AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
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.

Again, though, an APC that's concentrating on "pick a route to the objective that isn't skylining me or exposing me to more enemy fire than I can avoid" will be less exposed, and hit less often, than an IFV working on "find a good firing position to get some rounds down".

Because the converse of that firepower, is that in the direct-fire battle, if you can see and shoot at me... you're exposed to return fire.

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?
Or be proper old-school and go back to Saxon?

Or, should the Challenger successor seat a section of infantry in the back for a one-vehicle-fits-all battlefield solution?

A lot of this is assumed, or asserted, or declared: it's scarily hard to find any evidence (from combat, from realistic exercises, from proper wargaming) and what there is, often doesn't flatter the IFV (it does well if the enemy's not very good... quelle surprise)
 
Again, though, an APC that's concentrating on "pick a route to the objective that isn't skylining me or exposing me to more enemy fire than I can avoid" will be less exposed, and hit less often, than an IFV working on "find a good firing position to get some rounds down".

Because the converse of that firepower, is that in the direct-fire battle, if you can see and shoot at me... you're exposed to return fire.


Or be proper old-school and go back to Saxon?

Or, should the Challenger successor seat a section of infantry in the back for a one-vehicle-fits-all battlefield solution?

A lot of this is assumed, or asserted, or declared: it's scarily hard to find any evidence (from combat, from realistic exercises, from proper wargaming) and what there is, often doesn't flatter the IFV (it does well if the enemy's not very good... quelle surprise)

You didn't answer the question I posed though about the cost/benefit calculation of an APC vs an armoured truck like Mastiff.
 
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.

The answer certainly isn’t HMG armed Boxers
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
You didn't answer the question I posed though about the cost/benefit calculation of an APC vs an armoured truck like Mastiff.

Do you need cross-country mobility? How much?

Is Mastiff able to cover the terrain, at similar speed, as the rest of the battlegroup? Is Boxer (for instance) better able to cover poor ground and maintain pace? And what's the impact on trafficability, of sticking a turreted 40mm gun on the back of the vehicle?

These are some of the questions to ask, before deciding if a protected truck (Saxon, Mastiff) is suitable: if an 8x8 wheeled Boxer APC or Stryker is better: or if you need your APC to be tracked (time to refurbish Bulldog again?)
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Likewise a knocked out APC will also lose you infantry.
That is not the point. IF it's an APC it will be avoiding direct fire engagement. If it's an IFV (at the marginal additional cost of 1/2 an MBT) it will seek out combat and it will take casualties, which will include the dismounts in the back.

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.
The are less vulnerable as they're smaller.
As the article pointed out a fair amount of the IFV's won't have anything to shoot at.
And if that's the case what's the marginal benefit of using Boxer to transport infantry vs something like Mastiff?
XC mobility for a start..
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
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?
Stabilizing a two man turret, plus sensors to see out to the 2,000m plus range of the turret weapons is the pricey bit. Very pricey.

HMG RWS needs not stabilisation, much less capable sensor suite and a heck of a lot less steel.
 
(...) 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). (...)
Canada has has LAV IIIs with mast mounted sensors for many years. They've been in service long enough that the older vehicles are being replaced by new ones. They've been abroad on a number of deployments.

There are reconnaissance vehicles with masts and ones without masts, with the latter being the majority. They serve different roles with the mast equipped ones I believe being mainly used in static (even if short term) observation positions while the ones without masts I believe are used in a more actively moving role.


Here's the older version of the Canadian LAV III with mast mounted sensors.

vbl3-lav3-jpg.592117


Here's the newer version. I don't have a photo with the mast extended. This has a different sensor package.
cf21a95f562c6d574c132203fc715631-jpg.592116
 
A platoon of APCs each advancing tactically but able to lay down. 50cal covering fire to dismounts, or bullet magnet IFVs struggling to shoot accurately while chargeing gallantly behind the tanks?
Which is no longer the case with the WCSP turret.

But if a platoon of Boxer's is moving tactically, why the hell isn't the Warrior platoon doing so? And a 30mm RARDEN and magic bullet chewing box will do more than just a GPMG. It may not be a great deal more, but it will do more.

