AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
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
The crew costs (by far the biggest component) are neutral - 2x 2 man turrets = 1 MBT crew.

Whether mint costs of 2xMBT = maint cost of 4 turrets is an open question and it could well be that the cost of the APC/MBT option is higher.

But it's nothing compared to the cost of having flawed doctrine and flawed equipment. Coming 2nd in a battle is very expensive,
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
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.
Odd that the IDF. who have substantial and prolonged experience of urban combat with armour, seem to have declined the option of an IFV.

Hitting the 5th floor is possible unless you're too close. Standing off and therefore enabling your weaponry to be used to its best effect is the way to go.
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.
That was the sales pitch...
Lastly, I'm sure you can make your points without being a twit, so how about giving that a go?
Doing my best. It may well not be good enough, but I'm trying.
 
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.
So, as I said, why not go for a HIFV?

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.

You're operating from an infantry centric POV, that was my point. Infantry set the running, tanks support that. But in your original post, you stated if the Infantry don't need tanks, then they don't show up. So what are the tanks doing? Sitting behind the lines having a brew and feet up? Bit of a waste of a major comabt asset?

No they're not. Enduance the same. Firepower massively more in MBT. Protection massively more in MBT.
Again, thank you for stating the case for a HIFV, protection the same on both.

As to endurance. WCSP has ~70rnds as reported by some twitter accounts. However, it is a upgrade, so can be seen as likely a bit sub-optimal from the design side, but again a HIFV would be able to carry more. In the next Generation of MBT's you're looking at much bigger guns, such as the 130mm. This is going to lower the ammount of ammo carried even further than Cr3's 30 odd shots. This means the next generation the disparity in rounds carried is going to be even bigger. supporting infantry to clear buildings isn't what an MBT is good at due to design decisions taken. Sure it can do it, but it's a lot of wasted capacity. However, an IFV is perfectly suited to the role.

 
Hitting the 5th floor is possible unless you're too close. Standing off and therefore enabling your weaponry to be used to its best effect is the way to go.
Fine if you have the space to stand off, but it isn't always possible in urban (or mountainous*) areas.

Odd that the IDF. who have substantial and prolonged experience of urban combat with armour, seem to have declined the option of an IFV.
It is indeed. I wonder what their reasons for it are? They do at least have a number of high elevation MGs Also odd that the IDF are the only people who've gone for an APC with the same protection as the MBT. And they've tested it with an autocannon turret.

That's another thing; these days unmanned turrets can be mounted on top of APCs without compromising the number of dismounts, provided a couple of assumptions.

*which, as I understand it, was the rationale for the BMP2's higher elevation
 

QRK2

LE
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.

Of relevance.


"Apart from artillery, the weapon singled out most for its effectiveness in the RUSI report was the 30mm autocannon. This weapon is fitted to Russian armoured vehicles such as the BMP-3 and BTR-82A. It proved to be very effective, and combined with sheer weight of numbers, allowed the Russians to advance despite stiff Ukrainian resistance."
 
Of relevance.


"Apart from artillery, the weapon singled out most for its effectiveness in the RUSI report was the 30mm autocannon. This weapon is fitted to Russian armoured vehicles such as the BMP-3 and BTR-82A. It proved to be very effective, and combined with sheer weight of numbers, allowed the Russians to advance despite stiff Ukrainian resistance."

That article was on the FRES2 thread exactly 2 months ago, and the effectiveness of the 30mm autocannon was noted then. Here's the start of that discussion:
The discussion then goes on for a couple of pages, with the following I think adding some important points:


One point made was that while brassing up a BMP is worth doing when the opportunity presents itself, that's not the primary purpose of the 25/30mm gun. So, we shouldn't go down the rabbit hole of wanting ever bigger guns as IFVs get heavier.

Another point is that Canada sold the LAV III to a large number of buyers and everyone of them aside from the US Army took the 25mm gun option, and even the latter are retrofitting their existing vehicles with 30mm guns. A great many countries seem to think it's a good idea.
 
The crew costs (by far the biggest component) are neutral - 2x 2 man turrets = 1 MBT crew.

Whether mint costs of 2xMBT = maint cost of 4 turrets is an open question and it could well be that the cost of the APC/MBT option is higher.
Its not though is it
Boxer 2 + 8 Dismounts
Warrior 3 +7 Dismounts

Its 10 bodies either way

Edit to add and since the APC has a crewman for its turret / rws/ commanders MG even if it was 3+8 you would still only be adding 1 MBT crew worth of men per platoon (4 IFV) over a basic APC platoon



But it's nothing compared to the cost of having flawed doctrine and flawed equipment. Coming 2nd in a battle is very expensive,
 
Last edited:
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.


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.

XC mobility for a start..
Why are you ignoring the ability of the dismounts to errrr dismount during an assault? An IFV is meant to support dismounted infantry, not operate as a light tank with 8 useless and vulnerable souls in the back.

There is no downside to having a potent auto cannon and sensors other than the cost of the weapon. The logistical and support train is marginally more, but not as much as the cost of being caught in an engagement with the ubiquitous BMP or BTR with no reply.
 
Last edited:

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
I like the way they had to paint one end a different colour so it wasn't plonked on/in the 'plane back to front.
It doesn’t matter much which way it goes in the ‘plane, as long as it hits the ground pointy end first!
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Why are you ignoring the ability of the dismounts to errrr dismount during an assault? And IFV is meant to support dismounted infantry, not operate as a light tank with 8 useless and vulnerable souls in the back.
I'm not, and I agree entirely that the role of the IFV is to support its dismounts, who will likely be close to it.

What support do they need? A bit of (mildly more) protected firepower in a within a few hundred metres? Depression angle becomes important - probably more important than range.

