Best IFV for naval infantry - Page 2

PaulG · 11-24-2004, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wraith601

When your enemy is mostly dismounts, lightly entrenched, or riding around in "technicals" (civilian vehicles) you can get by on 50 cals or grenade launchers. If you want to fight heavy armor formations you need chain guns, heavy ATGMs, and of course tank support. The Stryker is good as long as you stick to fighting guerillas and leg infantry, but if you engage massed armor you have major problems.

The Marine's new amtrack is the EFV-1, formerly AAAV. It packs a 30 mm autocannon, 7.62mm coaxial machine gun, and is armored up to 14.5mm rounds standard, and I assume add on RPG protection will be fielded. It's also considerably faster on and and water than the AAV-7 and has more electronic gadgets. It's still about 4-5 years from fielding though.

Not when you consider the current conflict in Iraq, or more accurately the Fallujah OP and the increase in urban tactics.. The Bradleys bore the brunt of the armoured 'workload', narrower than armour, has the best armour of US AFV's (i think) and uses ATGM's and a 25mm. It is equivalent to some the Russian/Eastern gear however, some of them are amphibious where the Bradley is not.

Therefore, the US Marines are not as well armed as some of their counterparts in the area of amphibious AFV's. They have good stuff that are great multi-roled all terrain vehicles though.

[edit] Just picked up what you said about the new Amtrack, so that isnt the big slow oathish thing of days gone past? Got any lniks, cant find the vehicle using 'EFV-1' to search

lemontree · 11-24-2004, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulG

What about insurgencies? Guerrilla warfare operates even when the enemy has air superiority. Sorry just bieng pedantic.

The pecularity of guerilla warfare is that one has to be dismounted to fight it. The Bradly is a battle taxi, and is a fine one, you don't need it to have amphibious characteristics in an insurgency environment. The .50 cal/grenade launders/or 25mm cannons are all the firepower that you need to fight guerillas. The fact that the US is using arty/armour/air in Fallujha, is a different matter (compare the British low key ops in Basra to Fallujha).

PaulG · 11-24-2004, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemontree

The pecularity of guerilla warfare is that one has to be dismounted to fight it. The Bradly is a battle taxi, and is a fine one, you don't need it to have amphibious characteristics in an insurgency environment. The .50 cal/grenade launders/or 25mm cannons are all the firepower that you need to fight guerillas. The fact that the US is using arty/armour/air in Fallujha, is a different matter (compare the British low key ops in Basra to Fallujha).

I agree, tho the 25mm could be changed to something more explosive and less velocity. The thing is we are seeing marines fight in non-naval conflicts. And amphibious vehicles are very very good all terrain vehicles especially in Australia and South East Asia etc.

My point was that even if you have air superiority you still need a hard hitting heavy armoured AFV rather than just light armoured MG armed taxis.

lemontree · 11-24-2004, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulG

My point was that even if you have air superiority you still need a hard hitting heavy armoured AFV rather than just light armoured MG armed taxis.

Ever seen the damage a 25/30 mm cannon can do? It is ugly. For any thing else, the mech inf platoons rocket launchers will suffice, or still a 106mm RCLs mounted on the APC is good enough. I've seen pics of some during the 1st Gulf war (mounted on M113s).

Besides, the US infantry/marines will always have their armour support with the Abram tanks (mech inf and tanks work together), so there you have your heavy firepower.

PaulG · 11-24-2004, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemontree

Ever seen the damage a 25/30 mm cannon can do? It is ugly. For any thing else, the mech inf platoons rocket launchers will suffice, or still a 106mm RCLs mounted on the APC is good enough. I've seen pics of some during the 1st Gulf war (mounted on M113s).

Besides, the US infantry/marines will always have their armour support with the Abram tanks (mech inf and tanks work together), so there you have your heavy firepower.

I wasn't saying the 25/30's were not effective. My argument was regarding guerrilla's not conventional war. As i understand it tanks were not as effective as the Bradleys in Fallujah, maybe a smaller tank could do better.

Your comments on the 106RR are closer to my thoughts than you think. I would suggest something like a short barrelled 105, or higher, gun in situations like Fallujah, but not a RR, it exposes the loader. So instead of a tank as support you would have 3 standard Bradleys with inf, and one with a 105 or 155 auto loading turret on top.

Its a bit off topic anyway.

lemontree · 11-24-2004, 08:32 AM

The reason for not using heavy calibre guns in built up areas is that the HE/HEAT rounds would do more damage than is required, in other words, it will cause unwanted civillian casulties. Thats the reason why most armies prefer the small cal 25 or 30mm, it causes the required damage in the required amounts. For example, if a machine gun opens up on own troops, from an apartment in a building, a 30 mm would rip open the wall of the apartment from where the MG was firing and would kill the insurgent, but a tank shell would cause the above and lower floors to collapse.

Don't kill a fly will a hammer.

PaulG · 11-24-2004, 08:53 AM

So no need to use tanks either then.

I saw a vid a few days ago, a recent one in Fallujah. Marines were trying to clear a building, but the lower floor or basement had insurgents inside. They dropped in a grenade but couldn't clear the room (pretty horrible stuff hearing those inside side yelling out).

Anyway, the Marines pulled out and let a bradley's level the place with the 25mm, it didnt look like it was effective for that job, a bigger gun would have been more efficient. The old story of combined arms i spose.

**Officer of Engineers** · 11-24-2004, 15:58 PM

The problem is that you have infantry trying to do an engineer's job.

