Infantry Direct Fire Support Vehicle?

[McG]

There really are a lot of questions that need addressing before delving into the subject of whether the most appropriate weapon for an Inf FSV is medium caliber cannon (20 - 75 mm), reduced velocity full caliber cannon (90 - 150+ mm), reduced velocity medium caliber cannon (20 - 75 mm), or some other system.

What is the requirement for such a system; what would its roles & capabilities be?  What targets must it engage?  Where would it fit in the organization?  What is the supporting doctrine?  How does it fit into each phase of war and through different intensity conflicts?  Do we need to have more vehicles in the battalion, or could we just put different weapon systems on every third section APC?

Once all of this is figured-out, you then have a picture detailed enough to begin constructing the capabilities that would be required of the weapon system(s) for the vehicle (assuming that by the end of the estimate you have still determined that the vehicle is required).

 

[Mountie]

The LCTS-90 mounted on the LAV-III as chosen by the Belgians.  The little brother to the CT-CV 105mm weapons system mentioned a few posts back.  Sort of a Cougar 2.

 

[Infanteer]

I give props to Army Rick for at least trying to start some good ideas going - we don't have enough of that around here these days.

2 Points:

1.  Want a good Infantry Direct Fire Support Vehicle?  We already have one - the LAV III.  The 25mm is a pretty good weapon with a wallop.  It ain't gonna knock down buildings, but it does make bad guys duck.  If the next generation goes to a more ergonomic 30mm/35mm, even better.

2.  Rambler got it right - the less platforms, munitions and vehtronics, the better.  Let the tanks handle the large caliber rounds.  What the Infantry really needs for DFS is a suitable anti-armour weapon.  Try planning a defence against any sort of near-peer foe with today's infantry.  Pretty merde when your biggest weapon is an Eryx with a 600m max range.  T-72s would tear us to pieces if we were the battlegroup in the Brigade who didn't get the Squadron of MBTs for that week.  I'll take a Javelin ATGM that can be manpacked or put on a RWS that's coming to an infantry battalion near you over a low-velocity pumpkin launcher.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[Kat Stevens]

Just nab a couple of previously owned AMX-10RC and drop them into each company!  ;D

 

[a_majoor]

More on Infantry FSV’s

Why would we need an FSV anyway? The German experience in WWII is probably illustrative. They started the war with a Panzerkampfwagen III mounting a 50mm high velocity gun to deal with enemy tanks and hard targets and a Panzerkampfwagen IV mounting a short barreled 75mm to shoot in assaults. As the war progressed, the Panzerkampfwagen IV was progressively up gunned to deal with more capable threats, while the Panzerkampfwagen III was retired since it could not be up gunned.

The hull of the tank could handle the recoil of larger weapons fixed to the superstructure, leading to a series of Sturmgeschütz as low cost alternatives to tanks. The Panzerkampfwagen IV  hull, being bigger, was also used for a wide variety of platforms.

By 1943/44, the Germans were in deep trouble. The Panther and Tiger tanks were impressive, but expensive, temperamental and limited in numbers. Infantry support was coming to mean shooting at hordes of enemy tanks, so the availability of a low cost, robust fighting platform that could carry a long barreled 75 was a godsend to the German Infantry. The 75 could also shoot a useful HE shell when the need arose, so there was balanced firepower, although the machines had tactical limitations due to the fixed nature of the mount.

You will note that trying to “improve” on this formula simply led to dead ends like “Ferdinand”; the Hetzer, which carried so little ammunition that it was basically a shoot and scoot platform; and “hunting” Panthers and Tigers, which suffered from the same defects of cost and reliability as the parent platforms.

In the modern age, Generation 3 tanks provide the balance of firepower, protection and mobility to deal with most tactical problems, the main shortcomings have to do with the size, weight and fuel consumption needed to achieve these goals, and excessive focus on the DF task. A Generation 4 tank would achieve these goals in a lighter platform, and have the ability to take on a wider range of targets.

A conceptual design based on the Leopard 2 exists, using a low profile Wegmann turret with about 2/3 the volume of the current turret and a Eurodiesel powerpack which is smaller and lighter than the existing powerpack. Adding a high angle gun mount to deal with targets in the upper floors of buildings and advanced ammunition (Shoot through missiles, TERM, STAFF) to deal with the wider range of targets brings us close to the ideal. The Swedish Strv 2000 concept was much more modular, had a front engine like the Merkava and mounted a 120mm canon and a 40mm coaxial gun on high elevation mounts, and would be perhaps smaller and lighter than an evolved Leopard 2. A Merkava with a high angle gun mount and advanced ammunition would also fulfill most of the wish list.

Tanks that emulate these designs will provide the firepower needs for most tactical situations until tanks themselves were supplemented by something far more advanced like “flocks” of small UACV’s attached to a company to provide intimate support.

 

[ironduke57]

the Hetzer, which carried so little ammunition that it was basically a shoot and scoot platform;

I wouldn´t call 40 to 45 rounds that small.

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Climb into a Hetzer and you realize that the crew could barely see anything out of it. It was a decent SPG and good use of a reliable hull.

