• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

"Chariots on Fire" - IFV SOPs

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,849
Points
1,040
Would you not have your own small UAVs to scout ahead? One controlled from every second LAV which then feeds the dismounts/tanks the info?
Never said you wouldn't. But that doesn't have to be an organic sensor to a LAV company, that could be a higher level sensor.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,406
Points
1,040
What if IFV weapon systems were changed to engage low-flying UAVs properly. Have the targeting systems available to dual role the IFV turret mount properly (instead of its current ground-focused systems), and instead of a dual launch ATGM in the turret have a dual launch Stinger or equivalent
There definitely needs to be a rethink of how to arm all natures of fighting vehicles for all of anti-personnel, anti-armour and anti-air.

Back in the last century, when we worried about air defence, we had everything from pintle mounted machine guns on our M113s, M109s and M548s manned against air attack (minimally effective as they'd be - the hope was put up a thick enough curtain of bullets and maybe you could get yourself a Flogger). Non-tracked batteries put folks with C2s up as air sentries in the trucks cargo decks. Blowpipes and later Javelins and ADATs rounded out the brigade-level area protection. The LAVs still have air sentry hatches.

One of the things I tend to think about in this new airspace environment is economy of effort. If we fire off a Stinger (which is a traditional and expensive air defense system) or equivalent every time we see a mini UAV then pretty soon the enemy will issue and deploy mini UAVs for no other purpose than to strip us of our heavier air defence systems. They're costly and difficult to resupply (not every country has rich uncles like Ukraine to keep them in stock).

I'm not saying we shouldn't engage mini or tactical UAVs but I'm saying what we need is a widely available, low-cost, yet effective weapon system so that the heavier stuff can be saved for the Bayraktars, Havocs and Fullbacks.

I particulalry like the German 35mm MANTIS system which has a programable air burst round (AHEAD) . Unfortunately the round is part of a complex integrated modular system which would be a. expensive, and b. impractical to deploy with ordinary IFVs. I could, however, see it with something like M-SHORAD where the 50 cal and the Hellfire components are replaced by a 35mm gun firing AHEAD (single shot or small bursts) connected to the vehicles sensors. I'd leave the four shot Stinger pod in place for the bigger targets. The lasers sound promising for that as well.

To what extent we could put a MANTIS-like 35mm dual purpose gun on an IFV and data link it to a nearby M-SHORAD's sensors for target acquisition and ammunition programming is an open question but strikes me within the realm of probable. It should be a priority because a round that costs less than $100 is far more cost effective than a missile costing tens of thousands per shot and will keep the all aspects air defence battle operating much longer.

🍻
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,849
Points
1,040
There definitely needs to be a rethink of how to arm all natures of fighting vehicles for all of anti-personnel, anti-armour and anti-air.

Back in the last century, when we worried about air defence, we had everything from pintle mounted machine guns on our M113s, M109s and M548s manned against air attack (minimally effective as they'd be - the hope was put up a thick enough curtain of bullets and maybe you could get yourself a Flogger). Non-tracked batteries put folks with C2s up as air sentries in the trucks cargo decks. Blowpipes and later Javelins and ADATs rounded out the brigade-level area protection. The LAVs still have air sentry hatches.

One of the things I tend to think about in this new airspace environment is economy of effort. If we fire off a Stinger (which is a traditional and expensive air defense system) or equivalent every time we see a mini UAV then pretty soon the enemy will issue and deploy mini UAVs for no other purpose than to strip us of our heavier air defence systems. They're costly and difficult to resupply (not every country has rich uncles like Ukraine to keep them in stock).

I'm not saying we shouldn't engage mini or tactical UAVs but I'm saying what we need is a widely available, low-cost, yet effective weapon system so that the heavier stuff can be saved for the Bayraktars, Havocs and Fullbacks.