Plus, I feel I have to ask this, but what are the APC's going to do against enemy light armour such as BMP's. The main reason the IFV was introduced was because we did the maths. IF a tank was the only anti-tank option available, then in the 1970's it was outnumbered 22 to one, and would have to work through all the BTR's after dealing with all the tanks. The FV432's were defenceless against the BTR's.
Same applies today. Tanks will be fighting their primary battle of fighting enemy armour. Whilst they're doing that your Boxer is in danger of getting blatted by some 1960's era BMP-1, and can't do squat about it.
 
Which is no longer the case with the WCSP turret.

But if a platoon of Boxer's is moving tactically, why the hell isn't the Warrior platoon doing so? And a 30mm RARDEN and magic bullet chewing box will do more than just a GPMG. It may not be a great deal more, but it will do more.

Plus, I feel I have to ask this, but what are the APC's going to do against enemy light armour such as BMP's. The main reason the IFV was introduced was because we did the maths. IF a tank was the only anti-tank option available, then in the 1970's it was outnumbered 22 to one, and would have to work through all the BTR's after dealing with all the tanks. The FV432's were defenceless against the BTR's.
Same applies today. Tanks will be fighting their primary battle of fighting enemy armour. Whilst they're doing that your Boxer is in danger of getting blatted by some 1960's era BMP-1, and can't do squat about it.
In the videos that I've seen the 25mm and 30mm guns on APC/IFVs in places such as Syria or Afghanistan were used to help deal with things like infantry with RPGs in buildings or with machine guns in good firing positions. The heavier projectile has better penetration into buildings than bullets and the explosive shell has more overall effect on targets that you may not be sure of the exact position of.

There were some good videos posted on the Syria thread showing how useful the 30mm guns were in urban fighting in areas with tall concrete buildings. They could suppress PRG teams so that the BMPs and tanks could move around instead of having to dismount infantry and clear the buildings methodically one by one.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
And has massively less effect...
Perhaps.
Now imagine the cost benefit analysis on equipping and Inf Pll. The same spend gets you
4 x APC plus 2 MBT or
4 IFV

The IFV and APC are tied to being wherever the infantry are. So the IFV cannon are not as available as the MBT, who need only be with the inf then the inf need them.

The MBT have the flexibility to be deployed wherever they can deliver most battlefield effect. In delivering that effect they're far less likely to be killed due to substantially more protection.

In straight firepower terms I would think 2x MBT main armament rather trumps 4 cannon
 
The IFV and APC are tied to being wherever the infantry are. So the IFV cannon are not as available as the MBT, who need only be with the inf then the inf need them.

The MBT is tied to wherever the infantry is as well! Combined arms and all that, look at how well the Russians are doing in their grand experiment of Non-Combined arms.
That means your tank can only move at the speed of the slowest infantry man, and if he's walking then your tanks are limited to 3mph. And they will be walking, as no matter how good Boxer is, when it gets muddy, or the enemy Atk threat becomes too severe, you can't deploy Boxers.

The MBT have the flexibility to be deployed wherever they can deliver most battlefield effect. In delivering that effect they're far less likely to be killed due to substantially more protection.

As I have argued, why not give the same level of protection to an IFV? We're nearly there anyway with all the crap we bolt on the outside, so why not internalise it as a proper efficient engineering solution?

In straight firepower terms I would think 2x MBT main armament rather trumps 4 cannon

Depends on your target. Against a Warlord army in a city, then two IFV's with programmable airburst auto-cannon are going to have more effect and more endurance than a similar MBT. Equally, the reverse applies. In both scenario's the non-optimal choice can be doing other stuff, and an IFV can do more things better than an APC.

Tanks and IFV's do separate jobs, and combined do a vastly better as a sum of their parts. Bit like your PC, one vehicle could be your RAM, the other your CPU. You can put a £1000's CPU in your PC with only 64k of RAM, but don't expect much from it.
Anyway with all this cost counting. What's the cost of a squad of infantry+an IFV, Vs an MBT, now calculate training costs as well.

