"Tank based APCs/IFVs are the future?" Topic

I was reading up on some of the tank based IFVs out there.

link

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-T

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT

These vehicles are a response to recent experience in urban combat. Will this trend continue and we will see more tank based APCs and IFVs in the near future. It appears IFVs will have to deal from a wide range of threats, from IEDs, RPGs fired from every angle, to the traditional 30mm gun at the front armor.

Will they always be a limited run type vehicle?

Thanks

As things stand right now, I see the big battle tank going the way of the Battleship.

Useful in limited roles.

With modern weaponry, infantry has a lot more 'pop' than they ever did – tanks are expensive and soviet block tanks appear to have become rather marginalized. Western 'battle tanks' are expensive to maintain and operate. They may be 'invincible' but that only means that the enemy will operate in environments where these weapons cannot be utilized.

I see a lot more emphasis on infantry delivery vehicles in the near future.

mjc

I see a lot more emphasis on infantry delivery vehicles in the near future.

But if you make IFVs as expensive as MBTs, where's the benefit?

Doug

Didn't Israel all ready do this ????

Yes – see the first link in the first post.

Doug

Boy, do I have the perfect YouTube video for you:

YouTube link

They may be 'invincible' but that only means that the enemy will operate in environments where these weapons cannot be utilized.

At sea?

The reason the tank has taken over as the prime weapon of modern land warfare is precisely its versatility. The sheer range of modern guns means that they can now extend their firepower far into areas that they cannot move into themselves.

They're not much chop in cities or jungles, but then neither are IFVs.

Well I doubt we'll see big tank battles like Kursk, '43 or the Sinai in '73. However, I'm a very big advocate of combined arms … and think that MBTs and IFVs will still have their place on the battlefield … However, using an MBT chassis for IFVs seems to be a trend at least in the IDF. And makes some sense. They did the same thing with captured Russian made MBTs the Arabs used. But its the fact that APCs/IFVs needed higher survivability … and using an MBT hull is one way to do it. The IDF saw the M113 as very fragile and up armored it to increase it's survivability. And we see what happened with the M2/M3 Bradley, it too had to be up armored from it's original configuration. I believe the USMC also had to up armor their LAVs, making it more survivable but "unseaworthy", IIRC. I commanded an M113 Mech Co. '87-'89 at Ft. Benning. The best armor on the M113 was the front … because that's where the engine is !! I had my men dismount every time I saw it tactically feasible. The conundrum of Mech Infantry, is if you dismount too soon you lose mobility. Too late and you give the enemy a two for one target. Not only KO'ing the AFV … but KIA/WIA the troops inside with one shot … basically.

Also, I'd like to add … the paradigm changed with the wide spread use of effective shoulder fired Infantry AT weapons, like the RPG. APCs and IFVs were never expected to survive a direct hit from an MBT's main gun, most MBTs wouldn't either for that matter. And AFVs were generally always vulnerable to mines/IEDs. I still remember watching the news as I was growing up, during the Vietnam War. Seeing the burned out hulk of an M113 that took a direct hit from an RPG or B-40 … I still remembered that when I found myself commanding an M113 Co., 15 or 20 years later …

I can remember the books of the early 70s which forecast the demise of the tank in favour of strike helos and rapid deployment forces.As a teen i remember when everyone was afraid of the Hind-D,the flying tank.Well it just hasnt happened,strike helos and very multi-functional craft are at best suppression units that return home for fuel and ammo and despite night vis tech still leave the infantry alone at night.The tank doesnt have to be the worlds very best,it just has to be there to help secure and hold ground through thick and thin.I think we just need to revise AFV vulnerabilities into combined arms doctrine.A tank is a battle unit it can never be made invulnerable,losses occur ,maybe we forgot that basic truth ,in war people die..ours and theirs.

"Will they always be a limited run type vehicle?"-LouieN

I have asked myself the same question. I think it depends largely on future doctrine…

1. Is the AFV is expected to fight / survive on the battlefield and deliver infantry into the heart of the battle?

2. Is the AFV / APC expected to provide minimal protection during transport then dismount infantry while it remains in the rear?

"They may be 'invincible' but that only means that the enemy will operate in environments where these weapons cannot be utilized."-Quidveritas

I am inclined to agree. When I was in the infantry I learned that tanks have all kinds of limitations. Infantry in rough terrain, heavily wooded, jungle, swamp, urban etc… for the most part cannot be defeated by tanks if they refuse to fight. Let the tanks go by then emerge and slaughter the weaker elements following the tanks. You want to clear out the infantry you better bring mechanized infantry to dismount.

