Does anyone else feel APCs and lightly-armored AFVs are totally useless in modern environment...

Does anyone else feel APCs and lightly-armored AFVs are totally useless in modern environment, against a properly equipped opponent?
They are too fucking vulnerable to so many things on modern battlefield. They can't handle modern artillery, and proliferation of modern and highly effective and portable AT weapons which are now widely available even on squad level means they won't survive long in direct contact with the enemy.

Since APCs are just fucking battle taxis, why not replace them with something even cheaper and more mobile? Meager protection that most of them offer is next to irrelevant, so why not drop the armor completely? A light tracked or even wheeled vehicle will allow infantry even greater mobility.

As for IFVs, why not redirect those resources into making heavily armored IFVs which can take a lot of beating, so they can effectively operate alongside mechanized infantry?

Attached: an-fv-432-armored-personnel-carrier-of-the-7th-brigade-royal-scots-1st-united-c8874d-1600.jpg (1600x1075, 1.54M)

>protection from most common handgun calibers is worthless
okay
Also special forces use those unarmored MG jeeps you are talking about. The role of an APC is battle taxi that can withstand machine gun fire.

You do realize that Bradleys has more tank kills than Abrams tanks did in the gulf war, right?

Attached: 378648B5-6C9A-473E-B394-575C679354EE.jpg (800x513, 82K)

>Does anyone else feel APCs and lightly-armored AFVs are totally useless in modern environment, against a properly equipped opponent?
No.
>They are too fucking vulnerable to so many things on modern battlefield. They can't handle modern artillery, and proliferation of modern and highly effective and portable AT weapons which are now widely available even on squad level means they won't survive long in direct contact with the enemy.
APCs are not IFVs, you dingus.
>Since APCs are just fucking battle taxis, why not replace them with something even cheaper and more mobile?
Because those don't have protection against shrapnel and small arms.
> Meager protection that most of them offer is next to irrelevant
Absolutely not.
>As for IFVs, why not redirect those resources into making heavily armored IFVs which can take a lot of beating, so they can effectively operate alongside mechanized infantry?
That is what IFVs are already doing.

ITT: OP can't into combined arms.

You mean apc's without any weapon systems? Because bradleys and bmp's are useful as fuck

Lightly armored APCs are mostly used for support roles anyway, carrying mortars, supplies, AT or AA missiles etc. They are not meant to be in direct combat with an opponent if they are part of a mechanized brigade.

Lighter APCs (Like Strykers, Bv 410s, BTRs etc) are also used in rapid reaction forces where speed or mobility is more important then heavy protection and armament, as the expected opponent will mainly consist of light (airmobile) infantry.

BMPs honestly aren't. They're IFVs, but they aren't even resistant against autocannons, while their probable opponents are. They would get absolutely slaughtered fighting against Western mechanized equivalents.

autocannons arent for dueling with tanks

its to give significantly greater range and power against enemy infantry or APCs like an HMG to support the disembarked infantry
BMP can suppress or eliminate enemy better than a machine gun

Defense is a matter of degrees. Even if the enemy has anti-tank weapons at the squad level, resistance to anything less than that means you've essentially reduced the enemy's firepower to one man per squad using a single shot weapon. Additionally, infantry grade anti-tank weapons don't have the muzzle velocity of a bullet so hitting a moving target is more difficult.

Finally, if an APC is too expensive then the alternative is for the infantry to walk.

>autocannons arent for dueling with tanks
???
An IFV is not a tank. A BMP would absolutely be expected to come up against enemy IFVs in any situation where the initial offensive is succesful and the enemy uses their reserves. The problem is that the Soviet 30mm APFDS is incapable of penetrating Western IFVs, while the BMPs are vulnerable even to 23mm autocannons, as shown in Ukraine.
>its to give significantly greater range and power against enemy infantry or APCs like an HMG to support the disembarked infantry
>BMP can suppress or eliminate enemy better than a machine gun
Yeah, but as soon as it comes up against an autocannon, it gets penetrated and blown to a mulch. They're not capable as IFVs. They can't actually function in the role, which is the issue. Even BMP-3s have shitty armor and will die against Western equivalents.

Anything that isn't a jet is irrelevant user

OP thinks countries still use the M113 as their primary infantry carrier.

APC's like BTR's and Strykers are mean't to be maneuverable, fast, and economic armored vehicles to enable a commander the ability to quickly flank the enemy or to rapidly reinforce a break through OP or to encircle enemies. They also usually have higher troop densities as well. But as for the fighting, only MBT's and IFV's are suppose to see direct combat, APC's take a more passive role and focus more on simply getting infantry to the fight quickly to support what has already been done by the mech. Infantry in the Bradely's.

