Light Infantry vehicles.

[Britboy]

Is the answer:

Something like the Land Rover WMIK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Len02.jpg

Something like the new MWMIK or Supacat maybe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6979260.stm

Something MRAP or PPV-like, as in the Bushmaster IMV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_IMV

Something which is mechanised (like Warrior/Bradley but without the tracks), like LAV/Piranha/Stryker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mowag_Piranha

Something which is old skool APC like (after all, M113 seems to weigh pretty much the same as Bushmaster so strategic mobility by air would probably be similar, wiki figures only though so don't quote me! p-))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV432

Or a wheeled APC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_APC

?

I think something like WMIK or MWMIK, to carry a whole section (and that'd probably be hanging on the sides and piling on each other etc), would need probably 2 of them, and thats going to take a lot of manpower away from the section, not good :-(

MRAPs seem to be ideal for theatre use in certain circumstances (like COIN in the Middle East at the mo), but as a light infantry vehicle for all circumstances? It seems to weigh a lot and probably isnt so mobile by air because of that. Indeed for weight it looks as if you may as well go for...

...old type APCs, like the M113 and FV432. The British Army has updated the 432 with the 'Bulldog' name (anyone here have feedback on this?). I think there is a place for APCs like this, but surely they should be in support of armoured formations (I mean originally there were no IFVs, just these APCs in armoured formations with tanks), not in light infantry. As with the LAV/Piranha option, you'd be getting 'Armoured Infantry-lite' or upgunned Mech Inf, not Light Inf, right? I mean, you couldn't send APCs or LAVs up into the mountains or jungle for weeks on end with little logistical support, could you? I'm sure theres a role for these new mediumweight AFVs (more rapidly deployable than tracked IFVs), but I'm pretty sure the Light Inf isn't the right role... Similarly with the wheeled APCs (VABs or Saxon), seems more for riot control duties or even as a makeshift protected patrol vehicle...

Maybe 1 Land Rover WMIK per sect would be a good call. It wouldn't solve the original transport/mobility problem (how ironic :roll:) but it'd give firepower, could carry the bergens, ammo and supplies when in decent terrain, and the blokes wouldnt get too used to operating with constant veh support so when it came time to take off into the mountains/jungle on foot on their own, it wouldn't come as a huge shock or difference in modus operandi. The WMIKs got a good press in active service at the mo and it'd be easily airliftable, 1 per sect wouldn't take too many men away from the section either.
Plus if you needed to get bods somewhere fast, you could always pile a half-section in the back in some way, so at least you have 50% mobility/motorisation in a sprint scenario.

Thoughts?

Regards
BB

[Chulo]

what about the Humvee?
and Light infantry vehicles are the answer to what?

[Britboy]

I suppose the Hummvee would fall roughly in between the WMIK and the MWMIK - it certainly seems wider than a Land Rover and I imagine weighs more, especially with armour added.

The purpose of providing vehicles would be principally to increase mobility and to allow the possibility of support weapons being employed easier; but short of going for the armoured, tracked option that would see us deploying IFVs and such by sea. In this way, light vehicles could be deployed by tactical transport aircraft, or slingloaded under helos. Perhaps Motorised Infantry is the proper term, but for me that seems to imply trucked infantry, which seems a bad choice for an ever-more-lethal battlefield.

[Hauser]

I think something like WMIK or MWMIK, to carry a whole section (and that'd probably be hanging on the sides and piling on each other etc), would need probably 2 of them, and thats going to take a lot of manpower away from the section, not good :-(

You need to bear in mind that both the WMIK and its kinda successor the Jackal (MWMIK) are not designed for troop transportation. Their main purpose is for reconnaissance and infantry fire support, which it is a heck of alot better at than something like the Saxon.

Either way, the Jackal looks bad ass, especially with the additional armour:
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/2044/img29178690sh4.jpg

[Albatross]

You need to bear in mind that both the WMIK and its kinda successor the Jackal (MWMIK) are not designed for troop transportation. Their main purpose is for reconnaissance and infantry fire support, which it is a heck of alot better at than something like the Saxon.