"You want to clear out the infantry you better bring mechanized infantry to dismount."

And this is precisely why combined arms tactics works. Armour, infantry, artillery, and air suport (fixed and rotary wing) working together are the most effective force out there.

It's always cheaper to build a bigger warhead for a missile or RPG than it is to make a better protected AFV. But, I expect we'll see active protection systems becomming more common, both in detection and evasion of mines/IED's and active anti-missile stuff like Arena, Quick Kill and Trophy. Protection will then be back to direct fire and shrapnel.

G.

Ok gonna be contraversial here but irregular foot sloggers beat mech infantry in somalia.A determined resistance can and will defeat anybody who plays down to their level.Combined arms works ,if tanks are present the issue is amongst them,only one side committs them ,battle decided!

It could be argued that thicker armour is only significant if you plan on getting hit. Well trained crews use terrain to get the first shot in and avoid getting hit in the first place. The idea that tanks are somehow 'invunerable' seems to be a very recent phenomenon, they are a front line weapon system and suffer attrition rates comparable to infantry. Thick armour is obviously nice to have if you are unfortunate enough to get hit.

"Ok gonna be contraversial here but irregular foot sloggers beat mech infantry in somalia.A determined resistance can and will defeat anybody who plays down to their level."-Warpspeed

I never said mech infantry was invincible its just impossible for tanks to enter and clear certain types of terrain.

"only one side committs them ,battle decided!"-Warpspeed

It depends on mission goals. Tanks can drive up and down the street all day and shell the hell out of town (example Kellys Heroes last tiger tank) If the mission is to clear rough terrain or built up terrain tanks will fail unless the infantry are willing to engage them in a straight up battle.

"The idea that tanks are somehow 'invunerable' seems to be a very recent phenomenon"-Martin

M-1 Abrams driving up and down streets with RPGs bouncing off their armor has fueled that notion until the next generation of hand held infantry antitank weapons starts blowing them up.

Hmmm … I don't think Mech Infantry was defeated in Somalia … Once Mech dismounts it fights on foot like Light Infantry. Again, if you are talking about the Blackhawk Down incedent … A plt of Tanks leading 2-3 plts of Mech moving behind a small rolling barrage of FA. With turrets alternating to each side, guns blazing until they got to the crash site. The incedent would have been over in a very short time … with very few friendly losses. At least that's how I'd have done it … But not doubt AFVs are more vulnerable in closed terrain like urban or jungle, obviously …

Urban combat? SturmTiger!

"A plt of Tanks leading 2-3 plts of Mech moving behind a small rolling barrage of FA. With turrets alternating to each side, guns blazing until they got to the crash site."-Legion

Sound tactics! What I would do to counter it is let the tanks go by and attempt to destroy the APCs preferably with infantry mounted inside. If the infantry dismount I would harass them with small arms, mortars and IED every inch of the way. Further down the road the tanks would be confronted by a hasty mine field set up in the middle of the road. If the relief force arrives intact I would repeat the entire ordeal on their way out of town.

The more I hear that tanks are 'outdated' or that 'they can't fight in urban terrain' and worse, that 'there will never be…' and add in your favorite wish about combat/war on a large scale, the more I cringe.

Back in the '20's and '30's people were saying all sorts of things like this. Billy Mitchell, for instance, said that armies and navies were obsolete because the shiny, new, strategic bombers would obliterate them before they could be used. Warfare, to him, would be between bombers and pursuit planes. The bombers would seek out the enemy's industrial base and destroy it while the enemy's air defenses would try to stop them. Spending money on any other weapons system was pointless.

We all know how that went…

Oh yeah, do I mention that people said that there could never be another world war because they were:

1. Too terrible to contemplate
2. Too expensive
3. Nations were too busy trading with each other and wouldn't want to lose the business.

Yada, yada, yada…

Tanks are around because they are just so #$#%n useful. They are well protected, mobile, heavy guns that are able to apply direct firepower, on a target of your choice, very quickly and cheaply! Their treads will take them to places that would surprise you.

Grunts were ALWAYS stunned about where we would show up! I commonly heard in FTXs:

"How the H$%% did you get a M1 over there?????"

Usually that was said during the AFTER brief! They were 'dead' and rather freaked out about it. If it's wide enough for my tank's hull, not too sloped, and doesn't have a basement, then I can put a tank there!

And when it comes to digging an enemy out of a hard to reach place even the infantry say "Where are the tanks!?!"