Think of them as "Combat Taxis".

Attached: BTR_standing_by.jpg (1280x853, 257K)

BMP-3's have changed that a bit.

>resistance to anything less than that means you've essentially reduced the enemy's firepower to one man per squad using a single shot weapon.
Over here, a typical mechanized squad carries 2+ AT4's, a carl gustaf + ammo and an NLAW. And (two machineguns).

>everyone here teaching me what APC and IFV is
I KNOW what both of them are, and what's their purpose.
But my point is most of APC's and IFV's have ridiculous survivability in modern conditions.
Modern artillery is incredibly deadly for start. Just look at Ukraine. No one who wants to survive even rides inside APCs anymore. So what's the purpose of armor and weapons on such things?
They won't survive contact with the enemy. They can be knocked out by pretty much everything, and a huge vehicle is a lot easier target than infantry.
Most of countries use tracked or wheeled shit that is only slightly better in terms of protection.
Same with most IFVs.
There's some examples like IDF heavy APCs/IFVs, Puma or T-15, but most are introduced in very small numbers, they are more like experiments.

I'm just proposing that most of infantry gets highly mobile and cheap vehicles, while dedicated ''heavy'' mechanized infantry should get something as protected as an MBT. Kinda like US Light Division of 80's. That concept was ahead of it's time.


So former can rely on mobility, while latter can rely on heavy protection of their IFVs and firepower they provide.

I just think ''light'' mechanized infantry is too vulnerable today and their vehicles are hampering their main strength, which is mobility.

What about light unarmored vehicles?

>one man per squad
>single shot weapon

Dude you really need to catch up. Modern infantry squads have shitload of AT weapons.
And it's not just infantry AT weapons. Artillery is an even greater threat.

It depends on the geography of the country. If there's lots of heavy forests and rivers, an IFV can pass bridges and climb hills a tank can not while using terrain as cover. The IFV protects anyone inside it from conventional HE artillery and mortars very well compared to your proposed light vehicle. And if you stick hard-kill active protection systems on one, suddenly they're a lot more likely to survive an ATGM or guided artillery shell.

They're very useful, but you have to be a bit more careful today than in the past.

No, they haven't. They added fucktarded upwards opening hatches and a 100mm gun that complicates logistics and maintenance. The vehicle is still utterly incapable of resisting autocannons.

The solution to lightly armored APCs getting destroyed is not to make them lighter, it is to add armor. See the current generation of fuckhuge APCs which can survive modern indirect fires. Making them lighter would just increase the losses to artillery.

Attached: Ukraine light armor and arty.jpg (1970x938, 490K)

>reducing vulnerability to modern artillerry shrapnel is bad
>reducing march times is bad
>faster transport hampers mobility

user, it's time to take a break and think about the differences between tactical and operational traits.

>But my point is most of APC's and IFV's have ridiculous survivability in modern conditions.
They don't. APCs have completely adequate survivability in their role as battle busses, while IFVs might be in need of APS at most.
>Modern artillery is incredibly deadly for start. Just look at Ukraine. No one who wants to survive even rides inside APCs anymore. So what's the purpose of armor and weapons on such things?
This makes no sense. Even MBTs get penetrated by artillery fragments from the sides and rear. APCs are built for transporting infantry into the battle and will never be on the receiving end of artillery, unless things go tits up. They will not partake in combat. At the very most they might provide supporting fire, if the enemy is weak enough to do so.
>They won't survive contact with the enemy
See, you claim you know the difference between IFVs and APCs, but you clearly don't. APCs are not built to engage enemies. They are transports and nothing more.
>and a huge vehicle is a lot easier target than infantry.
The fuck it is. A modern APC needs AT weaponry to take out, while infantry can be killed by just about anything.

>Making them lighter would just increase the losses to artillery.
It depends on their usage. Concentrated usage of vehicles requires them to be well armored and armed, while dispersed use allows them to be light in both. The problem in Ukraine is that they're using deprecated vehicles (BMP series) designed for Cold-War-gone-hot in a war that is far from it.

Attached: 1540466218244.jpg (4096x2730, 1.81M)

I don’t understand this huge emphasis on mobility.
I know the need for fast movement on a tactical scale, but modern fire control systems are so good, hard to hit targets are basically non existent, provided it’s not in cover.

