gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3370
    MEMBERS
  • 192362
    MESSAGES
  • 9
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Tracks vs Wheels   General Army topics

Started 26/5/22 by graylion; 21120 views.
schnuersi

From: schnuersi

30/6/22

How effective they are depends on the circumstances.

Inside their hatches they have 360° arc of fire. The immediate arc of fire is more like 180°. SOP for the three men in the hatches is to one observe left, one right and one rear. The hatches are arranged to facilitate this. This creates extreme situational awareness and unmatched capability for quick reactions. Which the the whole point of bringing dismounts along.  

Most of the shooting they do would mostly be clone in defense and supression. A rifle is never really effective so there is no real change regardness if they shoot from a moving or standing IFV. The MG is supprisingly effective even without stabilisation. Throwing hand grenades from a moving vehicle and putting them there where you want them ist also easy.

stancrist

From: stancrist

30/6/22

Red7272 said:

IFVs are meant to go wherever tanks can, take the same hits...

That is incorrect.  As 17thfabn and schnuersi noted, IFVs lack the armor protection needed to take the same hits as tanks.

Red7272 said:

MICVs are vehicles like the Bradley, BMPCV 90/30 and VIBC that can operate in support of their infantry and are more capable than APCs. They do operate in the same role as IFVs but are not doctrinally IFVs because of their lack of armour.

The US Army seems to think the Bradley is an IFV.

"The Bradley Fighting Vehicle Systems (BFVS) M2A3 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV)..."

Bradley Fighting Vehicle Systems (BFVS) — M2/M3 - USAASC (army.mil)

stancrist

From: stancrist

30/6/22

schnuersi said:

I also have the feeling there is a missconception what mounted combat means. It does not mean the dismounts shoot trough firing ports. It means the squad fights from the vehicle. Which most of the time means the IFV is engaging somthing with its weapons. The dismounts can add to that by shooting their small arms from their hatches as well.

I would not say that there is a misconception as to what mounted combat really means. 

I think that -- as with how mech infantry operates -- the German way is not the only way.

As I learned it, (infantry) mounted combat means the infantrymen fight from the vehicle.

It does not mean the vehicle gunner fires the autocannon while the dismounts do nothing.

stancrist

From: stancrist

30/6/22

17thfabn said:

How effective are they standing up shooting from hatches? It would seem their arc of fire would be very limited.

Yes, their arc of fire looks to be about 180 degrees for the "tail gunner" and perhaps 90-100 degrees for the man in each of the two side hatches.

Effectiveness is undoubtedly also very limited, with riflemen being effective at only very short range.  For example, 1:45-1:48 in https://youtu.be/ANOFfqqlfeQ?t=104

During the Vietnam War, the US Army learned rifle fire is inadequate for mounted combat, so a belt-fed machine gun was installed on each side of the troop hatch.

stancrist

From: stancrist

30/6/22

schnuersi said:

SOP for the three men in the hatches is to one observe left, one right and one rear. The hatches are arranged to facilitate this. This creates extreme situational awareness and unmatched capability for quick reactions. Which the the whole point of bringing dismounts along.

Nonsense.  If situational awareness were the whole point, that would more efficiently have been achieved by having a 6-man crew.  There would be no need to carry any infantrymen in the vehicle.

The whole reason for having an infantry team in the vehicle is to be able to conduct infantry operations.  It's called an Infantry Fighting Vehicle because its sole reason for being is to transport and support infantry.

https://youtu.be/ENipa4fYOSc?t=10

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

30/6/22

stancrist said:

I would not say that there is a misconception as to what mounted combat really means.

I did not explicit mention it but I was refering to the German use of the word and concept.
I think we have established now that there are differences and the devil is in the details.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

30/6/22

stancrist said:

Effectiveness is undoubtedly also very limited, with riflemen being effective at only very short range.

Yes. The rifles are for short range defense. From a moving vehicle 100 m at best and this would be mostly supression fire.

The video you linked is nice but really old. The soldiers at this point are mostly still conscrips. The Puma shown is a early prototype.

stancrist said:

During the Vietnam War, the US Army learned rifle fire is inadequate for mounted combat, so a belt-fed machine gun was installed on each side of the troop hatch.

Intrestingly they removed them later or did never fit them. The M113 used in Europe for example where not equiped like this.

From my point of view its really obvious that a MG is a far better weapon for this use than a rifle.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

30/6/22

stancrist said:

Nonsense. If situational awareness were the whole point, that would more efficiently have been achieved by having a 6-man crew. There would be no need to carry any infantrymen in the vehicle.

Again I am talking about the German perspective.
The main point of the Grenadiers really is situational awareness. Aditional eyes and ears. In a small, quiet inconspicuous package. What else would they add to a mechanised formation? Firepowe? Mobility?
Even when they dismount a main purpose is to recon and tell the AFVs where the enemy is at.

stancrist said:

The whole reason for having an infantry team in the vehicle is to be able to conduct infantry operations.

In German doctrine that is not the case. Its all about mechanised operations. Using them like foot infantry would be a waste of resources. What infantry operation should the six dismounts conduct? Yes they can dismount and fight on foot but this is only for short periods and to achieve specific goals. They never venture far from their IFV.

stancrist said:

It's called an Infantry Fighting Vehicle because its sole reason for being is to transport and support infantry.

The term infantry fighting vehicle nowhere has transport and support in it. Its a vehicle that can provide the combat function of infantry to a mechanised formation. For most parts the IFV replaces foot infantry. The dismounts are there to support the IFV which in turn supports the MBTs.

stancrist said:

https://youtu.be/ENipa4fYOSc?t=10

This is a prime example. The Grenadiers are only deployed because there is no other way. They conduct a limited and fast mission on foot. The Marders are allways close by and if possible the AC is used. The dismounts are mostly there to actually find the enemy. As soon as the objective is achieved they mount up and move off.
Just look how little gear the Grenadiers took with them. There are not there for a prolonged fight.
In a larger excercise with combined arms what we see in the video takes way to long. The video is of course cut and only shows parts of what went on but its still six minutes long. Thats a long time.
In the old video you posted one NCO actually says its about working with tanks and speed (2:30).

In reply toRe: msg 192
Refleks

From: Refleks

30/6/22

Sometimes you need light infantry capable of operating independently of their transport and sometimes you need mechanized infantry that is only envisioned to fight alongside it.

With the maturation of non-penetrating autocannon/ATGM RWS, these need not be two distinct formation types any longer as the vehicles can be sized to fit a proper light infantry squad; important in this era of ever shrinking budgets and drives to reduce number and types of formations.

  • Edited 30 June 2022 19:25  by  Refleks
stancrist

From: stancrist

1/7/22

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: I would not say that there is a misconception as to what mounted combat really means.

I did not explicit mention it but I was refering to the German use of the word and concept.

Okay.  When you make a general statement about a concept without noting that you're referring only to German usage, it can cause misunderstanding.

TOP