Jump to content

Why do most IFVs lack ATGMs?


Recommended Posts

Stryker, since that one has the higher ROF.

.50 cal. If you don't know where the rounds are coming from, your best bet is to get a lot going back in the other direction.

Just so. In most circumstances ROF will trump the king hit.

Win the firefight with high ROF, then destroy the enemy.

Agree with this.

and this:

Extend that scenario.

RPGs start flying, but this time imagine the first round hits! Would you rather the round hit Stryker's slat cage or BMP-3's ammo magazine? For two decades a great deal of expense and effort has gone into moving ammo and fuel away from the vehicle occupants. Big guns and lots of missiles might be very handy mounted on an accompanying support vehicle (MGS). In the actual troop transport it sounds like a tragedy waiting to happen.

We've got to nail down the purpose of the vehicle. Is it safely tranporting troops? Is it providing infantry support? If its both one of those roles is going to get compromised.

This last fact never used to translate in game so well, but I've noticed of recent patches you don't quite lose an entire squad to a single RPG-7 anymore. =P

The fact is these vehicles, the Stryker in particular, was designed for MOUT operations. It's not really designed to do the role of mech forces.

In MOUT/Ambush situations, good luck even getting the barrel of a BMP to effectively traverse into the right position to fire, let alone using an ATGM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh, I'd still take the Stryker. Forgetting about its other positive attributes (like 65mph road speed ;)) the other things noted above give the Stryker an overall edge. An RPG hit on a Stryker or a BMP-3 is likely going to a bad thing. The BMP-3 is not a Bradley, which has a better chance of shrugging off a hit. As for outgoing firepower, oh sure... if I could have all that firepower without any downsides (like a small penetration to the center hull is likely a catastrophic kill due to the ammo) that would be great. But there are huge downsides, such as the amount of time it takes for the squad to dismount from a BMP-3 vs. a Stryker.

Cuirassier's point about the weapon mattering more than the passenger considerations isn't shared by the guys who have ridden in both a Stryker and a Bradley :) Regardless, for a vehicle which is primarily designed to move infantry around and get them into the thick of combat, passenger considerations should be the primary concern. Everything else should be designed around that purpose, not around the weapon. That's what you do for purpose built weapons platforms, like tanks and offensive vehicles like Stryker MGS.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it is all relative. 40 years ago accepted casualty rate was a lot higher. These days compared to a 100mm HE round shot at a building with enemy .50 cal isn't that effective at keeping the enemy suppressed.

You realize there are units out there that operate with only 7.62 MMGs and 60mm mortars as their upper-tier of fire support and find this to be sufficient for their needs? Certainly they don't turn away extra (uparmored Humvees, larger mortars, arty, etc) but the light infantry can and do get by with nothing more than fraction of firepower that Stryker units possess.

At least in the game I don't see such effect.

The way CMSF works, if you aren't actually generating casualties, you're being short-changed on effectiveness. Steve actually mentioned that in a recent post when I brought up, for gameplay reasons the morale modelling leans towards hold-at-all costs instead of more realistic, but less decisive combat. I understand it from their standpoint, but it's slightly frustrating when people try to equate the game with real life. It also makes all-infantry forces less... not really less effective, but they need more help than they otherwise would.

EDIT: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1133747&postcount=18 -- the post I mentioned

I think the firepower of a vehicle is much more important than its carrying capacity, road speed, armor, etc.

Then we'd just roll tanks everywhere. Taken even further in the extreme (since you said firepower over armor), we wouldn't even roll tanks, we'd roll SP arty. For an IFV, yeah, firepower and protection took precedence. Then we realized there were times when you'd need infantry mounted, but also able to "hold their own" once dismounted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Case in point, has anyone seen the Thunder Run video of the tanks going into Baghdad in 2003?

At one point, the tank with the camera on it stops to an immediate halt, spins the turret around, and starts blasting an RPG ambush team with 50cal (to their 9:00 or so, and about 15 meters out).

If the law of a "bigger gun is always better" was true, they would have used the main gun. But instead they used 50cal, given the close proximity, ROF, etc etc....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the law of a "bigger gun is always better" was true, they would have used the main gun. But instead they used 50cal, given the close proximity, ROF, etc etc....

Here:

At 5:53 of this version of it, you hear the TC engaging a technical with his rifle, then the gunner gets the turret around lights it up with the coax, with spectacular effect. Generally they'll use main in CMSF, almost always a sabot round for some reason.

At 6:54 is the close encounter of the RPG kind. It was the coax rather than the 50cal, I believe at this point in the Thunder Run their 50cal was down (either out of ammo or irreparably jammed) and at any rate, the 50cal couldn't depress enough to hit the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here:

At 5:53 of this version of it, you hear the TC engaging a technical with his rifle, then the gunner gets the turret around lights it up with the coax, with spectacular effect. Generally they'll use main in CMSF, almost always a sabot round for some reason.