Fury · 11-24-2004, 17:31 PM

Flamethrower would have cleaned the basement from rats

PaulG · 11-24-2004, 22:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The problem is that you have infantry trying to do an engineer's job.

Very true.

Wraith601 · 11-25-2004, 00:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulG

Not when you consider the current conflict in Iraq, or more accurately the Fallujah OP and the increase in urban tactics.. The Bradleys bore the brunt of the armoured 'workload', narrower than armour, has the best armour of US AFV's (i think) and uses ATGM's and a 25mm. It is equivalent to some the Russian/Eastern gear however, some of them are amphibious where the Bradley is not.

Therefore, the US Marines are not as well armed as some of their counterparts in the area of amphibious AFV's. They have good stuff that are great multi-roled all terrain vehicles though.

[edit] Just picked up what you said about the new Amtrack, so that isnt the big slow oathish thing of days gone past? Got any lniks, cant find the vehicle using 'EFV-1' to search

Link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...round/aaav.htm

I've thought all along we should have gone with the LAV IIIs Canada and New Zealand use because of their 25mm chain gun, but the Army thought differently. At the very least one battalion or maybe one company per battalion should have been turrented LAV IIIs.

PaulG · 11-25-2004, 00:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wraith601

Link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...round/aaav.htm

I've thought all along we should have gone with the LAV IIIs Canada and New Zealand use because of their 25mm chain gun, but the Army thought differently. At the very least one battalion or maybe one company per battalion should have been turrented LAV IIIs.

High speed on water 25knots

thats an armoured speed boat not a AFV!

Is 45mph on land a decent top speed for AFV's?

Just wondering how effective they'll be in the role theatre the marines are operating in at the moment, non-beach landing stuff.

lemontree · 11-25-2004, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The problem is that you have infantry trying to do an engineer's job.

Sir, engineers' are too precious to loose.

Thats why we infantry guys dont call you all so soon, but clearing booby trapped buildings is out of our league, for that we need you.

The US marines should try using simpler remedies. There are so many types of bunker busters that the engineer section/squad of the infantry bn, can make.
Simple concoctions with PEK/plastic, a primer, detonator and fuse. Even a standard hand grenade can be modified with a little PEK/plastic. These can blow holes in the walls of the buildings and then the marines can do their stuff.

**Officer of Engineers** · 11-25-2004, 08:19 AM

Engr receee or the assualt pioneers are specifically tasked to scout out obstacles, even manned obstacles, that must be taken out by engr assets. Just hold your ground until we get there with a demo charge.

Anon · 11-25-2004, 22:12 PM

"Anyway, the Marines pulled out and let a bradley's level the place with the 25mm, it didnt look like it was effective for that job, a bigger gun would have been more efficient. The old story of combined arms i spose."

That's what God made satchel charges for. They are quite effective.

11-24-2004, 15:58 PM	#23 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 15,898 Country:	The problem is that you have infantry trying to do an engineer's job. __________________ Chimo

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
RAND: Lightning Over Water	Officer of Engineers	The Field Mess	220	04-13-2007 14:11 PM
ak47 vs m16	maersk	Small Arms and Personal Weapons	618	02-05-2007 15:43 PM
Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle: Cold-War Dinosaur or Techno Revolution...?	kNikS	The Field Mess	11	04-09-2006 01:59 AM
IDF lessons from 1982	troung	Warfare in the Modern Age	0	10-14-2005 17:36 PM
Brigadier, Maruf's new BdA-InA tirade at CDF	Officer of Engineers	The Field Mess	34	08-24-2005 11:27 AM

11-24-2004, 08:32 AM	#21 (permalink)
lemontree Bandaid *Military Professional* Join Date: 10-04-04 Location: India Posts: 5,916	The reason for not using heavy calibre guns in built up areas is that the HE/HEAT rounds would do more damage than is required, in other words, it will cause unwanted civillian casulties. Thats the reason why most armies prefer the small cal 25 or 30mm, it causes the required damage in the required amounts. For example, if a machine gun opens up on own troops, from an apartment in a building, a 30 mm would rip open the wall of the apartment from where the MG was firing and would kill the insurgent, but a tank shell would cause the above and lower floors to collapse. Don't kill a fly will a hammer.

11-24-2004, 08:53 AM	#22 (permalink)
PaulG Banished Join Date: 11-23-04 Location: Western Australia Posts: 218	So no need to use tanks either then. I saw a vid a few days ago, a recent one in Fallujah. Marines were trying to clear a building, but the lower floor or basement had insurgents inside. They dropped in a grenade but couldn't clear the room (pretty horrible stuff hearing those inside side yelling out). Anyway, the Marines pulled out and let a bradley's level the place with the 25mm, it didnt look like it was effective for that job, a bigger gun would have been more efficient. The old story of combined arms i spose.

11-24-2004, 17:31 PM	#24 (permalink)
Fury Contributor Join Date: 07-12-04 Posts: 327	Flamethrower would have cleaned the basement from rats

11-25-2004, 08:19 AM	#29 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 15,898 Country:	Engr receee or the assualt pioneers are specifically tasked to scout out obstacles, even manned obstacles, that must be taken out by engr assets. Just hold your ground until we get there with a demo charge.

11-25-2004, 22:12 PM	#30 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	"Anyway, the Marines pulled out and let a bradley's level the place with the 25mm, it didnt look like it was effective for that job, a bigger gun would have been more efficient. The old story of combined arms i spose." That's what God made satchel charges for. They are quite effective.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)