AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
A bit of overkill now we've seen how good Russian tank design is.
Screenshot 2022-08-05 at 12.19.12.png
 
The question is what impact the fire of the Warriors have. Given the increasing availability of guided indirect fire is a 30mm or (if it could be made to work at reasonable cost, which it seems it can't) 40mm have.
If you want more firepower the answer is more tanks.
If you're asking what happens if you place a 40mm shell exactly where you want it compared with a 120mm shell exactly where you want it, then the 40mm shell obviously wins out. If you want to compare the time taken and the effect of putting a 40mm shell downrange at a target you can see with talking an accompanying tank onto target then the answer will be different*. Then consider how many tanks and APCs equals how many tanks and IFVs?

After that you might consider the difference between one 120mm shell against three or four 40mm arriving in quick succession, and how that might affect the neighbouring section who has already dismounted and is assaulting a nearby objective

With more drones spotting for the enemy or attacking directly, we might find that autocannon with appropriate sensors, fire control and ammunition are what we need to counter that.

Or say you've got fire coming from a residential building that your battlegroup is passing do you level it or suppress it?

* and different again when you compare the 40mm shell fired directly vs requesting a precision guided indirect shell from an artillery piece some tens of kilometres away, at the same time as everyone else in your battlegroup doing the same thing.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
If you're asking what happens if you place a 40mm shell exactly where you want it compared with a 120mm shell exactly where you want it, then the 40mm shell obviously wins out. If you want to compare the time taken and the effect of putting a 40mm shell downrange at a target you can see with talking an accompanying tank onto target then the answer will be different*. Then consider how many tanks and APCs equals how many tanks and IFVs?

After that you might consider the difference between one 120mm shell against three or four 40mm arriving in quick succession, and how that might affect the neighbouring section who has already dismounted and is assaulting a nearby objective

With more drones spotting for the enemy or attacking directly, we might find that autocannon with appropriate sensors, fire control and ammunition are what we need to counter that.

Or say you've got fire coming from a residential building that your battlegroup is passing do you level it or suppress it?

* and different again when you compare the 40mm shell fired directly vs requesting a precision guided indirect shell from an artillery piece some tens of kilometres away, at the same time as everyone else in your battlegroup doing the same thing.
There's a difference between self defence / suppression and attaaking options.

On what planet does it make sense to risk the lives of the rare dismounts in a lightly armoured vehicle by exposing them to direct fire engagements? That, surely, is the thrust of the article.

The best protection is to not get into a firefight unless there is no alternative
 
Plenty of other armies manage the latter. There's an ASCOD with an MMS; the Canadians fielded an OPV version of the LAV III (although Google images is not being kind to me right now).
And how many of them have brought a MMS into service?

Off the top of my head I can only think of two countries that have fitted MMS', The Fenek and the Jaguar. Both are different beasts to the Ajax, and come from different requirements and ways of operating.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
And how many of them have brought a MMS into service?

Off the top of my head I can only think of two countries that have fitted MMS', The Fenek and the Jaguar. Both are different beasts to the Ajax, and come from different requirements and ways of operating.
Really? Fennek is a Ferret for the modern age.
 
There's a difference between self defence / suppression and attaaking options.

On what planet does it make sense to risk the lives of the rare dismounts in a lightly armoured vehicle by exposing them to direct fire engagements? That, surely, is the thrust of the article.

The best protection is to not get into a firefight unless there is no alternative
I think that it's worth acknowledging that you don't always get a say in how or where direct fire engagements involving your vehicles happen.
Having a bit of organic firepower is a way of making sure that these engagements either don't happen, don't last as long or the enemy fire is less effective.

The we must consider that sometimes you are going to deliberately expose your APCs to direct fire engagements.
If you are advancing on an enemy position you're in a direct fire engagement.
If you are crossing exposed terrain you're potentially in a direct fire engagement.