All the BMPs are old as fuck, and when the BMP-1 was introduced the opposing western vehicle would at best be armed with a 12,7mm machine gun. Naturally shit has changed since then, but the BMP-2 and 3 introduced somewhat better armor.

The thing is, they allways needed to be able to float wich limited armor greatly. It was expected that NATO would blow up all bridges they could, and the only way to quickly get over a river was to let the infantry transports swim. Once the infantry had created a bridgehead it was safe for the egeneer battalions to construct new bridges that allowed tanks and supplies to catch up. Strategic speed was allways part of the Soviet doctrine, as they realized that every day they were delayed, US supplies could be safely shipped to mainland europe.

The current doctrine is mobility warfare, no shit it’s got a huge emphasis

>Most of countries use tracked or wheeled shit that is only slightly better in terms of protection.
Same with most IFVs.

Handmedown Soviet equipment is not most countries.

The need for mobility is more on a operational / "high-tactical" level. It's about getting your troops where they matter, where they can cause the maximal amount of damage on the enemy, where they can bypass the enemy's main force. It's not worth it to fight the enemy where he is strong, the best thing is to drive way past them and attack the enemy targets in the rear, the command posts, the logistical centres, the headquarters, the signal stations and so forth. It's modern mobile warfare.
>I know the need for fast movement on a tactical scale, but modern fire control systems are so good, hard to hit targets are basically non existent, provided it’s not in cover.
The vehicles WILL be in cover. Any crew trained for modern war against peer foes will be trained to change firing position continuously, only being visible for a short while when shooting at the enemy. Generally unless you're ambushing someone, or fighting an unprepared-for-modern-war foe (Russia, USA),whenever you have a chance to shoot at the enemy, he will be shooting at you.

>but the BMP-2 and 3 introduced somewhat better armor.
Somewhat better, but still utterly incapable of protecting against autocannons found on Western IFVs.
>The thing is, they allways needed to be able to float wich limited armor greatly.
That's exactly the thing, you're right on point. The BMP series is built for a Seven-days-to-the-Rhine scenario, which would require those river crossings and would value operational mobility above tactical superiority. The problem today is that nobody is facing that situation, so the vehicles just aren't suited for modern conflicts. They've suffered massively in Ukraine for these very reasons and Russia at this point really needs to get their T-15 IFV into production.

Attached: 1522852327835.png (1933x1300, 3.76M)

That argument assumes that dispersal will continue to be an effective counter to artillery. Given what has already been seen of using UAVs for artillery spotting in Ukraine and Iraq/Syria that is a dubious proposition. Artillery is getting better at finding and hitting targets, and vehicle design will need to adapt to that.

Attached: 1532377465481.webm (1280x720, 2.77M)

That's exactly the thing, you're right on point. The BMP series is built for a Seven-days-to-the-Rhine scenario, which would require those river crossings and would value operational mobility above tactical superiority. The problem today is that nobody is facing that situation, so the vehicles just aren't suited for modern conflicts. They've suffered massively in Ukraine for these very reasons and Russia at this point really needs to get their T-15 IFV into production.

Yeah, but since tens of thousands of them were made, they will be around for the forseable future. Especially in Russia where spare parts wont be an issue, but money is.

>Somewhat better, but still utterly incapable of protecting against autocannons found on Western IFVs.

The "western IFVs" you are refering to came years after the BMP-2 was introduced tho, so you cant really blame them for not knowing what guns western vehicles would be equipped with in the future

>That argument assumes that dispersal will continue to be an effective counter to artillery
It's not as much of a counter as it is a minimalization of damage. If you're dispersed and camouflaged, the enemy will have to focus massive amounts of ordnance on a target just to cause adequate damage.
>Given what has already been seen of using UAVs for artillery spotting in Ukraine and Iraq/Syria that is a dubious proposition.
It's a question of terrain, training quality and concealment, really. In Ukraine and the Middle-East there's generally a lack of forests so targets are going to be visible, but even then the artillery strikes are rarely very effective, especially if the units are either dispersed or covered by anti-air units. Honestly in most situations the Ukrainians and Iraqi/Syrians suffer because they aren't dispersed or properly dug in. Like the webm you posted, they've got all their vehicles bunched up in one spot and no camo nets at all. They're incompetent and unprepared. They should have their vehicles spread out around the area and infantry away from the vehicles to ensure they don't get caught in the mortars. If they're staying still, camo nets, or anything of the sort, are crucial.
Nevertheless, artillery will naturally continue to be the king of the battlefield and casualties will happen, it can't be helped. What matters is the operational and strategic levels, not the tactical, where artillery is the greatest concern.