I particulalry like the German 35mm MANTIS system which has a programable air burst round (AHEAD) . Unfortunately the round is part of a complex integrated modular system which would be a. expensive, and b. impractical to deploy with ordinary IFVs. I could, however, see it with something like M-SHORAD where the 50 cal and the Hellfire components are replaced by a 35mm gun firing AHEAD (single shot or small bursts) connected to the vehicles sensors. I'd leave the four shot Stinger pod in place for the bigger targets. The lasers sound promising for that as well.

To what extent we could put a MANTIS-like 35mm dual purpose gun on an IFV and data link it to a nearby M-SHORAD's sensors for target acquisition and ammunition programming is an open question but strikes me within the realm of probable. It should be a priority because a round that costs less than $100 is far more cost effective than a missile costing tens of thousands per shot and will keep the all aspects air defence battle operating much longer.

🍻
Even the Russians have powerful directed EW for UAV's, however something like the CV90 40mm bofors would be a good start, even with EOIR air search/ targeting capability. That's enough for mini UAV's which would easily be in range of such a weapon (30-35mm have good fragmentation options as well).

As far as Stingers you wouldn't waste them on a Class 1 UAV even if they could target them (I don't think they can). Point is that IFV's with some SHORAD integrated into the turret might be very useful. The area GBAD would be provided by Air Defence Artillery Units.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
865
Points
1,040
There definitely needs to be a rethink of how to arm all natures of fighting vehicles for all of anti-personnel, anti-armour and anti-air.

Back in the last century, when we worried about air defence, we had everything from pintle mounted machine guns on our M113s, M109s and M548s manned against air attack (minimally effective as they'd be - the hope was put up a thick enough curtain of bullets and maybe you could get yourself a Flogger). Non-tracked batteries put folks with C2s up as air sentries in the trucks cargo decks. Blowpipes and later Javelins and ADATs rounded out the brigade-level area protection. The LAVs still have air sentry hatches.

One of the things I tend to think about in this new airspace environment is economy of effort. If we fire off a Stinger (which is a traditional and expensive air defense system) or equivalent every time we see a mini UAV then pretty soon the enemy will issue and deploy mini UAVs for no other purpose than to strip us of our heavier air defence systems. They're costly and difficult to resupply (not every country has rich uncles like Ukraine to keep them in stock).

I'm not saying we shouldn't engage mini or tactical UAVs but I'm saying what we need is a widely available, low-cost, yet effective weapon system so that the heavier stuff can be saved for the Bayraktars, Havocs and Fullbacks.

I particulalry like the German 35mm MANTIS system which has a programable air burst round (AHEAD) . Unfortunately the round is part of a complex integrated modular system which would be a. expensive, and b. impractical to deploy with ordinary IFVs. I could, however, see it with something like M-SHORAD where the 50 cal and the Hellfire components are replaced by a 35mm gun firing AHEAD (single shot or small bursts) connected to the vehicles sensors. I'd leave the four shot Stinger pod in place for the bigger targets. The lasers sound promising for that as well.

To what extent we could put a MANTIS-like 35mm dual purpose gun on an IFV and data link it to a nearby M-SHORAD's sensors for target acquisition and ammunition programming is an open question but strikes me within the realm of probable. It should be a priority because a round that costs less than $100 is far more cost effective than a missile costing tens of thousands per shot and will keep the all aspects air defence battle operating much longer.

🍻
The XM-914 30mm on the IM-SHORAD has airburst ammunition.

SHORAD Air-Defense Stryker at AUSA - Overt Defense

SHORAD Air-Defense Stryker at AUSA​

ded48de220d485a45825e0b9cfdfc001

By LEIGH N in AFV, ANTI-TANK WEAPONS, ARMY, ARMY, AVIATION, COMPANIES, DAILY NEWS, DEFENSE, DRONE, GROUND VEHICLES, MISSILES, NEWS, TECHNOLOGY, USA October 23, 2019