Heck, instead of the tank going away, it's probably more like the tank and the infantry morph into the same unit! I can easily see a platoon with these tank APCs mingled with 'regular' tanks to make an awesome team. It would be interesting to see a platoon like this:

4 vehicle platoon split into two sections with:

1 APC with one or two dismount squads
1 MBT

The senior NCO would lead one section while the platoon leader takes the other. That would make bounding overwatch possible and would give each section its on infantry/tank team.

I never really understood the whole infantry/tank 'pure' platoons anyway. You want combined arms down as low as you can get it!

Heck, what is infantry anyway? Tradition says that they are troops fighting on foot. To me, infantry are the front line guys who take and hold ground. That makes tankers and grunts one and the same! Vehicles are around to get them there quickly and with the gear needed to get the job done. Tanks do that in spades.

Tank are not capital ships! You can't compare them to battleships because, simply, they don't represent the same investment of capital and prestige that the battlewagons were. If they compare to anything Navy wise it's the destroyer/corvette/frigate. These are the work horses of the surface navy! And that is what the tank is! It's a workhorse.

So until you can come up with a technology that can do what a tank does, and thats

1. carry a big gun all over the battlefield, something big enough to be useful but too big for a grunt to carry
2. keep it there 24/7
3. have it able to apply that gun accurately and cheaply

then you'll always have a 'tank'.

As for the whole "there will never be a big war again"… well my friend, you're dreaming. There will be another one. Will it be like the last two? Probably not. But it's coming, sooner or later.

People just can't help it. God help us when it comes.

Oh, one more thing. Back in the 70's and 80's this same argument was being thrown about about tanks and ATGMs and how the tank was going out. Basically everyone was looking at Yom Kippur and what happened to the armor in that war.

I don't remember the author, exact (I want to say it was James Dunnigan) who said, "If tanks can't survive on the modern battlefield, then what can?"

I think that question still stands, unanswered, to this day.

"Heck, instead of the tank going away, it's probably more like the tank and the infantry morph into the same unit"-Tgunner

Now that is an interesting idea do you think we are moving away from large armored breakthroughs back to tanks being infantry support vehicles? I am rethinking some of my scifi units as I type. The issue I see is at some point the infantry will be forced to seperate from their armor. I still don't believe tanks can go everywhere. Do you leave part of your unit back at base camp or not take it on deployment at all if you are deploying to difficult terrain (ie. swamps and jungles of Panama)

As long as a country is casualty-averse, like Israel, then you will see 'heavy APCs'. These are heavily armored troop transports, not a lot of AT capability. The Russian designs seem to be more of an IFV type, but it really depends on how they are armed.

However, certain other operational requirements mean that you will not have a HAPC. You can't make something with the armor of an Abrams float, for example, so any Marine/Naval Infantry units will not have a lot of HAPCs (if they have any at all!). Similarly, any rapid-deployment forces won't have them either, because they're too heavy to be air-transportable in large numbers.

It really depends on how you see combat evolving into the future. The US is a big proponent of the shock and awe theory: Hit someone so hard and so fast that they cannot respond to it (in 1939 we called it 'blitzkrieg'). In order to move faster, you need smaller, lighter units. In order to not compromise protection, you need a vehicle weighing at least 25 tons, but you can use active defenses (like Iron Fist and jammers) instead of heavy slabs of passive armor.

I honestly assume that the M1 and other similar-generation vehicles are going to last a while, but then we're going to go back to smaller vehicles that are more air-transportable. Having a supertank doesn't do any good if you can't get the tank to where you need it!

Possibly, we would see smallish combat walkers, not more than about 4m tall, armed like a Bradley with chain gun and AT missiles. They'd be lighter than a Bradley (rough guess of about 8 tons based on construction equipment), but would still have comparable firepower and good cross-country speed (2m step x 120 steps/min = 14kph 'marching', 2.4m x 180 steps/min = 26 kph 'doubletime' for example). But that's way in the future, since bipedal locomotion is a complete PITA computationally speaking.

@Dragon Gunner: The US has been doing that since the Abrams/Bradley duo. The Bradleys let the infantry keep up with the tanks. The TUSK/BUSK upgrades are there to increase the 'tanks' (yes, I do consider a Bradley a light tank in capability) ability to support the infantry in close terrain.

Look at what the A Teams did to Iraqi armor . . . !

Do you really think the world will sit still and regard that as come kind of aberration?

If I were an Iranian with limited resources, I'd look real hard and developing those kinds of forces and tactics.