Either way, the Jackal looks bad ass, especially with the additional armour:
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/2044/img29178690sh4.jpg

it looks like the retarded big brother of the humvee.

[Noble713]

The purpose of providing vehicles would be principally to increase mobility and to allow the possibility of support weapons being employed easier; but short of going for the armoured, tracked option that would see us deploying IFVs and such by sea. In this way, light vehicles could be deployed by tactical transport aircraft, or slingloaded under helos. Perhaps Motorised Infantry is the proper term, but for me that seems to imply trucked infantry, which seems a bad choice for an ever-more-lethal battlefield.


Light infantry, but mobile? If they do most of their fighting from foot then they are similar to dragoons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragoon) . If you expect them to stay mounted then they aren't really infantry anymore but some form of light cavalry. I question the utility of tactically air assaulting/lifting the vehicles. If you've got enough helicopter assets to move a significant force just go and air assault the infantry directly, and use the helis for additional mobility afterwards. Having to move (and support with spares/fuel) a large number of light vehicles will just eat up valuable lift capacity, and if you don't have enough lift for that then you should have just driven to the target (unless you are doing something ballsy like a deep penetration raid).

The Russians called troops in BTRs (definitely an APC and not a truck) motorized infantry. Partly because of that I think of Stryker brigades and any other wheeled APC-based units as motorized infantry.

I like the look of that Jackal.

[Britboy]

The idea wasn't to have them remain mounted (like I believe the German Marder units would fight mounted if possible and only dismount when v neccessary), but to have them fight as infantry, just with mobility. That should increase the area they cover and reduce travelling times quite drastically I'd have thought.

Perhaps slingloading the vehicles by helo isn't the best idea for all circumstances, but its certainly done with the 105mm Light Gun. Depends on the situation I suppose, but it'd be nice to have that capability. What I was thinking about more was strategic deployability; it's all very well having IFVs like the Warrior or Bradley, but they must travel by sea to get anywhere significant, which means a long time, you need an already-secured deepwater port, and so on. That may have been okay for the Gulf War in 1991 with months to build-up, but it's not very responsive for emerging crises in remote areas - for that I think airmobility is key. Light Infantry, i.e. on foot, are easily airmobile, but once they get in country, they are then reduced to foot-slogging it around, apart from a few vehicles (but most of which are in support roles anyway).

I suppose the idea of giving vehicles to light infantry would be to retain the strategic mobility by air (although more lifts would inevitably be required for the vehs), but improve operational/tactical mobility once arrived (wheels can get you further, faster than feet can, although granted, they can't go everywhere).

The point about BTRs and Strykers is good, but I'd be tempted to call them mechanised rather than motorised. Here, mechanised refers to APCs like Saxon or FV432, and Armoured Infantry refers to IFVs, and I think the new wheeled AFVs like Stryker/Piranha are meant to be doctrinally APCs - they drop off their troops before contact if possible, right? But there again, I think the US calls its Bradley units Mech Inf rather than Armd, so you'd need a different term... Anyway I think either new wheeled AFVs or older type APCs are wrong for light infantry - they are heavy, prominent, and would need a big maintenance/supply chain - and they would probably instil the wrong mindset of sitting in the back before dismounting, rather than getting out on foot; they'd be like Armd Inf without the 30mm, rather than Lt Inf, right?

I'm sure vehicles like the Stryker and older APCs like the M113 have their place either as an airdeployable version of armoured inf, or in support roles to heavy formations, but I don't think its the same as light inf?

And yep, the Jackal looks like a bad-boy doesn't it!p-)

Regards
BB

[marktigger]

Saxon is a heap of Junk it was designed as an IS vehicle for the Sha of Iran and when he was booted out the British army had to buy them to prevent GKN going bust.

Piranah series is a good wheeled system as is Patria

WIMIK equipped wolf is a good platform with a few embarassing problems. Pinzgauer is a much much better platform.