If you buy APCs vs IFVs, you're saving the cost of a turret, perhaps half the vehicle cost. MBTs cost about the same as IFVs, so you get one MBT extra for every two IFVs you swap for an APC. But then you have to consider the logistic costs of getting 50% more vehicles to where they are needed, crewed and fuelled. And you are losing a weapon type from your formation so you've limited your ability to engage as wide a range of enemy targets.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
I think that it's worth acknowledging that you don't always get a say in how or where direct fire engagements involving your vehicles happen.
Having a bit of organic firepower is a way of making sure that these engagements either don't happen, don't last as long or the enemy fire is less effective.

The we must consider that sometimes you are going to deliberately expose your APCs to direct fire engagements.
If you are advancing on an enemy position you're in a direct fire engagement.
If you are crossing exposed terrain you're potentially in a direct fire engagement.

If you buy APCs vs IFVs, you're saving the cost of a turret, perhaps half the vehicle cost. MBTs cost about the same as IFVs, so you get one MBT extra for every two IFVs you swap for an APC. But then you have to consider the logistic costs of getting 50% more vehicles to where they are needed, crewed and fuelled. And you are losing a weapon type from your formation so you've limited your ability to engage as wide a range of enemy targets.
Fair points BUT:

1) IF you're doing an assault you will have indirect fire support and overwatch. Indirect fire is now far more lethal against a static position.
2) If you're crossing open ground yes you're at risk. So lead with a protected vehicle with a small crew, not an less protected IFV with an infantry section in the back.
3) I think your economics are about right. But an IFV cant be sufficiently armoured to survive a hit. So the choice is put a very expensive turret on an unpredictable vehicle and pray that it will be alright on the night OR keep the precious dismounts as protected as possible and procure a better protected and more powerful system for doing the direct fire stuff.

This is NOT ad hominem, but there does seem to be a part of the infantry whose solution to all arms warfare is to put everything under command of the infantry while bolting every conceivable system onto an IFV. It doesn't work (done the OA), costs a fortune and is not value for the tax payer - not least because every £ squandered on purchasing over gucci vehicles is a £ that isn't available to train people to use them.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
This assumes your enemy has no say in the matter.
Not really -of course there are times when you are going to get caught out. But the overall best solution might be to pop smoke get out of it, rather than double the cost of the vehicle to cover those rare occasions (if they're not rare spend money on learning to read a map and practice using ground).

And if course if the nasty enemy shows up with a tank your IFV cannon is unlikely to solve your problem
 
Not really -of course there are times when you are going to get caught out. But the overall best solution might be to pop smoke get out of it, rather than double the cost of the vehicle to cover those rare occasions (if they're not rare spend money on learning to read a map and practice using ground).

And if course if the nasty enemy shows up with a tank your IFV cannon is unlikely to solve your problem

But you might not have a choice but to fight. As the Ukraine conflict has shown, you can be engaged from any direction and with just about any weapon. Flexibility is important.

We have also seen numerous reports from Ukraine that the 30mm cannon has been incredibly effective in urban assaults, as well as in more open terrain. This is before you consider an auto-cannon’s use as an anti-drone or anti-helicopter weapon, or the turret’s sensors for reconnaissance (after infantry has dismounted). There’s the famous video of the BTR-4 killing a T-72 in Mariupol!

There is a very interesting point to be discussed about the economics of IFV vs APC. I do think that you are not considering another option. Rather than replacing IFVs with more, cheaper APCs, perhaps we should consider replacing expensive APCs like Boxer with far cheaper MRAPs in the “battle taxi” role.
 
There is a very interesting point to be discussed about the economics of IFV vs APC. I do think that you are not considering another option. Rather than replacing IFVs with more, cheaper APCs, perhaps we should consider replacing expensive APCs like Boxer with far cheaper MRAPs in the “battle taxi” role.

Query: Is an APC that much cheaper than an IFV?

The expensive bit is the electronics. As you'll have the same radio in either, and one assumes an optically aimed and controlled HMG on your APC, is there really going to be that much difference between the two cost wise?
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
But you might not have a choice but to fight. As the Ukraine conflict has shown, you can be engaged from any direction and with just about any weapon. Flexibility is important.