If you are going to win, you have to continually upgrade and stay one step ahead of your enemy.

In the next 20 years, got a feeling that you will be seeing all kinds of weapons systems and tactics move to the fore that are not even used today.

mjc

We are stuck with the M1A2 and the next upgrade in armor and electronics M1A3 for the next 30 years or so. What I would really like to see is a vehicle hull used for both a MBT and a heavy APC. This would ease logistics and maintenance. Plus we really need a vehicle that can carry more then 6 men.

Now what would you rather be riding in, a vehicle with armor as good as a tank or one with armor good enough to stop a HMG round?

I dont for one minute believe in going lighter to have a vehicle that is light enough to be carried by plane. One where are you going to get enough planes to carry a brigade of armor. Light armor and an active defense system or heavy armor and an active defense system. I know which one I want. The US is in the position that any credible force is going to have its heavy equipment moved by sea. Unless of course the US decides in the future that foreign involvement is a waste of money and lifes.

"Now that is an interesting idea do you think we are moving away from large armored breakthroughs back to tanks being infantry support vehicles? I am rethinking some of my scifi units as I type. The issue I see is at some point the infantry will be forced to seperate from their armor. I still don't believe tanks can go everywhere. Do you leave part of your unit back at base camp or not take it on deployment at all if you are deploying to difficult terrain (ie. swamps and jungles of Panama)"

Not always. Tanks are a whole lot more flexible than you would think. You can get a tank almost everywhere people live. On of the great "ball drops" of Vietnam was the assumption that tanks couldn't function there. That was proven wrong time after time. Wars are fought where people live and people, generally, don't live in jungles and swamps. Or if they do, they live in the 'nicer' places which can often be reached by motor vehicles. Cities, almost by definition, are places built so that motor vehicles can access them. Where you can put a car, you can put a tank- as long as the chassis can fit there!

That doesn't mean that infantry will disappear. In fact, light infantry (call it airborne, rangers, commandos, air assault, whatever) will have a place in a nation's order of battle because there ARE truly places where heavy mech units just can't function effectively OR you need guys with guns in a place very quickly.

My comments are aimed at heavy/mechanized units. You know, armor battalions and mechanized infantry battalions. To me it's just plain silly that these 'pure' units once existed. The Army always taught me that I should train the way I fight… so, why doesn't it organize its units the way they are to fight??? Well, the Army have fixed a lot of that with the whole Unit of Action doctrine. The names remain the same, but actual, pure mech infantry and armored units are gone. Now you have heavy, balanced battalions with two armor companies and two mech infantry companies. Honestly, I still don't think that is enough. The companies need reorganization too! Maybe a good model is two tank heavy companies and two mech heavy companies? Honestly, I would prefer that all units are balanced.

Is this the old jab of "penny packeting" your tanks like everyone accuses the French of doing in 1940? Nope! It's true combined arms. You want balanced teams with all arms at as many levels as you can manage. It's about giving your commanders as many different tools as you can give them. Granted, you still have to task organize to accomplish different missions, but in general, it's the balanced, well trained and equipped, combined arms force that wins battles consistently!

@ Dragon Gunner … I would not let the Tanks & APCs get separated. All the Tanks and APCs firing + a small rolling barrage in front. And I could possibly even call in Gunships if needed. IMO this mission is a like a Thunder Run, an armor/mech raid. Remember at Ranger training, "Speed is Security" … Speed, mobility and firepower … with all the firepower you may be too busy ducking or dieing to effectively cause any damage. And of course the lead MBT or two would have a mine plow … I started out as a Rifle Plt Ldr in the 101, so I know how to fight and defend against other dismounts … However, the last thing I'd want to do is lose the initiative, mobility, speed and the pace of the advance. A bit like "Blitzkrieg" … I'm a big fan of stealthy night attacks and ambushes. But this time, I'd be using speed and firepower … and a lot of it … Collateral damage would not be a concern in my mind, it's all about getting to the Objective and saving our comrades …

I think it makes sense in asymetrical warfare for tanks to support infantry closely, since theoretically, insurgents have little, to no logistical support, or vulnerable forces that tanks can pursue in depth, or to their rear.

They're pretty much just tied to helping take on the bad guys that choose to stand and fight in the frontlines.

Unless other pockets of insurgents can be identified, deep maneuvers by tanks are just a waste of fuel and materiel.

Aerial drones are probably better at identifying insurgents to the rear, and taking them out in a timely manner.