Attached: 1525380291940.webm (1920x1080, 2.06M)

>The "western IFVs" you are refering to came years after the BMP-2 was introduced tho, so you cant really blame them for not knowing what guns western vehicles would be equipped with in the future
Like I and the other user said, it was a question of operational mobility. The Soviets wanted their vehicles to swim, because they wanted to get to the Rhine in seven days. They knew that the enemy would have at the very least equivalent autocannons, but that wasn't their main concern in the the war they were planning for. Now that the Cold War is over, the vehicles are stuck fighting battles they were never planned to fight in, so it's no wonder if they're not well suited.

>Yeah, but since tens of thousands of them were made, they will be around for the forseable future. Especially in Russia where spare parts wont be an issue, but money is.
Naturally. Russia even brought back T-62s from long term storage recently.

Attached: 1548400730244.jpg (1920x1296, 321K)

>Like I and the other user said, it was a question of operational mobility

That other user was me. Operational mobility was the main reson yeah, but they couldnt look into the future even if that requiment didnt exist.

Okay, that's true. But an unarmored tracked vehicle will always be cheaper than a tracked vehicle with some ineffective armor slapped on.
You can't equip all infantry with well-armored carriers. It's just not economically or logistically viable.
Not even USA can do that.
>reducing vulnerability to modern artillerry shrapnel is bad
Negligible effect in modern conditions. Being able to move quickly from covered/defensible position to another position like that is better than some meager protection.
>reducing march times is bad
I'm not arguing for foot infantry here.
Rather dropping with ''medium'' infantry riding shit like Strykers, and just giving them light unarmored vehicles for transport. In US case, I think Stryker BCTs are useless.
>APCs have completely adequate survivability in their role as battle busses
They literally don't, see Ukraine.
>and will never be on the receiving end of artillery
Are you gonna drop off infantry 20km away from the frontline?
>APCs are not built to engage enemies
I understand that. So they can't engage enemies, they can't reasonably protect infantry on approach march, and they are significantly more expensive than some light transport option.
So what's their fucking use?

You're hinging your argument on the idea that modern artillery is exactly like artillery 50 years ago. It's not. Again, see Ukraine. It's the best example we have of mechanized combat between adversaries of (somewhat) similar capability. APCs and lightly armored IFVs are useless.

>But an unarmored tracked vehicle will always be cheaper than a tracked vehicle with some ineffective armor slapped on.
Well, we use a shit ton of unarmored tracked vehicles over here too. But they do not fulfill anywhere near the same role.

Also, the armor isn't "ineffective" against the sort of threat it's meant to resist, namely shrapnel and small arms.

>dispersed and camouflaged
Cool in theory but in practice it's not something that's easy to achieve with vehicles.
>It's a question of terrain, training quality and concealment, really.
So you're saying that in a terrain which is suited for mechanized warfare, APCs and lightly-armored IFVs are useless?
Because that's exactly my point.
>they've got all their vehicles bunched up in one spot and no camo nets at all
So you propose that battalion-sized units march while spread out over 20 square miles?

I think you are overestimating the impact training can have on mitigating losses to artillery. While it can decrease losses uparmoring is a far more reliable method of ensuring survivability.

If you look at the trend in APC developments, from M113 to Stryker to Boxer they have all added protection as the threats the face have increased. That trend is likely to continue.

Attached: Land 400.jpg (1200x676, 107K)

Again, we could see in Ukraine that modern artillery is incredibly effective.
Light protection is just not cost-effective. Better to give infantry even better mobility using cheaper vehicles, and give ''heavy'' infantry combat vehicles which can operate together with them.

That's the second point of my argument. Majority of modern IFVs which are in service are also very vulnerable. You need something like T-15 or Puma.

>They literally don't, see Ukraine.
But they do. What happened in Ukraine was Soviet IFVs, not APCs being deemed deprecated.
>Are you gonna drop off infantry 20km away from the frontline?
No, but drop them off well away from the enemy forward security outposts.
>So they can't engage enemies
Not reliably, of course not. They're APCs, not IFVs. Carriers, not fighters.
> they can't reasonably protect infantry on approach march
But they can. They require AT weaponry or autocannons to quickly and reliably take out and they provide protection from small fragments. They're more than enough to get troops from A to B.
>and they are significantly more expensive than some light transport option.
Yeah, but they protect the troops against small arms fire and fragments and can even provide fire support against weak enemy targets. If you're loading people into a truck, all it takes is a belt of 7.62 to wipe out a squad, while in an APC the enemy needs AT weapons.
>So what's their fucking use?
Transporting infantry with additional protection.
>You're hinging your argument on the idea that modern artillery is exactly like artillery 50 years ago. It's not. Again, see Ukraine.
What do you even mean with this? Elaborate, please, because this is not an argument against APCs, but rather an argument for them.
With more advanced fire control capabilities for artillery, it's far more important for vehicles to offer protection against indirect fires.
> APCs and lightly armored IFVs are useless.
No, they are not. You either do not understand what you've read, or you've read something utterly wrong.

