPG is loaded quickly and to spot targets. The MG and SVD are used to sweep the area for infantry.

Teams always position themselves in basements or floors above ground level so that tanks can only use MGs to defend themselves.

At least 8 teams are used per armoured vehicle, which is hit till it burns. (Some tanks were found to be hit 30+ times).

Especially from above target areas are the top and the sides and rear of the turret and rear engine decking.
From close range (ie 100m) Crew hatches were successfully targeted.

RPG-29s and new model 105mm RPG-7 warheads have been shown to be able to penetrate 650mm of armour in tests.
In combat the RPG-29 has proven as powerful as heavy ATGMs (though obviously at shorter ranges).

The BMP-3 has not been widely manufactured due to some problems.
The troop exit is not exactly simple and easy, and the powerful main gun has required a strengthend turret race.

During the first conflict in Chechnia the troops in the field did what they often do in Guerilla type wars and ripped out all the fancy electronics that were designed for WWIII and added more ammo.
Unfortunately the BMP-3 really needs the fancy electronics as the 100mm rifled medium pressure gun has totally different ballistic characteristics to the 30mm coaxial autocannon and so the ballistic computer is needed. As the 2A72 30mm auto cannon of the BMP-3 is a chain gun it needs a power supply and electronics to fire. (ie it is not the usual simple recoil operated weapon like the 2A42 on the BMP-2.)

RE: Infantry Combat Vehicles

More pics….
Attachments:

RE: Infantry Combat Vehicles

Red Thrust, top book, and Red Storm Rising, Clancy’s second best novel IMO and one hell of a story. Operation DREAMLAND in that novel by NATO was just terrific!

Regards, Glenn.

RE: Infantry Combat Vehicles

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 20-07-02 AT 02:34 PM (GMT)]MAF operate 2 types of IFV:
DAEWOO MIFV
FNSS-DEFTECH ACV 300 ADNAN
2 types of APC:
RADPANZER CONDOR
ALVIS STORMER
All of this vehicles got firing port-BUT we do not exercise firing from within the vehicles.Reason?Simple-AIFV moves up to 65 kmh -and in cross country condition you wont be able to hit a damn thing.We practise dismount field of fire concept.
Indonesian Marines(they got BMP 2E)-STILL THEY DO NOT EXERCISE firing from inside the vehicles while it’s on the move.Why bother with the firing port in the first place anyway?????

RE: Infantry Combat Vehicles

Just in the middle of ‘Red Thrust” by Steven Zaloga (again, which means Red Storm Rising is next if history is anything to go by 😉 ) and he brings up an interesting point about the BMP series.

He points out that while the low height of the vehicle is advantageous with regards to visability, it does put the height of the cannon only slightly above the heads of the infantry, and that it is quite probable that the weapon will cause friendly casualties in certain situations. He also says that the Soviet army recognised this, and trained their troops to allow firing corridors, which is fine on a training ground but such a good idea on the battlefield.

Cheers,
James

RE: Infantry Combat Vehicles

Guys,
I’m no expert on armoured vehicles-still i have spend some times inside variuos types of them.For the record ,i served in the army before -thus IFV/APC has become part of my regular diet since.
Let’s start with the actual definition on IFV/AIFV/MICV and APC.

INFANTRY FIGHTING VEHICLE/ARMOURED INFANTRY FIGHTING VEHICLE or MECHANISED INFANTRY FIGHTING VEHICLE -are the same thing in concept.Mainly the must be a track vehicles,sufficiently armoured to withstand up to 14.5mm AP rounds(even more with add on armour),capable to provide sufficient firepower against light skin vehicles or APC plus the soldiers must be able to fire their weapons from the troops compartment.Hence the name infantry fighting vehicle.Most armies of the world exercise a combined arms concept which stipulated the formation of MBT + IFV as the main core for their mechanised brigades.Still there a small no IFV which use wheels instead of tracks eg -Mowag Piranha III with the DELCO turret -Canadian Army.

ARMOURED PERSONELL CARRIER -are the forefather of the current fighting vehicle.It could be in the from of a commercial truck chasis -with a armoured body and small turret.Since WW1 APC has shown the military planners its potential in transporting troops into battle without losing so many of them from enemy ambush or counter fire.Armour on APC normally is light -only could withstand 7.62mmAP rounds.
Most APC used wheels still a number of them do used track .And the most popular APC in the western world used tracks-M113 series.
Some upgraded M113 series has evolved into a AIFV cause they managed to met the criteria to be one after being upgraded.
In short there’s a very thin line between APC/IFV.

My fav.APC/IFV -based on my own experience and certain research.

M3 BRADLEY HITFIST,BMP 2E,BTR 90,CV 90,BIONIX 25MM,VAB NG 6X6,FUCHS,M113A3 AIFV.
Attachments:

RE: Infantry Combat Vehicles

All Infantry Combat Vehicles are excellent vehicles, but it all depends on what they are intended for. For example the South African Ratel is an excellent vehicle for action out in the Bush whilst facing under armed rebels or poorly armed forces. On the other hand the BMP-3 is an outstanding vehicle when it comes down to survival on the modern battle field. Each is developed for each nations requirements. (I know you all know this but I do have a point, believe it or not). This is the point. An armoured vehicle such as a BMP-2 or -3 should not be deemed better or worse than a vehicle such as a Bradley or Ratel due to the fact that they were each drawn up to fill a variety of requirements to each nation. Does anyone agree or disagree with this???

Some pic’s, including the awesome BTR-90!!! What a nice machine this is gonna be. Does anyone know if the ’90 is in service yet or not???
Attachments:

RE: Infantry Combat Vehicles

Just pics.
Attachments:

RE: RE%3A Infantry Combat Vehicles

The only Spanish militar vans available, are manufactured here in my city. Militar lorries and the Vantrack (like the Hummer)
www.urovesa.es

RE%3A Infantry Combat Vehicles

couple taken recently………
Attachments:

RE: Infantry Combat Vehicles

Well I still like the only MICV to have a movie made about it 😉

The M-2s are still very combat effective, and (IFAIK) there is still nothing out there that offers any great increase in capability (though I like the idea of the big guns on BMP-3 for infantry support).

Cheers,
James