Top gun,it sounds like you believe any future conflicts will always be asymetrical….Our Canadian Leopards are doing wonders in Afghan.Those mud brick village /forts that the hajis occassionally defend dont have a chance.As an infantry soldier im glad to know the cats are with us.

Yes, combined arms works … and as a former Infantryman I agree armor support is really useful in most cases. As is FA, Gunships and CAS … it's combined arms … Also I'm impressed with what Drones are doing in Afghanistan … but I guess that would come under CAS …

Those based on the Merkava point up the Israelis' major weakness. They lack a manpower base equivalent to their enemy. Therefore they protect their infantry to the utmost.
Weaselhoffen.

Israel never has to worry about deploying away from its region and is geared to face a very specific enemy. So "heavy" tank based APCs makses sense for them.

For the world's major power, deployability concerns and technology is actually driving both APC and tank design in the "lighter" directions.

Yes, the US ARMY creating Stryker Bdes is certainly looking like deployability is bigger concern. But they did have to come up "Turkey Cages", etc. to increase survivability against RPGs etc. And the USMC has had LAVs for sometime … Plus like I said big tank on tank actions may be very, very limited now and in the future. Armor supporting Infantry in an urban guerilla environment, like we now see is what much of the current wars have come down to, is still effective … As technology increases and changes, so do tactics based on the threat or preceived threat. And technology many times changes to cope with those new threats … after the reality of the current state of combat becomes clearer.

"Top gun,it sounds like you believe any future conflicts will always be asymetrical".

Nope, not at all, but most conflicts seem to be shaping up that way of late. Probably the 80%/20%, or 90%/10% rule applies, especially when you have top notch tech, so few want to come out to play on even terms.

Survivability of tank-based APC's seems to make sense right now, assuming you can afford them. Captured enemy vehicles are even better, due to the low investment cost.

I think that today conventional combined arms conflicts would be very costly in material, $$$ and people … not to mention infastructure damage. The asymetrical warfare that we see in Afghanistan, Somalia, and to a lesser extent Iraq … infastructure is almost non-existant, so that is less a factor as there is very little to really damage. As opposed to Europe … The same could be said about another Arab-Israeli conflict. Most battles taking place in deserts or areas like th Golan Heigths. Even Southern Lebenon's infastructure is limited … And with Hussain launching SCUDs during the First Golf War, those did relatively little damage to Israel or Kuwait … I think in the West infastructure damage is much more of a consideration … Capitalists have a tendency to look at the bottomline. And not motivated by religious or ethnic differences or like in Somalia or Afghanistan … they really don't have that much to lose … And in low intensity asymetric warfare with the proliferation of RPGs and weapons like that … APCs/IFVs are going to have better protection of some sort to increase survivability …

Well, as soon as someone declares armor as "useless in modern warfare" and makes that military policy, there will be a conflict where the operational area will include steppes(or some kind of open,rolling landscape).

Artaccoon,oh no a North Korean tunnel has opened up in Saskatchewan and t-62s are swarming about like battle mad Daleks!Jokes aside you are very right.Just because they are big, noisy and smelly doesnt mean we should ostracize the tank…though i have known some armoured crew that could be.

"The US has been doing that since the Abrams/Bradley duo."-Lion

I was refering to making them an integral part of the unit not an attachment. Tgunner implied they would morph together into one unit.

"there ARE truly places where heavy mech units just can't function effectively "-TGUNNER

At least we agree on that point. When armor can enter an apartment complex and clear it you will have convinced me of your point of view. When armor can enter a swamp, jungle or scale a mountain I will agree with your point of view. Wars are not always fought where people live sometimes you have to get off the beaten path and hunt them down. I have my own experiences of armor spinning turrets attempting to acquire infantry targets only to have them vanish. I believe armor does have a role in urban environments until the next generation of RPG starts reducing them to scrap.

"I would not let the Tanks & APCs get separated"-Legion

As I stated earlier you had sound tactics. Even if I couldn't stop your entire force all I would need to do is blow the tracks off a couple of vehicles then you have several rescue / recovery missions in progress. Your plan is solid but you cannot guarantee you won't take losses on your way in or out.

WEll THank you Dragon/G … And I agree, unfortunately the Recovery Force may take losses. We of course trained for that. And as always, I'm a fan of calling in Gunships and more Mortars/FA … I'd even call in Naval Gunfire if I could … I was fortunate to go to Basic Amphib Training at Little Creek, when I was in the 101 … And regardless, IIRC you and I were trained to basically use the same doctrines … BTW, I was an "honor" Grad from the 101 Dragon Trainer Course, way back in the day …