At 6:54 is the close encounter of the RPG kind. It was the coax rather than the 50cal, I believe at this point in the Thunder Run their 50cal was down (either out of ammo or irreparably jammed) and at any rate, the 50cal couldn't depress enough to hit the team.

Ah right, been a while since I've seen it. I'm still impressed at their spotting there (I can't really make out the team in the video). If that was CMSF the tank would have driven obliviously past ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah right, been a while since I've seen it. I'm still impressed at their spotting there (I can't really make out the team in the video). If that was CMSF the tank would have driven obliviously past ;)

TC was turned out. Do the same in CM:SF and your short and medium range spotting goes way, way, way up. It also causes the infantry you haven't spotted to pepper your track with small arms and generally resulting in a 3 man crew for your Abrams.

YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TC was turned out. Do the same in CM:SF and your short and medium range spotting goes way, way, way up. It also causes the infantry you haven't spotted to pepper your track with small arms and generally resulting in a 3 man crew for your Abrams.

YMMV.

Yeah. I generally find it's not worth it in CM:SF. In fact, it's generally not worth sending tanks anywhere without sending infantry in first.

IRL seems to be a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every IFV does not need heavy weaponry like 100mm cannons. It is there to bring up the infantry under armourer cover then provide a base of fire to surpress the enemy infantry teams while the dismounts move into assault at close range. If you want something to fight a tank get another tank! Plus i doubt that the low velocity 100mm has that much oomph to go through much and the AT-10 Stabber suffers from alot of the same problems the MGM-51 Shillelagh did.

Again looking at the British army (we are the best dont ya know :P) we got rid of the scorpion CVR(T) and replaced it with Scimitar. Going from the L23A1 76 mm gun to 30mm RARDEN automatic cannon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. I generally find it's not worth it in CM:SF. In fact, it's generally not worth sending tanks anywhere without sending infantry in first.

IRL seems to be a different story.

Well seems to depent from few things. One pretty good case which i read about was done as refreshing training for reserve officers on how to fight against mechaniced enemy with company of mech infantry and tank platoon. Done with latest simulatorequipment enabling use of arty and mines.

Example 1: Inf platoon formed hasty defense positions. Task: To halt and repel mech company with CV or BMP vehicles (don't remember) and Leopard 2A4 tanks. Platoon failing miserably because Leopards came on front and used their thermals to pick up target and "kill" it with MG.

Example2: Platoon now understood how uber thermals were, so instructors showed them few tricks. Platoon formed new defensive positons (model hasty). Fir's branches inserted in front of firing positions. AT-mines put bit behind of platoon to bottle neck where tanks didn't have space to manuver and AT-guys ordered to remain behind big rocks ready to engage whomever drives into mines (they excpect Leopards).

Cocky mech company officer decides again to use Leopards on front under same princibles. First tank went into mine. Immediatly AT-guys started to engage rest of tank platoon and managed to destoy it before it had much time to react. However hastly performed flanking manuver (managing to surprise defender) by dismounts again destoryed platoon.

Example3: Not so cocky anymore mech company officer choosed to do it differently.

Minefield is bad for tanks. In WW2 atleast Finns due heavily forested/marched terrain used this quite much (as it is still, AT-mines belongs to rifle platoons' equipment and by SOP they are laid to ground on defense). Soviet tanks broke thru easily, kept pressing pedal to get into rear areas along roads alone or in small units. Driving into minefield, which halted tank-units movement and then AT-guns and AT-teams started to engage them. Tanks had to start to pull back fastly to get into friendly zone before road might be cut from there too. As a stereotypical example. Later during ww2 in Finnish front tanks were not that interested to penetrate any deeper before infantry can join them. There are few cases which i've read from but those usually ended up badly for tanks.

I've seen few plans how AT-untis were placed on rear areas and it seemed to be deadly for small or even larger tank units to move there without support of infantry, escpacely in -44 summer when good deals of Panzerfausts and - schrecks were delievered to frontline units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has to be pointed out that a Bradley is over twice the weight, 6 times the cost (or more) and can't carry as many troops as a BMP. On top of that, it was deliberately designed to be able to take out the 50 year old vehicle known as the BMP-1.

So its not very surprising that the Bradley comes out on top.

It also must be said that in Soviet doctrine that BMP's are always accompanied by organic tank assets which can deal with the Bradleys.

I am not trying to say that the BMP is a very good vehicle. I hate the way that it brews up so easily but it does exactly what it was designed to do and therefore cannot be written off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have all you BMP fans noticed the real life kill ratio of Bradley vs. BMP fights? I believe it's something like BMP 1, Bradley dozens. I'll get back to you with more solid numbers.

Let's compare apples to apples. Compare Bradley with BMP-3 not the ancient BMP-1/2. It's the same as saying that 30 year old man will kick the ass of a 70 year old men.