>I think you are overestimating the impact training can have on mitigating losses to artillery.
It's situational, naturally, but when we're talking Ukraine and Syria, the fault is absolutely in their poor training and lack of dispersion. If you're keeping a ~50m dispersion between vehicles, etc. then you're not going to be seeing these casualty numbers.

Attached: 1532676749714.jpg (1920x1440, 306K)

Are we back to this? I argued why and how lighter armored vehicles are still useful in my previous post, and you even said "Okay, that's true".

I reiterate, yes they're more vulnerable now than 20 years ago but that doesn't mean they're useless.

>Soviet IFVs
Both IFVs and APCs. Units were often hit on approach marches.
Furthermore, I'm not sure why do you think Western IFVs have significantly better protection. Because they don't.
>No, but drop them off well away from the enemy forward security outposts.
Congratulations, they can be hit by artillery.
>They require AT weaponry or autocannons to quickly and reliably take out and they provide protection from small fragments.
They don't protect against modern artillery, which is using improved DPICM to a much higher degree than 30 or 40 years ago.

You can't offer them any protection, that's my point. So give light infantry light vehicles which means a lot better mobility, while heavy infantry gets IFVs with MBT-tier protection.
There is no place for medium Stryker-type infantry on modern mechanized battlefield.

>~50m dispersion
Look at that webm again, where are they going to find the space for a 50m dispersion? Its just not practical in many circumstances.

Advancing through geographical chokepoints, performing maintenance, rearming, there are many cases were armor is in artillery range but dispersal is not a practical option.

Attached: Russia_BMP-2_going_on_a_field_trip_to_Gerogia.jpg (3272x2092, 2.85M)

>Light protection is just not cost-effective.
It is. It provides protection on the move, which is what they're built for.
>Better to give infantry even better mobility using cheaper vehicles
No. The vehicles are better off having that light protection to defend against fragments and small arms fire. You haven't even argued against this point. You've just reiterated that modern artillery is effective, which didn't require the conflict in Ukraine to know.
>and give ''heavy'' infantry combat vehicles which can operate together with them.
This is a valid point, on the other hand. Modern "light" IFVs are highly vulnerable for what they're expected to do by many modern militaries. Heavier vehicles with APS capabilities will be if IFVs are to fight anywhere in the open.

>Both IFVs and APCs. Units were often hit on approach marches.
With what kind of dispersion?
>Furthermore, I'm not sure why do you think Western IFVs have significantly better protection. Because they don't.
Compared to BMPs, which suffered in Ukraine, they do, of course. Naturally modern Eastern equivalents like the T-15 have superior protection, as they've continued weapons development from the Cold War, which was generally frozen after the conflict ended.
>They don't protect against modern artillery, which is using improved DPICM to a much higher degree than 30 or 40 years ago.
Which is why dispersion is maintained to offer an unworthy target for enemy artillery and infantry is dismounted and dispersed, vehicles covered with multispectral camonets whenever movement stops. UAVs are the relevant threat here, but they are far from invulnerable. Any modern AA system will detect and destroy a slow-moving UAV surveilling a location.

>You can't offer them any protection, that's my point.
But you can. They protect against ordinary shells and small arms fire, which is what matters Light vehicles will just be as vulnerable, with minimal mobility benefits.

Attached: 1536073041447.jpg (1440x960, 376K)

>Look at that webm again, where are they going to find the space for a 50m dispersion?
Everywhere? Anywhere? They've stacked their vehicles next to a couple buildings like a bunch of morons. They could easily have spread them out and tried to hide them from airborne surveillance.
>Advancing through geographical chokepoints
Shouldn't be done.
>performing maintenance
Why couldn't you disperse your vehicles if you're maintaining them? Makes no sense to me.
>rearming
Why not?
> there are many cases were armor is in artillery range but dispersal is not a practical option
Bollocks. Dispersal outside of immediate combat is almost always an option. Concentration is only required for penetrating enemy defences.