We have also seen numerous reports from Ukraine that the 30mm cannon has been incredibly effective in urban assaults, as well as in more open terrain. This is before you consider an auto-cannon’s use as an anti-drone or anti-helicopter weapon, or the turret’s sensors for reconnaissance (after infantry has dismounted). There’s the famous video of the BTR-4 killing a T-72 in Mariupol!

There is a very interesting point to be discussed about the economics of IFV vs APC. I do think that you are not considering another option. Rather than replacing IFVs with more, cheaper APCs, perhaps we should consider replacing expensive APCs like Boxer with far cheaper MRAPs in the “battle taxi” role.

The weapon being useful, doesn't necessarily mean that every infantry vehicle needs one.

Do you really want to combine the sensors, stabilised gun (and other weapons - surely you need ATGM too?), stowed munitions et cetera with a slimmed-down section of maybe six troops in a single vehicle? Or - for a casual example - if your infantry are riding in three simpler APCs (no big turret, just a RWS, with room for nine in each wagon) with a fourth vehicle in the platoon having the same chassis, but with turret, ammo, et cetera instead of seats for soldiers?

It does keep coming back to every knocked-out IFV (and they will get knocked out if they're pushing up into the direct-fire battle) loses you a section of infantry.
 
The weapon being useful, doesn't necessarily mean that every infantry vehicle needs one.

Do you really want to combine the sensors, stabilised gun (and other weapons - surely you need ATGM too?), stowed munitions et cetera with a slimmed-down section of maybe six troops in a single vehicle? Or - for a casual example - if your infantry are riding in three simpler APCs (no big turret, just a RWS, with room for nine in each wagon) with a fourth vehicle in the platoon having the same chassis, but with turret, ammo, et cetera instead of seats for soldiers?

It does keep coming back to every knocked-out IFV (and they will get knocked out if they're pushing up into the direct-fire battle) loses you a section of infantry.
Perhaps what's needed is a greater acceptance that you WILL lose a lot of infantry, whichever bus they're in, during opposed attacks?
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Query: Is an APC that much cheaper than an IFV?
"It depends."
The expensive bit is the electronics. As you'll have the same radio in either, and one assumes an optically aimed and controlled HMG on your APC, is there really going to be that much difference between the two cost wise?

You'll build and fit a RWS for GPMG/HMG, and the sensors to support it (~2km range or so) for a lot less than a turret for a stabilised 30-40mm cannon, often with ATGM.

You also hit the issue that if you want to move a battalion of infantry, you need more IFVs than APCs (since you can get more troops in the back of the APC...) which either bumps up your costs, or drags down the numbers of dismounts.
 
You also hit the issue that if you want to move a battalion of infantry, you need more IFVs than APCs (since you can get more troops in the back of the APC...) which either bumps up your costs, or drags down the numbers of dismounts.

I challenge you to get two squads in the back of a Boxer. Indeed both Warrior and boxer seem to have the same compliment of 10.
 
The weapon being useful, doesn't necessarily mean that every infantry vehicle needs one.

Do you really want to combine the sensors, stabilised gun (and other weapons - surely you need ATGM too?), stowed munitions et cetera with a slimmed-down section of maybe six troops in a single vehicle? Or - for a casual example - if your infantry are riding in three simpler APCs (no big turret, just a RWS, with room for nine in each wagon) with a fourth vehicle in the platoon having the same chassis, but with turret, ammo, et cetera instead of seats for soldiers?

It does keep coming back to every knocked-out IFV (and they will get knocked out if they're pushing up into the direct-fire battle) loses you a section of infantry.

Likewise a knocked out APC will also lose you infantry.

I guess my question is; do you use APCs at all in an assault alongside MBT and IFVs? If so, they are just as vulnerable as an IFV but are unarmed so you take less firepower into the battle.
Or do they not take part in the assault? And if that's the case what's the marginal benefit of using Boxer to transport infantry vs something like Mastiff?
 
Top