You can do a test in game - set up 5 BMP-3 vs 5 Bradley's and see the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that even a .50-cal Stryker can put the hurt on a BMP-1 or -2 out to medium range. (I can't recall having yet played a scenario with Strykers versus BMP-3s.) Sure, the older BMPs have guns which can more definitively put the hurt on a Stryker than vice versa, but I find that my Strykers usually spot the BMPs first and are duly prompt in riddling them with their Ma Deuces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the informed answers. Has anyone seen compiled statistics of the number of TOWs that where fired by Bradleys in the two Iraq wars? Or how many enemy armored veichles they knocked out with missiles? I'm curious to see how useful actual Bradley commanders find their TOWs.

I also seem to remember something about the thermal sights for the Bradley's TOW-system (does it and the chaingun have separate sighting systems?) being very useful for spotting enemy veichles at long ranges in poor visability, in the first Iraq war. But I can't remember if the main use was simply detecting the enemy or if it also involved engaging with missiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen compiled statistics of the number of TOWs that where fired by Bradleys in the two Iraq wars?

Yeh, a long time ago someone posted those numbers here for the first couple years of the Iraq war. It was a LOT of missiles. An even bigger shock was the volume of Javelins fired as well. That post might be tough to relocate.

I wouldn't trust any numbers on reported K.O.s, I'm reminded of one battle in the Pacific that had more than a hundred Japanese tank kills reported by infantry while there were only a dozen Japanese tanks on the island :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't trust any numbers on reported K.O.s, I'm reminded of one battle in the Pacific that had more than a hundred Japanese tank kills reported by infantry while there were only a dozen Japanese tanks on the island :)

Well, if 10 guys attack one tank and kill it, all 10 guys are going to say they killed one tank. Outside observer would think they each killed 1 tank seperately, and assume there were 10 tanks.

It's like beer math.

Now on topic, 75% of my fired ATGM are usually aimed at buildings or reverse slope infantry targets. So with reports of numbers of ATGM's used/fired, how many were actually fired at tanks and armored vehicles? I think not so many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont see how that is true Sergi. Amphibious capability is a nice bonus but not important. Even if the IFV can swim what else can? The supporting MBT's can perhaps deep wade with alot of preperation. But what about all the supplies and other supporting paraphenalia that follows modern troops in trucks and other non-floaty things. If there is a water obstacle it is much easier to either go round it or bridge it in almost all cases.

As for SAM's Attack jets would be moving at such high speeds and using natural terrain to mask radar that you would only have a matter of seconds to aqquire, lock on and fire a missile before the aircraft has gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont see how that is true Sergi. Amphibious capability is a nice bonus but not important. Even if the IFV can swim what else can? The supporting MBT's can perhaps deep wade with alot of preperation. But what about all the supplies and other supporting paraphenalia that follows modern troops in trucks and other non-floaty things. If there is a water obstacle it is much easier to either go round it or bridge it in almost all cases.

Well, amphibious capability certainly makes an opposed river crossing operation easier. Otherwise your tracks are stuck on the bank while infantry cross by whatever means available.

As for SAM's Attack jets would be moving at such high speeds and using natural terrain to mask radar that you would only have a matter of seconds to aqquire, lock on and fire a missile before the aircraft has gone.

True, but there are always helicopters around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, amphibious capability certainly makes an opposed river crossing operation easier. Otherwise your tracks are stuck on the bank while infantry cross by whatever means available.

True as i said it would be very useful thing to have. But lack of it wouldnt make the IFV useless either. Then again just how long would the IFV's survive swimming across during an opposed crossing? Hate the idea of being trapped in the back while it sinks to the bottom! :eek:

True, but there are always helicopters around.

Which i would then either shoot at with my nice shiney 25/30/40mm cannon or hide and leave them to the organic AA support tracks or infantry armed with MANPAD's.

What i fear with having all these IFV's with AA, ATGM's and so forth you end up with a jack of all trades master of none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, amphibious capability certainly makes an opposed river crossing operation easier. Otherwise your tracks are stuck on the bank while infantry cross by whatever means available.

I wonder how long a nominally amphibious veh would retain that capability under the rigours of continuous ops. Not too long, I'd suspect - I'd be surprised if many BMPs attacking out of East Germany would have been able to swim across the Rhine, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how long a nominally amphibious veh would retain that capability under the rigours of continuous ops. Not too long, I'd suspect - I'd be surprised if many BMPs attacking out of East Germany would have been able to swim across the Rhine, for example.

There was something about that in The Highway War: A Marine Company Commander in Iraq. He was a LAV company commander and planned for all his vehicles to be able to swim across any rivers they encountered. Up until one was in an accident they had were fully functional in that regard, in spite of being hit with heavy machine guns, mortars and RPGs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...