Mechanized Infantry Tactics

[danwild6]

So I've read extensively about the debate on IFV's dismounts vs full APC squad but how difficult would it be to develop field and use say an M113 APC 11-13 dismounts with a full IFV maybe M113 derived no dismounts but heavily armed and some what better protected than your standard M113.

 

[Pioneer]

Do you mean something like a YPR-765 hull equipped with a Delco turret mounting a 25mm chain gun and two TOW missile launchers.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[danwild6]

I'm basically asking on the practicality of having two dedicated vehicles one APC carrying troops and an IFV carrying no dismounts but armed like an IFV for infantry support and anti-tank weapons but its main job would be infantry support.

 

[batigol]

At that point, why not have a main battle tank instead? Bigger gun, more armor, and can actually close with the enemy.

 

[riggerrob]

At that point, why not have a main battle tank instead? Bigger gun, more armor, and can actually close with the enemy.

Great if you have Washington's or Moscow's defense budget, but beyond the budget of most third world countries. Even Second World countries struggle to afford meaningful numbers of MBTs.

 

[danwild6]

At that point, why not have a main battle tank instead? Bigger gun, more armor, and can actually close with the enemy.

That is a ridiculous question to this thread as a tank does not carry infantry with maybe the Israeli Merkava(and very few dismounts at that) being the only exception. Since the First World War tanks have needed infantry support to be most effective at a bare minimum and really effective at all since the Yom Kippur war. A tanks main weapon even the modern rifled variants are really not optimal for infantry support in any built up area or any where they have to coordinate in close proximity with friendly infantry (research MBT cannon overpressure). Basically with the adoption of the M2 Bradley the US Army had to change from a 11-person combat squad to a 9-person squad and even then had to split the squad between vehicles. Yes the M2 does more make up for the loss of the 2 combatants or so the Army says but the US Army has repeatedly tried to develop an IFV with an increased the number of dismounts carried.

 

[batigol]

I don't think it's ridiculous at all. If I'm understanding you correctly, what you're suggesting is a reborn Stryker MGS or a BMPT-lite, which would need just as much infantry support as a tank to survive, and as you said, would not carry dismounts of its own. It's certainly doable, but what benefit would a heavy IFV provide over a tank, or over a standard RWS with a medium-caliber gun?

Sure, the autocannon will arguably be faster at switching from one target to another and have a greater suppressive effect (maybe), but even 25-30mm rounds can have trouble dealing with reinforced structures and certain types of defensive cover. A tank can put 120mm HE in someone's face accurately, kill other tanks reliably, and will be better protected against the light anti-armor threats that would kill most IFVs.

 

[isayyo2]

So I've read extensively about the debate on IFV's dismounts vs full APC squad but how difficult would it be to develop field and use say an M113 APC 11-13 dismounts with a full IFV maybe M113 derived no dismounts but heavily armed and some what better protected than your standard M113.

Hey Dan,

I'd start with reading period era Army Field Manuals (FM's) to see what they mention of tactics, I dug up FM 7-7 (APC) and 7-7J (Bradley) which published about a year apart. Hope it helps!

https://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/FM7-7%2885%29.pdf

FM 7-7J Mechanized Infantry Platoon and Squad (Bradley) 1986 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Original 1986 manual for Mechanized infantry using the M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle.It is interesting to note the organization, with the vehicle crew...

archive.org

 

[Foo Fighter]

Circular argument, modern IFV are close in weight/cost to an MBT. Something like a Stug III with direct support weaponry would be closer and cheaper than both but is still taking money away from the main story here. Fact is that whatever is logical has to be funded and therein lies the major issue. Folk in charge making a decision, sticking to it and not prevaricating like a bunch of Hamsters in wheels.

 

[shin_getter]

The APC battle taxi idea does not conform to reality. An armored vehicle is necessarily heavy compared to weapons and it is simply cheap to give the gunner bigger weapons for fire support.

The idea that just because an "APC" doesn't have shell-fire proof armor or really big gun thus does not belong on the firing line is silly when one considers how much armor and firepower the infantry have. Success in infantry assault rely on fire superiority, and every mobile vehicle that can contribute may be thrown into the fray. The APC is comparatively well protected against small arms, and can fit weapons that outrange most infantry arms, a safe enough place to be compared to the infantry. The need for vehicle firepower shows it in the widespread adaptation of "technicals", which are civilian specced vehicles with weapons mounted and used in firesupport.

It is possible that against a outmatched force one can have sufficient firepower without using "lighter" vehicles for firepower, but that fails the efficiency test in near peer conflicts.

So basically, your 9+ man APC will be used for fire support on the attack, and there is nothing wrong with it. Maybe it can get a one man turret with autocannon over a gun shield.
------------------------------------------------------------
The real departure of IFV from APC isn't in the weapon or fire support usage, it is in the following things:
1. Two man turret with turret basket taking up internal volume, cutting dismounts by 3+ with same hull (also 2 men crew to 3 men crew)
2. Expensive Sensors like thermals
3. Gun Stabilization
4. Complicated ATGM setup, Autocannon resistant armor

All these add up to make the vehicle significantly more expensive. What these features do is greatly increase effective combat capability in mounted combat. This enables new capabilities:
1. Close assault with transports with fire on the move suppression. As anti-tank weapons are easier to suppress and less available than anti-infantry weapons, it can be casualties reducing to dismount close to the opponent to give the opponent less time to inflict casualties on infantry.
2. IFVs taking part in tank/mounted battles. Autocannons can defeat MBT with flank shots and defeat other AFV like tank destroyers. ATGM can deal heavy threats.

I think a bunch of cold war simulations showed that IFV + Tank as superior to APC + slightly more Tanks in a tank battle (or APC + Tank + Tank destroyer), as greater number of "good enough" vehicles is superior to fewer specialists. The value of the entire infantry squad in one vehicle do not show up in simulations and in actions where vehicles are relevant, AFV firepower and mobility far outstrip the infantry. The need for close infantry cooperation is when AFVs are not available, which armored formations that IFVs reside in shouldn't find themselves in.

--------------
In the modern era, where RWS enables the mounting of heavy weapons without hull volume, everything would get a significant weapons mount and vehicle of sufficient size will carry a full squad, there is no compromise if a force can afford it.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Do they still have mortar carriers in the Infantry? Closer supprt of this type used to be considered very helpful.

 

[danwild6]

Circular argument, modern IFV are close in weight/cost to an MBT. Something like a Stug III with direct support weaponry would be closer and cheaper than both but is still taking money away from the main story here. Fact is that whatever is logical has to be funded and therein lies the major issue. Folk in charge making a decision, sticking to it and not prevaricating like a bunch of Hamsters in wheels.

Yes a great critique if the Pentagon's retarded procurement problems. But even the Wehrmacht had mechanized infantry. And a modern Stug's main cannon would be too powerful for built up areas. It's not WWII anymore. I agree that a pure APC battle taxi concept hasn't worked but WI we teamed a dedicated APC with a full squad with a dedicated IFV.