Tweet
Share
Pin
0SHARES
General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) have publicly debuted their Stryker A1 IM-SHORAD (Initial-Maneuver Short-Range Air-Defense) prototype at the AUSA (Association of the United States Army) trade show in Washington DC. It is the first of nine prototypes to be delivered to the Army for testing with five already constructed and one already in Army hands. 144 SHORAD platforms are eventually to be acquired with the first entering service next year.
The SHORAD features four integrated weapons systems in its turret – officially the Reconfigurable Integrated Weapons Platform (RIWP) – which is operated remotely from within the body of the vehicle. The missile and gun systems are guided onto aerial targets by an integral 360-degree radar – the Multi-Mission Hemispheric Radar (MMHR) from Leonardo DRS.
For both anti-tank and anti-helicopter, the platform mounts a two-round launcher firing the AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire with radar seeker. A four-round Stinger launcher (capable of being reloaded from within the SHORAD unlike the Hellfire) will be equipped with upgraded FIM-92J Stingers fitted with proximity fuses designed for counter-UAS (unmanned aerial systems) but also useful against both low-level fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft.
The SHORAD’s gun is the XM914 30mm equipped with a range of ammunition including airburst and will be equally capable of engaging ground or air threats. Finally for close-in defense, a 7.62x51mm medium machine gun can engage infantry targets threatening the vehicle.
Mobile air-defense is a capability that has stagnated within the US Army during 20 years of counter-insurgency and special operations based warfare with the Army relying upon the Avenger HMMWV Stinger platform, dismounted Stingers and the short-lived M6 Linebacker air-defense variant of the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. BAE Systems offered an upgraded Linebacker known as the M-SHORAD (Mobile Short-Range Air-Defense) in 2017 although the Army decided upon the Stryker-based SHORAD platform.

The SHORAD’s gun is the XM914 30mm equipped with a range of ammunition including airburst and will be equally capable of engaging ground or air threats.

The same RiWP weapon station could be used on a LAV chassis with different weapon configurations. 30mm/7.62mm/Stinger/Hellfire (IM-Shorad configuration) for the AD version, 30mm/7.62mm/TOW/Javelin for an AT version, etc.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,849
Points
1,040
I was thinking of this as an option, but I'm not entirely sure that it would still be able to carry the same number of troops in the back. This is a pretty dedicated GBAD vehicle and not so much the IFV vehicle I was thinking about. But its right down the alley.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
865
Points
1,040
Agree on the need for AD to take out enemy aerial units and of course a good idea to take a look at the LAV and how we use it, but in looking at what's going on in Ukraine probably the thing that would have the greatest impact on our combat effectiveness would be to greatly expand our IDF capabilities...mortars, guns, rockets, loitering munitions. Artillery (again) is proving the huge impact it has on the battle space.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,406
Points
1,040
The XM-914 30mm on the IM-SHORAD has airburst ammunition.
If you have a reference to that I'd be interested in seeing it.

My understanding is that the 30mm XM1198 High Explosive Dual Purpose Self Destruct (HEDP-SD) round developed for the XM 914 is still just a contact function dual purpose anti-armour / anti-personnel round but with a self destruct function to keep it from raining down onto the ground.

The 35mm AHEAD round, on the other hand, is a true airburst function with a fuze that is set with data as it passes the muzzle of the gun to cause it to fragment at an intercept point with the aircraft.

Color-online-Compensating-method-of-muzzle-velocity-variation-the-receive-coils.png


🍻
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
865
Points
1,040
If you have a reference to that I'd be interested in seeing it.

My understanding is that the 30mm XM1198 High Explosive Dual Purpose Self Destruct (HEDP-SD) round developed for the XM 914 is still just a contact function dual purpose anti-armour / anti-personnel round but with a self destruct function to keep it from raining down onto the ground.

The 35mm AHEAD round, on the other hand, is a true airburst function with a fuze that is set with data as it passes the muzzle of the gun to cause it to fragment at an intercept point with the aircraft.

Color-online-Compensating-method-of-muzzle-velocity-variation-the-receive-coils.png


🍻
My understanding is that the new proximity round for the XM-914 intended for use on by the IM-SHORAD and planned for release this year is the XM1211 High Explosive Proximity (HEP) round.