Attached: 1529832419572.jpg (1920x1080, 139K)

>UAVs are the relevant threat here, but they are far from invulnerable. Any modern AA system will detect and destroy a slow-moving UAV surveilling a location.

Not that guy, but recon UAVs come in all sizes. They can be small and fly just above the treetops for example. They're a really big force multiplier and I think we'll see a rise in electronic warfare gear on tanks and whatever to deal with them.

>They can be small and fly just above the treetops for example
In which case the infantry can spot and shoot them. UAVs are a problem because they fly high enough to be quiet and unseen from the ground, where soldiers generally aren't prepared to combat them. They work against units without AA because of this, but if there's organic anti-air units, the drones will get dropped too fast for them to gain any relevant intel. This is generally why they've been somewhat devastating in Ukraine, Syria and Iraq. The troops fighting there have had no modern AA with them on the front, so the drones have been free to fly around and provide targets for artillery, or even drop shells by themselves.
>They're a really big force multiplier and I think we'll see a rise in electronic warfare gear on tanks and whatever to deal with them.
Yeah, definitely. Though any old radar / IR AA system is capable of defeating UAVs and the US specifically is developing systems to combat UAVs alone.

>Webm, maintenance, rearming
Manpower, time constraints.

Use the webm as an example, having your AFVs in a single place means less area that needs to be secured against ground threats. Where the SyAA parked their vehicles could be secured from a single building. If they had them all over the place they would need to be looking in every direction and would be facing a half-dozen buildings. Hardly practical for a group small enough to only have four AFVs.

>Shouldn't be done.
Sometimes it has to be done.

Both this pic and the previous one are from the 2008 War, where the entire Russian advance had to travel through a single tunnel. Maintaining a 50m length between vehicles would have slowed the advance to the point were they would not have had the ground power to fight the Georgians once they got there. A long, tightly packed column was the best bad option. These things happen in war.

Attached: Russia 2008 armor.jpg (1023x575, 72K)

>light vehicles are unusable because Ukraine was unable to respond to cross border rocket artillery fire

There are several layers of intellectual dishonesty here.

>In which case the infantry can spot and shoot them.
Well sure, same way a large high-altitude one can be easily shot down by anyone with any sort of decent AA. In that situation, the small low-altitude ones will live longer. What you really want to have is several classes of recon drones, everything from basically off the shelf ones with a webcam to the big turbine powered fuckers.

>Though any old radar / IR AA system is capable of defeating UAVs
Yeah you'll be able to shoot them down, but they just might have the time to get your location and bearing for an artillery or air strike first.

>Use the webm as an example, having your AFVs in a single place means less area that needs to be secured against ground threats.
Air threats / artillery >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground threats.
>Where the SyAA parked their vehicles could be secured from a single building. If they had them all over the place they would need to be looking in every direction and would be facing a half-dozen buildings. Hardly practical for a group small enough to only have four AFVs.
It is absolutely practical and what I would expect from a platoon of mechanized infantry. Bunching your vehicles up because it's convenient and doesn't require people pulling sentry duty is not an excuse. It's ineptitude and a lack of modern military training. Indirect fire is THE greatest threat and killer in modern conflicts.
>Both this pic and the previous one are from the 2008 War, where the entire Russian advance had to travel through a single tunnel. Maintaining a 50m length between vehicles would have slowed the advance to the point were they would not have had the ground power to fight the Georgians once they got there. A long, tightly packed column was the best bad option.
And the entire conflict is a fucking joke. A single tunnel and the Georgians didn't even manage to blow it up and in fact weren't even there to fight the Russians. This is Africa-tier incompetence.
> These things happen in war.
They do, but Caucasian fuckwits shouldn't be used as the basis for decisions in modern Western militaries.

>Yeah you'll be able to shoot them down, but they just might have the time to get your location and bearing for an artillery or air strike first.
True, which is why anti-drone capabilities will be far more important in the future. They need to be intercepted before they have time to loiter above target, especially if the area of operations has few trees.

>True, which is why anti-drone capabilities will be far more important in the future. They need to be intercepted before they have time to loiter above target, especially if the area of operations has few trees.

I'm picturing small drone-hunting drones, laser dazzler Protector stations and eyeball cooking tier EW vehicles

>Caucasian fuckwits shouldn't be used as the basis for decisions in modern Western militaries.
The US doesn't maintain perfect dispersal either.

Plenty of times in the 2003 and 1991 war we had long packed columns of AFVs or left them sitting together in an open field, see pic. Ignoring the experiences of other nations just because they are other nations is stupidity of the highest order.