Wars are come as you are events. The only thing that has been proven to work is Combined Arms. MBT's and IFV's working together with back up from APC's and Arty (and all the other stuff).
Losing one of them means we are a lot weaker in our effectiveness, and no longer 'punch above our weight' [*spit*].

At current people seem to be counting pennies to try and afford a mortgage.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
The MBT is tied to wherever the infantry is as well! Combined arms and all that, look at how well the Russians are doing in their grand experiment of Non-Combined arms.
That means your tank can only move at the speed of the slowest infantry man, and if he's walking then your tanks are limited to 3mph. And they will be walking, as no matter how good Boxer is, when it gets muddy, or the enemy Atk threat becomes too severe, you can't deploy Boxers.
Utter balls. MBT only turn up to inf when needed - i.e. when there is an assault or havy armoured target. If dismounts are out and walking then APC covers.
If enemy a/tk threat "becomes" to severe then mission analysis circumstances have changed so come up with a better plan.

As I have argued, why not give the same level of protection to an IFV? We're nearly there anyway with all the crap we bolt on the outside, so why not internalise it as a proper efficient engineering solution?
Sure, theyres plenty of room for 15 plus tons of Chobham on an atlread 40 ton vehcile. This is the genius thinking that turned ASCOD into AJAX.

Tanks and IFV's do separate jobs, and combined do a vastly better as a sum of their parts
No Sh1t sherlock. So what?
Part of the British Army's problem is that many in infantry don't get combined arms warfare. Hence lavinging sums on an (arguably) ill conceived IFV at the cost of MBT.

Against a Warlord army in a city, then two IFV's with programmable airburst auto-cannon are going to have more effect and more endurance than a similar MBT.
No they're not. Enduance the same. Firepower massively more in MBT. Protection massively more in MBT.

ETA I rarely issue a dumb and generally regard your posts as ones to read. Hopefully this is the exception to the rule.
 
Perhaps.
Now imagine the cost benefit analysis on equipping and Inf Pll. The same spend gets you
4 x APC plus 2 MBT or
4 IFV

The IFV and APC are tied to being wherever the infantry are. So the IFV cannon are not as available as the MBT, who need only be with the inf then the inf need them.

The MBT have the flexibility to be deployed wherever they can deliver most battlefield effect. In delivering that effect they're far less likely to be killed due to substantially more protection.

In straight firepower terms I would think 2x MBT main armament rather trumps 4 cannon
can I point out a small flaw there

You cost analysis only works as far as purchase cost goes, operating costs and manning are going to be substantially higher in the 2nd scenario and so I humbly submit your options are 4 Ifv vs 4 APC + 2 MBT that will be hoofed in the next defence review at which point perhaps the 4 IFV are a sounder investment
 
Perhaps.
Now imagine the cost benefit analysis on equipping and Inf Pll. The same spend gets you
4 x APC plus 2 MBT or
4 IFV
This is true, but now you have to get 50% more vehicles to the battlefield, keep them crewed, fuelled and maintained.
Query: Is an APC that much cheaper than an IFV?
IFV purchases seem to come in at £/$/€10m each, Boxers are around £/$/€5m each, a recent Polish buy for 70 turrets was €5m apiece, Warrior 2 was in the region of £5m each.
 
No they're not. Enduance the same. Firepower massively more in MBT. Protection massively more in MBT.
Elevation massively less in an MBT, Protection equally compromised by threats at all points in an MBT.
The larger gun in an MBT isn't going to have any effect on enemy on the fifth floor if it can't elevate past the third.
The frontal array on an MBT isn't going to have any effect on an RPG through the roof.
An MBT has one or two dozen rounds that will be effective against urban targets, an IFV usually has one or two hundred.
Part of the British Army's problem is that many in infantry don't get combined arms warfare. Hence lavinging sums on an (arguably) ill conceived IFV at the cost of MBT.
I was under the impression that the IFV was in recognition that there were going to be a certain number of vehicles in the field so they might as well all be useful in as broad a range of combat situations as possible.

Going back to the article which prompted all this discussion, there won't be any more money for tanks as a result of cancelling Warrior 2, because it's already been spent on a lot of Boxers, most of which are not APCs

Lastly, I'm sure you can make your points without being a twit, so how about giving that a go?
 
Top