Here's an article from the US Army Acquisition Support Center that discusses the round.

Edited to add: I saw another article that mentioned in passing that the round has an onboard proximity sensor but I haven't been able to find any more detailed descriptions yet of how the round works.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,406
Points
1,040
My understanding is that the new proximity round for the XM-914 intended for use on by the IM-SHORAD and planned for release this year is the XM1211 High Explosive Proximity (HEP) round.

Here's an article from the US Army Acquisition Support Center that discusses the round.

Edited to add: I saw another article that mentioned in passing that the round has an onboard proximity sensor but I haven't been able to find any more detailed descriptions yet of how the round works.
Interesting. And that's a new one on me albeit that Northrup got a development contract for it a couple of years ago. I haven't seen much on it but did dig up this test video.


Clearly a different solution if it uses a true proximity fuze but equally effective.

I expect it has the same issue as MANTIS in that it needs a complex sensor system with a data link to get the gun onto a predicted target location. I note the video was posted Feb 22, 2022 (although I think it might have come out at their 2021 Bushmaster Users' conference) so am somewhat surprised at the how experimental it still looks.

🍻
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,849
Points
1,040
Interesting. And that's a new one on me albeit that Northrup got a development contract for it a couple of years ago. I haven't seen much on it but did dig up this test video.


Clearly a different solution if it uses a true proximity fuze but equally effective.

I expect it has the same issue as MANTIS in that it needs a complex sensor system with a data link to get the gun onto a predicted target location. I note the video was posted Feb 22, 2022 (although I think it might have come out at their 2021 Bushmaster Users' conference) so am somewhat surprised at the how experimental it still looks.

🍻
Best way for cannon-based AA is to use a backup proximity fuse. The primary method should be a calculated (timed) pattern of detonations based on fire control solution of the target's movement, creating a larger cloud of shrapnel that the target flies into/can't avoid.

AHEAD is just the best-advertised example, but other options exist.

The issue is twofold on a IFV platform. First is active sensors needed. An EOIR option IMHO would be better for survivability purposes. The second how much space does all of that take up in the IFV, and would it limit dismounts. Otherwise we're just designing a gun truck here, and we just swapped out dismounts for GBAD, which isn't really the point I was trying to make.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
865
Points
1,040
Best way for cannon-based AA is to use a backup proximity fuse. The primary method should be a calculated (timed) pattern of detonations based on fire control solution of the target's movement, creating a larger cloud of shrapnel that the target flies into/can't avoid.

AHEAD is just the best-advertised example, but other options exist.

The issue is twofold on a IFV platform. First is active sensors needed. An EOIR option IMHO would be better for survivability purposes. The second how much space does all of that take up in the IFV, and would it limit dismounts. Otherwise we're just designing a gun truck here, and we just swapped out dismounts for GBAD, which isn't really the point I was trying to make.
Are these really just duct tape solutions to cover the fact that we don't have the dedicated support capabilities that we require?

If we had a proper dedicated SHORAD capability we wouldn't have to fit an AD weapon on our troop carriers. If we had vehicle mounted 120mm mortar platoons and the proper complement of artillery we wouldn't need a mortar on our troop carriers, etc.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,849
Points
1,040
Are these really just duct tape solutions to cover the fact that we don't have the dedicated support capabilities that we require?

If we had a proper dedicated SHORAD capability we wouldn't have to fit an AD weapon on our troop carriers. If we had vehicle mounted 120mm mortar platoons and the proper complement of artillery we wouldn't need a mortar on our troop carriers, etc.
I'm not proposing a solution for SHORAD for Canada. That's another thread, and specifically, a proper SHORAD needs to be integrated together with sensors and effectors.

What I'm proposing is that IFV may not be properly armed across the entire spectrum of IFV's. If IFV's can use their weapons in the support of the infantry without getting themselves killed, then perhaps the IFV need to become A3PC's (Anti Aircraft Armoured Personnelle Carriers - I just invented that acronym) instead.
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
3,727
Points
1,160
The last thing we should be doing is trying to make an IFV into an AD platform. The crew is trying to do one thing (move the infantry to the appropriate debussing point and supporting them with fires) and shouldn't try to do another thing (scan, identify, and engage aerial threats).