Anti tank / Anti armour - the dismounts have NLAW which is likely more effective than 30mm / 40mm

OF course, the vehicle is vulnerable. Given finite weight, if you want more protection (including APS) you need to lose weight. If you want APS (and you' would be mad not to) then you need to save some cost too.

Love the phrase "not operate as light tank with 8 vulnerable souls in the back" but that is precisely what will happen if the turret is uses in anything other than assault / fight through.
 
I'm not, and I agree entirely that the role of the IFV is to support its dismounts, who will likely be close to it.

What support do they need? A bit of (mildly more) protected firepower in a within a few hundred metres? Depression angle becomes important - probably more important than range.

Anti tank / Anti armour - the dismounts have NLAW which is likely more effective than 30mm / 40mm

OF course, the vehicle is vulnerable. Given finite weight, if you want more protection (including APS) you need to lose weight. If you want APS (and you' would be mad not to) then you need to save some cost too.

Love the phrase "not operate as light tank with 8 vulnerable souls in the back" but that is precisely what will happen if the turret is uses in anything other than assault / fight through.

I think what you are arguing for is the right sort of IFV (relatively light but with decent protection), and used appropriately to support dismounted infantry, rather than arguing against the IFV itself as part of a combined arms unit that includes 120mm as backup.

I’m no expert but from what I have seen in Ukraine I would advocate for vastly more IFVs (that can also be used in recce, armed with auto-cannon and ATGM), more tanks, and MRAPs as the primary infantry-transport unit rather than Boxer.
 
Round and round the Army goes, missing multiple opportunities to actually do anything.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
I love the list of projects that guy was involved in that he includes at the bottom of his screed.

Correct me if I am wrong, but every single one of them was a disastrous, embarrassing failure, weren't they?
So he should have a better understanding of the problems and what is required. Success breeds complacency.

What I think is more interesting is his discussion of what remain theoretical use cases, ignoring the increasing evidence that a) mostly this has never happened despite various countries having had these platforms for thirty years, and b) increasingly the cases when it has happened (Nagorno, Ukraine) have resulted in massive losses to the armoured forces from cheaper, easier countermeasures.

Tanks I understand. Either IFV's or APC's effectively remove all the advantages of infantry and instead turn them into crap tanks. Perhaps infantry just don't belong in any kind of fighting vehicle anywhere close to a target, because then they aren't infantry.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
A couple of things, here.

Warrior has been used over the years for far, far more than the run-in over ground in concert with CR2 to deliver screaming, aggressive types with SA80 and bayonet. It's been used for many other tasks, often being the primary source of firepower - and protection for which, with the various armour packages such as WRAP 2, it turns out to be rather good.

Not every threat is APFSDS or top attack (thankfully).

The question is whether that capability has to be tracked - oh, and Bulldog turns out to have been rather useful. Who knew, eh? An armoured box with an RWS.

FV432. The beast that will not die.

For a lot of the, shall we say, policing actions, wheels make sense. Greater mobility, less maintenance-heavy. Hence why the French have wheeled assets - sub-Saharan Africa is a big place, and tracks make less sense there. Using the French as an example of what we should do is wrong. Different needs, different solution.

That said, I still think we need a tracked slab to deliver hooliganry.

More and more, I err towards Namer.

@Listy, in his excellent book, notes that giving the same levels of protection to the PBI as the armoured types was looked at backaways and then discounted. Well, Namer delivers that. And, although there is a turreted version, an RWS was seen as enough to begin with.

Now, two things:

As OP, you lot are ruining my thread.

and

I have a crushing hangover, so if you're going to argue, do it quietly.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Of relevance.


"Apart from artillery, the weapon singled out most for its effectiveness in the RUSI report was the 30mm autocannon. This weapon is fitted to Russian armoured vehicles such as the BMP-3 and BTR-82A. It proved to be very effective, and combined with sheer weight of numbers, allowed the Russians to advance despite stiff Ukrainian resistance."
Yes. That weapon is truly feared.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Round and round the Army goes, missing multiple opportunities to actually do anything.
Indeed. And how crushingly depressing the situation is.

Ultimately, we are attempting to be different to our peers. The elephant in the room is money. The solutions are obvious, but too much time and money has been wasted, so now people are trying to be clever.

They're failing.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Warrior has been used over the years for far, far more than the run-in over ground in concert with CR2 to deliver screaming, aggressive types with SA80 and bayonet. It's been used for many other tasks, often being the primary source of firepower - and protection for which, with the various armour packages such as WRAP 2, it turns out to be rather good.
This is fair enough, but that isn't the argument. For example, because everyone has seen the film - an uparmoured Humvee as protection for Mogadishu or Basra style situations, operating on its own, makes a lot of sense. We already have or are procuring various types of these, from Boxer to Mastiff.

But the discussion is about infantry vehicles in a combined arms armoured group, in an armoured battle. That is a very different case - one where, for example, you can expect plenty of AT ordenance flying around for which infantry vehicles make a much weaker target than tanks, and which the firer knows they will kill twice the number of soldiers. As Ukraine has shown, where a force understands that killing enemy soldiers has as much psychological and political impact as destroying key platforms, that becomes a real strategy. Given the western attitude to losing soldiers, any force with an AT weapon facing us would be shrewd to hit the infantry vehicle and run, rather than take chances against the tank. It might not win the engagement, but it would arguably win the war.

So, sure - for the context it wasn't intended, Warrior did great. In the same way, Javelins were great at deleting houses. But Javelins are also great at deleting tanks. The unanswered question is whether Warrior (or the successor) works in the context for which it is intended.
 
Top