What do you think of when you hear the words "Armored Personnel Carrier"? Does an armored transport vehicle come to mind, or simply a lightly armored assault vehicle with a Bushmaster cannon?
Simply put, what are the incentives for putting an entire squad into a coffin on wheels and using the APC as an APC instead of just an LAV?
LAV or APC?
-
Liquid_Cow
- Posts: 1241
- Joined: 2007-02-02 22:01
IRL the APC is a weapon system of the past. While there are still a lot of M113's in service with US forces, they are only there because of a lack of suitable IFV's (Infantry Fighting Vehicles).
APC's were a direct result of losses experienced in both World Wars, then artillery was responsible for the majority of casualties on the battlefield. The armor of the typical APC is there to counter artillery fragments and will not stop major caliber (larger than 12mm) gun fire. Even modern anti-armor rounds from smaller 7.62mm machine guns can defeat most APC armor. The concept was to give infantry mobile cover while assaulting fortified positions (usually a small town in a forested area), so they could move at speed with the armor, cover any open ground, then dismount upon reaching the objective and provide close protection for the armor. During WWII it was quite common for artillery to be sited close to the battle, sometimes even providing direct fire (within visual range) for defending forces. Arty was an almost unstoppable weapon for the defenders, as they were mostly hidden from plain view, impossible to locate unless you happen to see the guns, and well protected by friendly forces.
The modern full scale battlefield would be very different. There are whole units dedicated to sniffing out and destroying enemy arty. High speed communications from the squad level up quickly relays messages that enemy arty is operating. Furthermore, those comm's allow quick deployment of assets from both air and ground to counter the arty. Add in modern developments such as counter battery radar which located the arty before the first round has flow for a full second, and arty is not the force it once was. Modern arty battery is taught to shoot 2-3 rounds quickly, then displace before counter battery fire comes down on them. Continuous artillery bombardment would be a quick way to loose your big guns in a hurry.
While the need for protection from arty is diminished on the modern battlefield, but the need to move quickly to keep up with armor is still there along with some protection from enemy fire.
Throw in one more factor, the development of cheap but highly effective anti-tank weapons such as RPG's and wire guided AGM's and the APC is, as previously stated, a rolling coffin.
The IFV was pioneered by the former Soviet Union in the form of the BMP-1. It was still an APC, with all the shortcoming of the light armor, but it also had the ability to provide some decent fire support to assaulting troops, and had the weaponry to engage hostile APC's effectively, as well as be able to take out a MBT if they should get the drop on one. So while it may still be vulnerable to the RPG team, its shoot on the move, and from under the cover of armor big gun allows it to engage that RPG team while on the move.
Todays IFV's are diversifying, you have heavy IFV's which some even class as light tanks such as the Bradly and the Scimitar, and the lighter Striker and LAV. The trade is weight and cost for protection and mobility. One nation, Israel, even went so far as to make the ultimate IFV, a tank which could carry a squad (though not very comfortably as I understand).
APC's are quickly being relegated to auxiliary vehicles, such as command posts which need protection from mortars and medivac ambulance which don't require offensive capabilities. All modern light armor has upgraded to increase its defensive capabilities with things such as reactive armor and stand-off grating, which has extended the life of APC's.
APC's were a direct result of losses experienced in both World Wars, then artillery was responsible for the majority of casualties on the battlefield. The armor of the typical APC is there to counter artillery fragments and will not stop major caliber (larger than 12mm) gun fire. Even modern anti-armor rounds from smaller 7.62mm machine guns can defeat most APC armor. The concept was to give infantry mobile cover while assaulting fortified positions (usually a small town in a forested area), so they could move at speed with the armor, cover any open ground, then dismount upon reaching the objective and provide close protection for the armor. During WWII it was quite common for artillery to be sited close to the battle, sometimes even providing direct fire (within visual range) for defending forces. Arty was an almost unstoppable weapon for the defenders, as they were mostly hidden from plain view, impossible to locate unless you happen to see the guns, and well protected by friendly forces.