432/M113 are so 1960's even updated

other platforms Viking armoured BV210

HUMVEE has its advantages however wouldn't like to be in an RTA in one.

[Noble713]

Perhaps slingloading the vehicles by helo isn't the best idea for all circumstances, but its certainly done with the 105mm Light Gun. Depends on the situation I suppose, but it'd be nice to have that capability.

I don't have any personal experience with artillery but I've heard the whole "air assaulted artillery" thing is over-rated and of marginal utility.



What I was thinking about more was strategic deployability; it's all very well having IFVs like the Warrior or Bradley, but they must travel by sea to get anywhere significant, which means a long time, you need an already-secured deepwater port, and so on. That may have been okay for the Gulf War in 1991 with months to build-up, but it's not very responsive for emerging crises in remote areas - for that I think airmobility is key.

We can already put an airborne brigade and probably an MEU in any potential crisis area in a week, tops. If a problem is too big to be handled by two units of elite light infantry then giving them little trucks to drive around in won't change much. Instead, we'd be better off spending the first three weeks prepping the battlespace with constant air attacks, and then storming the place properly with a bigger Marine unit + an entire heavy Army division.


Anyway I think either new wheeled AFVs or older type APCs are wrong for light infantry - they are heavy, prominent, and would need a big maintenance/supply chain - and they would probably instil the wrong mindset of sitting in the back before dismounting, rather than getting out on foot; they'd be like Armd Inf without the 30mm, rather than Lt Inf, right?

No, I'm pretty sure the Stryker units realize their primary weapon is dismounted infantry. If I'm not mistaken, most of the Army's Stryker brigades were formed from existing light infantry organizations (with the 2nd ACR being the exception that comes to mind), so they should have the proper mindset. If they pulled the cadres from, say, 4th Infantry Division (a heavy mechanized formation) then I'd be more inclined to agree with your argument, but I don't think that's the case.

[Masai]

i hate to sound like a broken record here

but i still think the Oryx (http://oryx.armour.co.za/) deserves a mention

[Dinges]

I would like you to say in what theatre and for what purpose. It may narrow the gist.

[The Dane]

Tell that to especially Canadian and Danish forces operating in Southern Afghanistan.
I'm pretty sure they will disagree.
Both use upgrade versions(A3 and G3) and some are outfitted with bandtracks.

Danish M113G3's together with British Viking vehicles(BVS10) in Helmand.
http://haeren.smugmug.com/photos/264575078_Diw2D-L.jpg (http://haeren.smugmug.com/gallery/4137663_uibxz#264575078)

[henrichek]

Personally I like the BvS10 (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/viking/) and the even lighter Bv206S (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bv2065/) by Hägglunds in Sweden. The BvS10 is used by the UK Royal Marines in Afghanistan for example, under the name Viking. They both have very good mobility. For firepower it can be equipped with a 12.7mm machinegun, the MILAN AT system, or something else. They can also be airlifted by C-130's, C-17's etc. and also slung under the Chinook. They need to be split into two parts to be airlifted by the Merlin (takes about 20 minutes).

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_BvS10_Viking_UK_Trials_lg.jpg

[General Petrovic]

Hey, guys. I just joined this site, and I ain't exactly an expert on this stuff. I figured this was as good a place as any to ask how many tanks and IFV's are needed to equip an American division. Thanks for any reply you can give me.

[Chulo]

Hey, guys. I just joined this site, and I ain't exactly an expert on this stuff. I figured this was as good a place as any to ask how many tanks and IFV's are needed to equip an American division. Thanks for any reply you can give me.
a general place to start would be to google the question, wiki gives a basic make up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_division#United_States

StrategyPages forum says (http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/2-1819.aspx)