What this discussion does highlight, in relevance to the original thread topic, is that there are times when the infantry should be mounted, as the protected mobility of the LAV provides an advantage to doing so, and there are times when the infantry should be dismounted, as the vulnerability of the LAV (or any armoured vehicle really) means that the right approach is dispersion, a key survivability tactic of the infantry, and not relying upon armour, which will fail and likely result in the destruction of the entire section.

What does the threat of both larger and smaller armed UAS mean for the mechanized infantry? I'd argue that the threat is similar to Second World War strafing attacks by ground attack aircraft; if you are sitting at either the front or the rear, you are vulnerable. Much of the UAS footage we are seeing from Ukraine is targeting stationary platforms, with no overhead cam or concealment. The "so whats?"
  • Between engagements, mechanized infantry have a tremendous advantage due to the ability for rapid movement under protected mobility. They can exploit tactical success. If the carrier is moving, out of contact, I suspect it is relatively safe from many UAS unless they are armed with a sophisticated missile.
  • When halted during the advance, the infantry should dismount, as halted things can get struck, even behind the FEBA.
  • When halted during the mounting prior to an attack and closer to the FEBA, the infantry may stay mounted if the threat of artillery fires is greater than the UAS threat, but it should attempt to seek some sort of overhead concealment at the very least.
  • If overhead concealment is not possible, and the wait is extended, it may be prudent to dismount infantry and find a decent protected position or (if even longer) dig a quick shell scrape. Dispersion makes the carrier/section less vulnerable and less of a target.
  • An effective AD platform, specifically targeting UAS, using weapons discussed above, would be a handy TACOM attachment to a combat team, as it can provide an umbrella to the force, protecting them from both (1) UAS precision strikes and (2) artillery strikes cued by UAS observation.
 
Last edited:

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,666
Points
1,140
Are these really just duct tape solutions to cover the fact that we don't have the dedicated support capabilities that we require?

If we had a proper dedicated SHORAD capability we wouldn't have to fit an AD weapon on our troop carriers. If we had vehicle mounted 120mm mortar platoons and the proper complement of artillery we wouldn't need a mortar on our troop carriers, etc.
I'm not proposing a solution for SHORAD for Canada. That's another thread, and specifically, a proper SHORAD needs to be integrated together with sensors and effectors.

What I'm proposing is that IFV may not be properly armed across the entire spectrum of IFV's. If IFV's can use their weapons in the support of the infantry without getting themselves killed, then perhaps the IFV need to become A3PC's (Anti Aircraft Armoured Personnelle Carriers - I just invented that acronym) instead.
I think the question is what does one need out of a vehicle.

A 30-40mm cannon could have a secondary duty as an Anti Aircraft system.
ATGM systems like Javelin or Hellfire could also be used for limited AA (Anti helicopter) or use a Stinger in place of a Anti Armor missile.

Any of those uses however requires a robust and extremely secure network to get targeting data to the FCS of the vehicle — as I don’t think (based on previous comments) that the Artillery or Air Force will be happy with Infantry having GBAD assets integral without control from higher.

WRT the integral Mortar idea - a 60mm integral mortar isn’t replacing a 81-120mm Mortar platoon - it’s simply a supplementary item to assist in the final push on the objective.

IMHO the entire concept of the IFV/APC needs to be relooked at, but understanding Indirect Fire is still the #1 killer. Don’t spend too much time on outliers.

No one vehicle will be able to offer everything in all theaters.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,180
Points
1,060
Are you back to discussing the need for one vehicle to do everything? Carry troops, kill troops, kill vehicles, kill tanks, kill RAM, UAVs, helicopters, and Fixed Wing?

Or are we considering the fleet in its entirety?