The modern full scale battlefield would be very different. There are whole units dedicated to sniffing out and destroying enemy arty. High speed communications from the squad level up quickly relays messages that enemy arty is operating. Furthermore, those comm's allow quick deployment of assets from both air and ground to counter the arty. Add in modern developments such as counter battery radar which located the arty before the first round has flow for a full second, and arty is not the force it once was. Modern arty battery is taught to shoot 2-3 rounds quickly, then displace before counter battery fire comes down on them. Continuous artillery bombardment would be a quick way to loose your big guns in a hurry.
While the need for protection from arty is diminished on the modern battlefield, but the need to move quickly to keep up with armor is still there along with some protection from enemy fire.
Throw in one more factor, the development of cheap but highly effective anti-tank weapons such as RPG's and wire guided AGM's and the APC is, as previously stated, a rolling coffin.
The IFV was pioneered by the former Soviet Union in the form of the BMP-1. It was still an APC, with all the shortcoming of the light armor, but it also had the ability to provide some decent fire support to assaulting troops, and had the weaponry to engage hostile APC's effectively, as well as be able to take out a MBT if they should get the drop on one. So while it may still be vulnerable to the RPG team, its shoot on the move, and from under the cover of armor big gun allows it to engage that RPG team while on the move.
Todays IFV's are diversifying, you have heavy IFV's which some even class as light tanks such as the Bradly and the Scimitar, and the lighter Striker and LAV. The trade is weight and cost for protection and mobility. One nation, Israel, even went so far as to make the ultimate IFV, a tank which could carry a squad (though not very comfortably as I understand).
APC's are quickly being relegated to auxiliary vehicles, such as command posts which need protection from mortars and medivac ambulance which don't require offensive capabilities. All modern light armor has upgraded to increase its defensive capabilities with things such as reactive armor and stand-off grating, which has extended the life of APC's.
Golden Camel Alliance
Fear the Moo!!!
<MFF>
Fear the Moo!!!
<MFF>
-
BloodBane611
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: 2007-11-14 23:31
APC makes me think of things like the M113, tracked but lightly armed and armored. Mostly meant to move troops with better protection than a jeep or humvee.
IFV means light cannon, large troop capacity, several MGs, possibly some AT missiles.
To see the IFVs as just a light tank ignores the importance of supporting infantry. But not utilizing the weapons of the IFVs in order to simply transport troops is also a waste of resources. IFVs need to be able to move a squad to an objective, help that squad destroy enemy infantry and armor, and then defend that objective against counter attack. Repeat until victory.
So I would say that there is no incentive to using the IFVs as simply APCs. Use the humvees/nanjings/technicals to get places fast, get reinforcements, scout, etc. Use IFVs to support squads in assault and defense, and move them to the positions they need ot assault and defend. IFVs should always be at the front lines.
IFV means light cannon, large troop capacity, several MGs, possibly some AT missiles.
To see the IFVs as just a light tank ignores the importance of supporting infantry. But not utilizing the weapons of the IFVs in order to simply transport troops is also a waste of resources. IFVs need to be able to move a squad to an objective, help that squad destroy enemy infantry and armor, and then defend that objective against counter attack. Repeat until victory.
So I would say that there is no incentive to using the IFVs as simply APCs. Use the humvees/nanjings/technicals to get places fast, get reinforcements, scout, etc. Use IFVs to support squads in assault and defense, and move them to the positions they need ot assault and defend. IFVs should always be at the front lines.
[R-CON]creepin - "because on the internet 0=1"
-
<1sk>Headshot
- Posts: 893
- Joined: 2007-05-14 21:51
As Fuzzhead said somewhere, they act more like Armoured Teleportation Devices than actual Armoured Personell Carriers right now..
"Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if Pac Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music."
-
BloodBane611
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: 2007-11-14 23:31