Attached: USA_AAV-7_Parked in the open in Iraq.jpg (1728x1152, 218K)

American vehicle crewmen have a tendency to sit out in the open whenever they're doing joint military exercises in europe even today. Probably because they're used to complete air dominance and under equipped opponents

>The US doesn't maintain perfect dispersal either.
And the US is notoriously unprepared for modern conflicts against peer / near-peer foes. I've had the pleasure of training with US servicemen (finnfag) and I can tell you that while the individual US soldier / marine is quite capable indeed, on the higher, unit level, their performance is simply put, bad. Same applies for vehicles and their absolutely horrid performance in firing positions.

Attached: 1522326462397.jpg (944x960, 125K)

The vehicles will be in cover Im not saying that, but sometimes you either can’t find it or you need to push, which is where armor comes in more into play I would say.
Plus this whole manuever warfare seems a bit fishy to me, sure it sounds well in paper but I believe in a true conflict things would unravel differently

>With what kind of dispersion?
Again, what kind of dispersion are you imagining for units marching? It's just impractical to have any wide dispersion.
>It provides protection on the move
Not against modern artillery, is my point.
DPICM is used a lot. It's no longer ''fragments'' and ''shrapnel''.
>Heavier vehicles with APS capabilities will be if IFVs are to fight anywhere in the open.
Exactly.
Fair point but counter-battery is not perfect solution to modern artillery.
Apparently more emphasis was placed on conventional conflict since 2015. Don't know the results of that to be honest.


But to stick to subject, my idea is basically based on cost-effectiveness.
You drop stuff like Stryker/LAV/other bullshit, and you give such infantry unprotected vehicles.
Money you gain from that move, you invest it into equipping true mechanized infantry with highly protected IFVs which can stand up to anything MBT can stand up to.

OP, I agree.

APC's are outdated.

Modern APC's will continue to diverge into heavy-apcs such as some russian and Isreali designs. Current gen IFV's are assblasted by anything above mortars or machinegun fire with great ease.

I really think the best option is for future IFV's of our current doctrine to switch over into more open-topped designs. Since the armor protection is nigh worthless if you are directly being targeted, it makes sense to lose some of it.


Also, all you dummies who think things like strykers are well armored, no, stop. total meme. We need proper tracked, heavy IFV/ APC's.

Mobility is not just important for maneuver warfare. It's also important for positional warfare (think of it as seizing locations which give you advantage over enemy force), and also on a higher level (operational mobility).
To put it simply, you can use it to seize that urban area or cool defensive terrain faster than your opponent. In such environment, your light infantry is the boss.
Modern battlefield is quite empty and quite deadly. Battalions cover area which was once covered by divisions. In such conditions, mobility matters.

That’s definitely true, but the point I was wondering was:
Is having higher mobility to reach advantageous positions that much of a force multiplier to justify sacrificing protection?
I feel as if it’s situational depending on geography and other factors, while a heavily armored vehicle is basically the same in many other situations.
Moreover it’s not like APC are that much faster then MBT or heavy IFV, I think it’s just the cost.

>would you rather be in a vehicle that can be penetrated by 30mm or a vehicle that can be penetrated by 5.56

I bet you're one of those retards that think it was safer to be infantry than it was to be in a sherman

Attached: 1527113341558.jpg (1010x568, 130K)

I'm OP, so we basically agree.
However, you can't provide all your infantry with heavy IFVs. It's just not logistically or financially possible.
Light infantry is still useful IMO. It can excel in urban areas, difficult terrain, and it has superior operational mobility.

But for offensive mechanized warfare, you need heavy infantry, which fights together with heavy IFVs and tanks.

>Moreover it’s not like APC are that much faster then MBT or heavy IFV, I think it’s just the cost.
They aren't faster on a road (unless they're wheeled of course) but by virtue of being light, having decent power and low ground pressure they can go places the big ones can not. And cross worse bridges.

By light infantry do you mean "commando" type infantry or just regular joes without fancy gear?

Regular infantry.

Jesus christ, this fucking level of neverserved...

Though obviously you can give them some bite by equipping them with more heavy AT weapons on platoon/company level.
Heavy mechanized infantry would have tanks and IFVs so they don't need them that much.

Then I generally disagree. In urban areas, being armed to the teeth with grenades and rockets makes a huge difference. For difficult terrain with little armor or vehicle support, you don't want to be there at all unless you're a sneaky beaky jaeger with just the gear to complete a specific mission.

Serving in the military doesn't give you some arcane knowledge and most of soldiers are dumb idiots. Your ad hominem is ridiculous, try offering some arguments.