The "heavy" to&e for a WWII US armored division had: six (6) tank battalions; three (3) armored infantry battalions; three (3) artillery battalions; almost two (2) reconnaissance battalions and one (1) engineer battalion. The tank battalions were organized into two (2) tank regiments, each with one (1) light tank bn and two (2) medium tank bn's. Each bn had 53 tanks, in three (3) companies. Division had 158 light tanks and 232 medium tanks. About 14,600 people. The "light" to&e reduced the number of tank battalions to three (3). It also reorganized the tank battalion, so that it had three (3) medium and one (1) light tank company per battalion. Each battalion now had 41 tanks. The division had 77 light tanks and 168 medium tanks (may be 18 more light tanks in recon bn, but not sure). Everything else is the same as the "heavy", except the recon bn is now bn size. About 10,900 people. The "light" division had the Combat Command A and Combat Command B. Combat Command R was supposed to be a reserve formation, not intended for combat. It depends on who you ask, but basically the "light" was developed because the "heavy" had too many tanks and the US tried to copy "lessons" that the Germans had learned. The problem with the "light" was that it was short on trucks and the CCR command. So two (2) QM truck companies were attached and CCR was changed into CCC by taking the Armor Group HQ (Corp level HQ intended to command the seperate tank battalions that were suppossed to be attached to Corps) and adding it to CCR to become CCC. Since the independent tank battalions were all attached to Infantry divisions, the loss of the HQ was no big deal. And the one thing the US military had alot of, was trucks. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Armored divisions were organized under the "heavy" to&e. 1st converted to the light to&e while in Italy, 1943. 2nd and 3rd kept the "heavy" to&e.

[General Petrovic]

Chulo allen: Thanks for the info, dude. Much appreciated. I'll check out those sites.

[oregongrunt]

There is a difference between light infantry and mechanized infantry. What's with all of the tracked vehicles?

[panzerkardinal]

There are many factors to consider.

The biggest concern is logistics. What sort of support is going to be required when fielding one of these vehicles.

Let's say you decide on a lighter vehicle like a modified land rover.

I suspect that it gets around 10 miles to the gallon. With a 25 gallon tank you will get around 250 mile range. If you patrol area is about 50 miles a day, you'll get about 5 days of operation before gassing up again. Assume you have 10 vehicles in your unit, you're talking about 250 gallons of fuel ever 5 days.

That's a lot of fuel, and we're not even considering other consumables like lubrication or tires.

You must also consider repair and maintenance. On a simple vehicle like a modified land rover, the troops should be able to do routine maintenance. But with anything else more complicated, you're going to have to also provide support troops. Then you must decide if the support is going to be organic or separate from the Unit.

When you talk about a MOWAG/Stryker, these considerations increase substantially.

If you're considering a tracked vehicle, it's ever more so. The fuel consumption of tracked vehicles alone will increase your logistical headaches exponentially.

Also remember the heavier the vehicle the more maintenance is required and the more likely it's going to break down.

Another consideration is the threat the vehicle is going to face.

If you are talking about a high tempo AirLand battlefield, your wheeled vehicles may not survive. Even your M113/"battle taxis" will have a hard time. You're going to need a heavy IFV like the Bradley.

In counter-insurgency or peace keeping operations a IFV is overkill and too expensive to operate.

You must also think about the environment you're going to be operating in. If you have to patrol a large area, you troops are going to have to be mobile otherwise they can't cover the area. If the operation area is urban, they may not need transport.

Plus you must remember that large vehicle even SUV sized vehicles may have difficulties getting down city streets.

You also have to consider the effect the vehicle will have on warfighting.

Imagine you're in a nice comfortable air conditioned armored vehicle filled with fancy sensors and weapons, are you going to be that willing to leave this vehicle and go out and patrol let alone engage the enemy?

Finally there's what I call "mission creep". Alot of the larger vehicles look sort of like tanks. But they are most assuredly they are not tanks.

But imagine you're a platoon leader and you're ambushed. You see this big armored vehicle with a weapons turret.

Are you going to think, "Hey this is a fighting vehicle and not capable to facing some of the threats." or are you going to say, "Hey get over there and take out that threat!"?

All it's going to take is one RPG and you're going to find out real quick that this isn't a tank.

Sorry about the long reply, but it's a lot more complicated than just picking a vehicle.