The perfect balanced infantry support vehicle has already been built, we just need to convert some newer platforms with the same ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Centurion-AVRE-165-Fosgene.jpg

 

[Infanteer]

The "perfect balanced infantry support vehicle" has already been built - it is call a Main Battle Tank.

Other than that, the Infantry Platoon and Infantry Company have a phenomenal amount of direct fire support.  If my LAV III can't handle it with its turret or the rockets or bombs in the back, than I'll call for a tank.

You guys are trying to shoehorn a white elephant where one isn't required.

 

[tango22a]

Forty pounds of C4 impacting a grape drying house!... I wouldn't want to be inside!

tango22a

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So you believe we should penny packet out our MBT's to support infantry? Acceptable against our current enemy, but not against a enemy with armoured forces. The AVRE style vehicle fills a niche and is dedicated to those paticular tasks, as opposed to the MBT's which will have several competing piroities which will draw them away from the close support tasks. It also means the crews can focus on training with and supporting the infantry. A modern version would have better armour, cameras, digital comms and possibly a RWS or extra MG's.

So far to my knowledge we haven't come up with a way to fit mine rollers or plows to the Leo 2's or least been allowed to.

 

[McG]

Other than that, the Infantry Platoon and Infantry Company have a phenomenal amount of direct fire support.  If my LAV III can't handle it with its turret or the rockets or bombs in the back, then I'll call for a tank ...

or TUA.  I agree, the requirement does not seem to be there for something new.

Forty pounds of C4 impacting a grape drying house!... I wouldn't want to be inside!

You would not want to be inside if the infantry chose to hit it with an Eryx either.  It has been determined to be a pretty effective hammer against those targets.

The AVRE style vehicle ...  So far to my knowledge we haven't come up with a way to fit mine rollers or plows to the Leo 2's or least been allowed to.

The Leo 2 will not support ploughs, but the roller problem has probably been solved.  But any way, are you proposing an Infantry DFSV or a Combat Engineering Vehicle?  You might want to google "Force Mobility Enhancement" or "FME."

Want a good Infantry Direct Fire Support Vehicle?  We already have one - the LAV III.  The 25mm is a pretty good weapon with a wallop.  It ain't gonna knock down buildings, but it does make bad guys duck.  If the next generation goes to a more ergonomic 30mm/35mm, even better.

I agree.  Hopefully the LAV Upgrade keeps the medium caliber cannon (or up-guns in the 35 to 40 mm range), and adds a launcher with a family of compatible missiles (AT, "Bunker Buster", UAV, etc).  That would put the whole capability being suggested here onto the back of every infantry section carrier while avoiding the costs (money, manpower, supply & transport space, etc) that would come with a unique vehicle.

 

[vonGarvin]

Infanteer is certianly not advocating penny-packing anything.  In order to have a multi-roled "Infantry Direct Fire Support Vehicle", we use whatever is available.  In our modern army, we have tanks, we have LAVs with awesome firepower, we have artillery, we have planes, tanks and even penguins if we wanted them.  His argument is that we don't need to dedicate our industrial might in creating a solo-purpose vehicle.  Main Battle Tanks, such as our Leopard 2A6M CAN are more than capable of coming to the fray with more than enough Firepower, Protection and Mobility.


I don't think we need to equip our artillery force with what is basically a Sturmgeschütz*.

Note: In WW2, the Germans employed the Sturmgeschütz in the direct fire support role, and they were part of the artillery.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

and even penguins

CSOR or JTF2 trained penguins? There is a difference after all....

 

[vonGarvin]

Neither.  "Run of the Mill" Line infantry penguins:

 

[dapaterson]

Notice how the penguins are all dressed exactly the same - not the slightest bit of variation between them.

I didn't know that 5th Bn, The RCR, was in Antarctica...

 

[tango22a]

DAP:

Don't You know .....That somebody's gonna get you for that one!!


Cheers,

tango22a

 

[Steel Badger]

and even penguins if we wanted them. 

Oh no. He finally went there. Right back to his fallschirm-stoss penquins!

 

[Fusaki]

or TUA.  I agree, the requirement does not seem to be there for something new...

...Hopefully the LAV Upgrade keeps the medium caliber cannon (or up-guns in the 35 to 40 mm range), and adds a launcher with a family of compatible missiles (AT, "Bunker Buster", UAV, etc).  That would put the whole capability being suggested here onto the back of every infantry section carrier while avoiding the costs (money, manpower, supply & transport space, etc) that would come with a unique vehicle.

That would be pretty fucking cool.

I'm no expert on combined arms or anything, but as a former LAV3 gunner I'll say that one of those Delco TOW turrets would come in really handy. Even just one TOW turret per platoon, then one more with the LAV Capt in COY HQ would be pretty bad ***.

With integral TOW and some tanks attached, I don't see the need for an infantry direct fire support veh.

 

[Infanteer]

Yup - I got to work with them and they were pretty bad-ass; especially with their optics.  Too bad they are kinda the odd-man out right now - I'm interested to see how we plan to role them into our force structure in the future (I've seen a few ideas).

 

[TCBF]

- Let's just come out and say it: BMP 3

Anti-armour, anti-hel auto-cannon, pumpkin launcher cannon for bunker-bustin' and tube AT missles, swims, tracks, ...