All vehicles, regardless, of their purpose, are going to be under threat from RAM, from Loitering Munitions and from Micro and Mini UAVs. All vehicles then, like all ships, are going to need point defences to counter attacking munitions at very short ranges by means of obscurants, decoys, EW, DEW and kinetics. That means the C-RAM system needs to be full spectrum, low volume, light weight and cheap. This point defence system needs to be limited to one system per vehicle on account of cost and the need to get the job done without interfering with the vehicles primary function. That suggests a single turret mounted system rather than a multitude of fixed sensors. It also suggests a highly autonomous solution with all aspect sensors, rapid slew to cue capability and the ability to depress below the horizontal while elevating as close to the vertical as possible. And it needs lots of ammunition.

It has to be compatible with any vehicle for the 7 tonne JLTV class, through the AFV/IFV/APC fleet to the CS and CSS fleets.

And it has to be able to manage dismounted troops as well. It should be expected that it will work in packets of 4 or so vehicles working in conjunction.

And, did I mention that it needs to be light, effective, not interfere with the vehicle's primary function..... and be cheap.

Once that is done then you can start building the fleet with dedicated functional platforms for multi layer AD, multi layer AT, Assault, Troop Carrying, CS and CSS capabilities.

I don't think we can rely on being able to cluster a large number of vehicles under a single, tight umbrella. To deal with dispersal you are going to need lots of small umbrellas. Ideally one per vehicles but at least one or two per packet.

At the one per vehicle level the effectors are EW/Laser (DEW)/ small calibre, very high Rate of Fire machine guns - something like a 5.56 gatling gun or chain gun.

At the packet level you are up to the auto-cannon level (20-50 mm) that operate in the 2-5 km max range bracket. At that level you may also be adding VSHORAD missiles in the MANPAD range.

What do you need for defence if: ou are operating as
individual vehicles,
packets of dispersed vehicles with constantly changing compositions,
platoons and troops of fixed compositions and platforms
independent companies, squadrons and batteries
independent battalions and regiments
independent brigade groups
an independent divisions
all of the above but operating in an allied context

Seems to me you have a lot of work ahead of yourselves, Especiallly for an "Army" that struggles to field 18 infantry companies, 3 tank squadrons and 6 gun batteries.

Edit: Dam! I wish I could type faster.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,180
Points
1,060
The last thing we should be doing is trying to make an IFV into an AD platform. The crew is trying to do one thing (move the infantry to the appropriate debussing point and supporting them with fires) and shouldn't try to do another thing (scan, identify, and engage aerial threats).

What this discussion does highlight, in relevance to the original thread topic, is that there are times when the infantry should be mounted, as the protected mobility of the LAV provides an advantage to doing so, and there are times when the infantry should be dismounted, as the vulnerability of the LAV (or any armoured vehicle really) means that the right approach is dispersion, a key survivability tactic of the infantry, and not relying upon armour, which will fail and likely result in the destruction of the entire section.

What does the threat of both larger and smaller armed UAS mean for the mechanized infantry? I'd argue that the threat is similar to Second World War strafing attacks by ground attack aircraft; if you are sitting at either the front or the rear, you are vulnerable. Much of the UAS footage we are seeing from Ukraine is targeting stationary platforms, with no overhead cam or concealment. The "so whats?"
  • Between engagements, mechanized infantry have a tremendous advantage due to the ability for rapid movement under protected mobility. They can exploit tactical success. If the carrier is moving, out of contact, I suspect it is relatively safe from many UAS unless they are armed with a sophisticated missile.
  • When halted during the advance, the infantry should dismount, as halted things can get struck, even behind the FEBA.
  • When halted during the mounting prior to an attack and closer to the FEBA, the infantry may stay dismounted if the threat of artillery fires is greater than the UAS threat, but it should attempt to seek some sort of overhead concealment at the very least.
  • If overhead concealment is not possible, and the wait is extended, it may be prudent to dismount infantry and find a decent protected position or (if even longer) dig a quick shell scrape. Dispersion makes the carrier/section less vulnerable and less of a target.
  • An effective AD platform, specifically targeting UAS, using weapons discussed above, would be a handy TACOM attachment to a combat team, as it can provide an umbrella to the force, protecting them from both (1) UAS precision strikes and (2) artillery strikes cued by UAS observation.

