heavy armored personnel carriers.

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,847
Sydney
#41
a very rough and personal distinction is that IFV are tracked while APC are wheeled
Yes I know that's wrong but the distinction itself is a bit vague and artificial sometime
 
Jun 2012
5,700
Texas
#42
The real pro is you take a legit tank, with its wonderful mobility and especially protection, and craft it into an armored personnel carrier that is actually worthy of being called armored.

I love what Israelis did. Completely unrealistic for operational maneuver, a tank/APC hybrid is super expensive to build and especially operate (referring to one that can protect even somewhat against modern AT weapons). But they did it anyway and made them work.

Ignore the logistic, which they can because limited numbers only being used in places like Gaza, Sinai, West Bank, and Golan, so not exactly a long drive from secure areas. And they do great. Enemy shows up with RPG-7, they do well (which few other modern APC can survive). Even a Kornet or Iranian TOW knockoff, they might survive that.

And that's what it comes down to. Respecting your infantry and engineers enough to not put them in a thin skinned APC or IFV that has very serious survivability limitations placed on it because the idea of building a few thousand Namer APCs for entire mechanized divisions to possess high operational mobility for global transport and use isn't realistic. So designers only armor against small arms and limited artillery fragmentation.

But if you're neck deep involved in some small war quagmire where enemy insurgents are getting good weapons (like Hezbollah), or a vicious high intensity fight of limited size close to secure lines of communication (73 War redux), when you want protection plus off road tactical mobility, they're damn good to have.
Indeed. The Canadians arguably may have been the first, converting M7 Priest hulls, and then later converting Churchill, M3 Ram, and M4 hulls.
 
Jan 2019
44
Belgium
#44
Hello everybody .

I would like to leave the subject a little ....while remaining ...

What do you think of the idea of turning a heavy tank of troops into a heavy tank of 2 remotely guided miniature trucks-daughters from the inside of the tank-mother ?
 
Jul 2016
8,471
USA
#45
Hello everybody .

I would like to leave the subject a little ....while remaining ...

What do you think of the idea of turning a heavy tank of troops into a heavy tank of 2 remotely guided miniature trucks-daughters from the inside of the tank-mother ?
A heavy tank is something nobody has fielded for a while now, most everyone is using Main Battle Tanks (MBT). But I think you mean Heavy APC.

So you're suggesting a heavy APC as the mothership and two detachable smaller APCs that are remote controlled? Sounds like a bad idea. Overly complicated, and its not providing much to the fight. And the mother ship would need to be absolutely huge, since there isn't really any point to a dedicated APC or IFV that holds less than a squad of at least six dismounts. To have two separate vehicles, each armored and holding six fully armed and armored infantry, that is going to be one HUGE mothership, especially when you factor in that making it a heavy means having the armor to withstand the weapons that can penetrate everything but the most state of the art 4th Gen MBTs.
 
Jan 2019
44
Belgium
#46
[QUOTE = "aggienation, post: 3096907, member: 44312"] Un char lourd est quelque chose que personne n'a aligné depuis un moment, presque tout le monde utilise des chars de combat principaux (MBT). Mais je pense que vous voulez dire Heavy APC.

Vous suggérez donc un lourd APC comme vaisseau mère et deux petits APC détachables et télécommandés? Cela semble être une mauvaise idée. Trop compliqué et ne fournit pas beaucoup au combat. Et le vaisseau mère devrait être absolument gigantesque, car rien ne vaut un APC ou un VCI dédié qui compte moins d'une escouade d'au moins six débarquements. Avoir deux véhicules séparés, chacun blindé et tenant six fantassins entièrement armés et blindés, cela deviendra un énorme vaisseau-mère, surtout si vous tenez à ce que cela soit un moyen lourd de disposer de l’armure pour résister aux armes qui peuvent pénétrer dans tout sauf le la plupart des MBT de la 4e génération à la pointe de la technologie. [/ QUOTE]
 
Jan 2019
44
Belgium
#47


No .. I didn’t mean that; I misspoke .

I wanted to talk about a troop carrier exactly like the others, but not carrying any troops but two small tanks fully teleguidated from the mother-tank
or from the support units of the other "normal" troop-transports
A thinks like on the link "above" but a little smaller ....

This kind of mini armoured vehicle could also work in total autonomy ..if they are deep in the ennemy ranks ....
 
Jul 2016
8,471
USA
#48

No .. I didn’t mean that; I misspoke .

I wanted to talk about a troop carrier exactly like the others, but not carrying any troops but two small tanks fully teleguidated from the mother-tank
or from the support units of the other "normal" troop-transports
A thinks like on the link "above" but a little smaller ....

This kind of mini armoured vehicle could also work in total autonomy ..if they are deep in the ennemy ranks ....
Depending on the circumstances, those might be nice to have for scouting or dealing with a dug in enemy while not worrying about friendly casualties. But there is probably no reason a full armored transport needs to be used with them, just stick them on the back of a trailer, pull them to within a mile or so of where they are needed, the remote controllers set up and send the unmanned vehicles to where they need to go.
 
Jan 2013
1,207
Anywhere
#49
Depending on the circumstances, those might be nice to have for scouting or dealing with a dug in enemy while not worrying about friendly casualties. But there is probably no reason a full armored transport needs to be used with them, just stick them on the back of a trailer, pull them to within a mile or so of where they are needed, the remote controllers set up and send the unmanned vehicles to where they need to go.
I think its best to have these drones on a military truck like a Oshkosh HEMTT.




No .. I didn’t mean that; I misspoke .

I wanted to talk about a troop carrier exactly like the others, but not carrying any troops but two small tanks fully teleguidated from the mother-tank
or from the support units of the other "normal" troop-transports
A thinks like on the link "above" but a little smaller ....

This kind of mini armoured vehicle could also work in total autonomy ..if they are deep in the enemy ranks ....
It is best to have these drones on a military truck like a Oshkosh HEMTT or any other truck. Cause a apc or heavy apc is only supposed to be a troop carrier not a cargo carrier. The vehicles are only built for picking up and dropping off and picking up again infantry. that is their sole purpose.

But I will say this. Drones and UAVs can be remotely operated from far away thanks to advancements of technology. So these kinds of terrestrial drones can drive alongside heavy APCs since they'll lend fire support to the vehicles and infantry.
 
Jul 2016
8,471
USA
#50
I think its best to have these drones on a military truck like a Oshkosh HEMTT or any other truck. Cause a apc or heavy apc is only supposed to be a troop carrier not a cargo carrier.

But I will say this

I think its best to have these drones on a military truck like a Oshkosh HEMTT or any other truck. Cause a apc or heavy apc is only supposed to be a troop carrier not a cargo carrier. The vehicles are only built for picking up and dropping off and picking up again infantry. that is their sole purpose.

But I will say this. Drones and UAVs can be remotely operated from far away thanks to advancements of technology. So these kinds of terrestrial drones can drive alongside heavy APCs since they'll lend fire support to the vehicles and infantry.
Drones have their place but we're seeing now is that they are spotted they can be rather easy to jam and even hijack.

But there are tactical scenarios where use of a drone, even one that can be jammed/hijacked is still worth using. I could see it being very beneficial during missions where enemy are dug in and advancing with dismounts or man-operated vehicles would be too costly in terms of casualties. Send in drones, conduct some recon and point attacks, attrit the enemy, then advance the humans.