In Iraq the Bradley's and up-armored humvees were good, problem is the bombs they planted were better. If you come up with stronger vehicles they will start the standard placement of ied's with four 155 shells instead of two which would lead you again back to asking for a stronger vehicle.

In Iraq you didn't really need mobility more than humvees offered. When you needed something strong to carry a crew you had a bradley.

Bradleys and Humvees rolled together only we had to slow down because the bradleys only maxed out at like 35-40 mph.

>A light tracked or even wheeled vehicle will allow infantry even greater mobility.


In Iraq when you see how strong those bombs were mobility comes second. Priority is having something that can withstand the bombs IF you get hit but even better avoid the bombs to begin with.

No, but it at least gives you some basic insigth into how warfare works. Something that you obviously lack.

>Serving in the military doesn't give you some arcane knowledge and most of soldiers are dumb idiots

Yeah, and soccer players don't know soccer

I'm talking about mechanized warfare against near-peers. COIN is obviously something else.
Not necessarily, and I'm not that guy, and you still didn't offer a fucking argument.
"I served'' doesn't mean shit. Try again.

>Current gen IFV's are assblasted by anything above mortars or machinegun fire with great ease.

Name a single somewhat modern IFV that could be penetrated by any machinegun or anything but a direct hit from a guided mortar round.

How effective is slat armor that has been reintroduced in the last 15 years against infantry portable anti tank weapons?

Awful comparison and awful argument. I don't know if you're just trolling or you're insanely dumb.

Considering COIN is basically 95% of what we do these days, perhaps thats okay.

Not sure, but I'd wager it's cost effective against outdated AT rockets but useless against modern ones, especially top attack types.

>Not necessarily
Yes, yes it fucking does. How shit is your basic training if they dont even let you hold a rifle?

Did you get conscripted in Nigeria or some shit?

Fairly decent.

It gets damaged easily but works most of the time against light AT weapons.

Attached: slat armor.webm (854x480, 2.38M)

>top attack
Forgot about that. Suppose you could go full autismo and place a cage around the whole vehicle. I'd love to see it for the menes

No shit. 12.7mm fire will fuck up an APC. You're an idiot if you think otherwise. And obviously a direct hit with a mortar will be fucking it up bad, but anything bigger such as 122 to 150mm artillery will blow them the fuck apart in a barrage or disable them.

>basic turns you into Napoleon
Okay.

That's pretty fucking cool

You didn't serve either and you're shit is retarded and faggy. Stfu.

The m113 gavin is the best afv ever made you narcissistic leg.

Attached: 1418894208-m113-gavin.jpg (695x596, 153K)

Well, lets just say I'd hate to be the guy having to bail out from that rage cage

Attached: 2018-01-04 20-52-52_nosound.webm (728x410, 311K)

Did you even try to read my comment or are you too fucking retarded to follow a conversation too?

But just for you, ill type it again:
>No, but it at least gives you some basic insigth into how warfare works

Do you still think that I am wrong here?

>n-no u!!!!
Done five years, and currently on my sixth. Try again.

IFVs fill a role for medium tanks that can be used en masse, thus making the armor question pointless and only the gun really matters: they're basically modern day fireflies or churchills.

But the memes!
Based super gavin poster

why don't they make MANPAD-AT missiles that fly past the tank then flip around and hit them in their weak rear armor?

It doesn't give you shit you idiot. You aren't superior to someone who read shitload of books just because they taught you to shoot a rifle.
You fucking idiot.

Sad thing is, mike sparks has a handful of good ideas. He's just too much of an ass for anyone to take him seriously.

Neat post.

yeah, I'd rather go to war with someone who did basic training than someone who read a "shitload of books/magazines".

Come on, how can you not realize how genius it is to ride in an open topped vehicle on a modern fucking battlefield :^)

That's exactly what they fucking suck at

Top armor is virtually always the weakest, and rear attack mode would be completely useless from any angle but head on. I suppose one could imagine a far future missile with pattern recognition shit that can pinpoint aim the EFP at known weak points though

Dual MANPADS/ATGM designs have been tried by the Brits, they are not great at either task.

>yet another non-argument
You're one dumb motherfucker.

You're a workplace shooting in the making.

When the topic is how to do combat, beeing trained in combat is a pretty huge fucking deal user.

I had spent years reading about military history and technology, but I still had to challenge a lot of my ideas once I joined. Most things are far from as simple as the books and papers tell you.

Thinking of the starstreak or something else?

Side note: the NLAW should be able to handle close range helicopters extremely well