The only point I would raise infanteer, is that near-peer battles are still not the linear battles of yesteryear. Troop densities are a lot lower and there are many more ways to infiiltrate the enemy lines both with effectors and sensors. That means that it is not just the infantry and the armoured vehicles that are a risk frrom troopies with ATGMs, Off Route Mines, Loitering Munitions and UASs and RAM Munitions. As the Ukrainians are demonstrating an effective strategy is to target the soft centre and go for the logistics, command and artillery assets. They are the ones most likely to need their own defence.
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
3,727
Points
1,160
The only point I would raise infanteer, is that near-peer battles are still not the linear battles of yesteryear. Troop densities are a lot lower and there are many more ways to infiiltrate the enemy lines both with effectors and sensors.

I'm not sure the battles of yesteryear were as linear as historical maps suggest and that infiltration opportunities were as plentiful then as they are now and I don't think "logistics, command and artillery assets" are any more vulnerable now than they were in the past. One only has to look at the troop density/KM on the Eastern Front of the Second World War to get a sense that there is a lot of space "in-between" and to understand that infiltration and exploitation aren't simply about finding gaps and getting around the surfaces, as the Russians found out the hard way in northern/northeastern Ukraine.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,180
Points
1,060
I think the question is what does one need out of a vehicle.

A 30-40mm cannon could have a secondary duty as an Anti Aircraft system.
ATGM systems like Javelin or Hellfire could also be used for limited AA (Anti helicopter) or use a Stinger in place of a Anti Armor missile.

Any of those uses however requires a robust and extremely secure network to get targeting data to the FCS of the vehicle — as I don’t think (based on previous comments) that the Artillery or Air Force will be happy with Infantry having GBAD assets integral without control from higher.

WRT the integral Mortar idea - a 60mm integral mortar isn’t replacing a 81-120mm Mortar platoon - it’s simply a supplementary item to assist in the final push on the objective.

IMHO the entire concept of the IFV/APC needs to be relooked at, but understanding Indirect Fire is still the #1 killer. Don’t spend too much time on outliers.

No one vehicle will be able to offer everything in all theaters.

WRT the 60mm mortar - many AFVs have multiple 76mm mortars just now - for screening purposes

1652885722691.png


Challenger carries them on the turret, left and right of the main armament.

They do the same job as these MASS systems mounted on the CPFs (also from Rheinmetall)

1652885884500.png

A starting point for all vehicles could be something like this with an M3 HMG but additional accoustic an EO/IR sensors.

1652885967374.png


Or, if you wanted to added more potential kill shots against light targets and dismounted troops then perhaps something like this?

 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
3,727
Points
1,160
The Merkava does one better, with an actual mortar. Not sure this is a viable option on a IFV though.

 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,180
Points
1,060
I'm not sure the battles of yesteryear were as linear as historical maps suggest and that infiltration opportunities were as plentiful then as they are now and I don't think "logistics, command and artillery assets" are any more vulnerable now than they were in the past. One only has to look at the troop density/KM on the Eastern Front of the Second World War to get a sense that there is a lot of space "in-between" and to understand that infiltration and exploitation aren't simply about finding gaps and getting around the surfaces, as the Russians found out the hard way in northern/northeastern Ukraine.

Fair comment. But if infiltration was possible in the well defined linear front of WWI and the more amorphous fronts of WWII then it is at least as easy to "get to" the assets in the "rear" now as it was then.

We seem to spend a lot of time considering the assault and protecting the assaulters. We seem to spend less time considering the requirements of the defence. The first thing that draws my eye is that while it may be true that "he who defends everything holds nothing" it seems to be equally true that he who defends most wins. Fortunately, the defender still has many advantages, some of which play to the benefits of industrialization, automation and "low-skilled" operators.

Assaulters are in a different league.
 
Top