• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Perfect IFV

danwild6

F-14 Fan
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
39
Reaction score
2
So for about four decades we've been complain that the M2 Bradley is under armored and doesn't carry enough dismounts I guess the Army has always wished for 11 instead of 6
So while I have no doubt that we could build a pure APC with adequate protection depending on weight class and/or active protection technology and enough dismounts could we build an IFV version of such a vehicle?
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
352
Reaction score
483
I think with unmanned turrets the distinction between APCs and IFVs is getting more blurred every year, asides from pure cost of the armament systems.

Someone that understands doctrine much better than I could explain IFVs designs more thoroughly, but what's always perplexed me was designing an IFV thats designed to fight tanks, team up with friendly tanks at the Platoon Company/Troop Battalion level, and carry a squad (so 7-12 men in total) but not be armored like a tank? Why design your IFV to be amphibious when the tanks will need a pontoon bridge? I like the heavy Israeli route with the Merkava and now IFV Namer, the US AMS program was our closet capability to matching them. Unlike the Israeli's, we also need an "expeditionary" capability which the M8/M113 fills very nicely for a airdropable mechanized group.
 

dan_inbox

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
896
Reaction score
454
A complicating factor is the phase of the war during which you are using these machines: 1- during the initial assault (bewegungskrieg, manoeuvering battle) or 2- during the next phase (securization, pacification, "occupation", terr hunt, protracted urban fight, or whatever you want to call it)
During phase 1 the threats are more intense but actually you do not need as much protection as during phase 2. In phase 2 the threats are less intense but the exposure is magnitudes greater, and more importantly any personnel losses become politically unbearable in western democracies. (worsened by the fact that you cannot simply squash the threat because collateral damage would also be unbearable in our west)

To oversimplify: Namer is designed for phase 2, whereas Bradley is more for phase 1.

If you are going to just destroy some stuff and go home right away, à la GulfWar1, Bradley is adapted. If you are trying to change the régime and educate the population to some sort of democratic way (which is how US lefties have re-defined "victory" in practice), then you definitely need the Namer.
It doesn't mean that the Namer can deliver the end result of establishing democracy in some backwardistan, that is a political undertaking, not something that military tools can provide. It means that without Namer you don't even have a chance to try it.

One man's opinion.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,055
Reaction score
948
I wonder if we are redesigning the circle. If Namer works and they certainly owe the US big time, get some and have a split force. Not too difficult in theory at least.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,452
Reaction score
481
I wonder if we are redesigning the circle. If Namer works and they certainly owe the US big time, get some and have a split force. Not too difficult in theory at least.
If what you need is an oval, the most perfect circle ever made will not meet your needs.
 

danwild6

F-14 Fan
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
39
Reaction score
2
Yeah conventional turrets take up to much internal volume. I see the Russian T-15 has a remote turret that frees up room. Though I wonder that if it can be reloaded under armor and in combat conditions
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
740
Reaction score
106
I think the ideal IFV would be somewhat similar in concept to the T-15. MBT levels of protection using a hull that shares common components just in a different layout with the engine up front. Unmanned turret with 30-50mm autocannon, coax MG, and ATGMs. Room for 8-9 dismounts in back. I'd argue that it should have a crew of 3 because I am still a bit skeptical of going down to a 2 man crew. APS including soft and hard kill elements and maybe

Of course while that might be ideal in a combat situation there are plenty of drawbacks the rest of the time. It's going to cost significantly more, require more logistics support to keep in operation, and require more airlift to deploy. Plus there are a lot of bridges that aren't able to handle the weight of 60-70 ton MBTs.

During the protracted development of the M2 Bradley the idea of a "heavy" IFV was considered and rejected for the above reasons, plus at the time there was the desire for an amphibious capability to cross rivers. Ultimately the Army gave up being able to swim in exchange for increased armor on the M2A2 and M3A2. By the time of the early '90s ASM program the Army was favoring a heavy IFV but the end of the Cold War doomed those plans.

It seems the Army has two potential (realistic) routes for OMFV now. They can go with a heavier vehicle (though still below Western MBT weight) that can carry 8 dismounts but a C-17 would only be able to carry one. Alternative they could could go for a somewhat lighter vehicle so a C-17 could carry two but it would only carry 6 dismounts.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top