• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Infantry Vehicles

FJAG said:
Some day you are going to have to explain to me why the US Army didn't field some 5,000 or so Ripsaw variants years ago. Its a solid and highly versatile platform as far as I can see.

🍻
Click to expand...
Quite honestly, I don’t know.
I’ve heard a number of reasons/theories from some decently senior green suiters.

Best I can tell it was ahead of its time, but not advanced enough to capture a lot of flash from brass if that make’s sense?
Plus the question of whose rice bowl was it going to eat.

Textron had that when most folks UGV’s were still like EOD robots.
It was a ‘we can do this now’ sort of thing.
Where the futures guys had dreams of fully autonomous AFV fleets

It was also proof the Armored’s M10 Booker was out to lunch in terms of a DFS system for Light forces. Lots of people wanted the M10 to keep the Armored relevant in PSO’s so the Light Tank - err Mobile Protected Firepower whatever got the nod.
Has half full the M10 kept GDLS looking at lighter Abrams options as well.

Given the iterative nature of how some of the MCBT’s are restructuring some after every 2 month evaluation period- I expect that it will gain a foothold - eventually.
 
Kirkhill said:
If you have your own vehicle you need to guard it when you are dismounted.

If the driver and VC are atts to your section then that problem goes away. Additionally the vehicle can continue in service supplying you and removing casualties.
Click to expand...
Long time ago, did we not practice Z Harbors? Veh plus driver plus a CC under PL WO stay out of the direct fight until called fwd.
 
FJAG said:
I presume that it has a commander when moving but just needs a crew of two - driver and gunner - to operate the vehicle and weapon system when its dismounts have left. I'm presuming, but don't know for sure, that what it has is a one man weapon station. Overwatching for aircraft on a radar and engaging targets can be done by a single operator in a rules-based, linked-network AD environment.

I understand how tank systems went to commander/gunner sets during WW2 when all systems were manual and direct view optical and linkage between systems was voice communication. Those systems are changing dramatically and rapidly and with AI and digital links are getting even better. I wouldn't be surprised that the need for even a gunner in a given APC may no longer be necessary - just some guy to clear stoppages and toggle a few switches that remain manual. Its getting that science fictiony and the future is coming rapidly.

It's one of those things where you really need to get hands on with the equipment and see what level the technology has gotten to and how it works in a system of systems.

🍻
Click to expand...
EMP?
 
Poland

Ratel - 40 ton heavy track
Borsuk - 28 ton swimmable track
Rosomak - 22 ton swimmable 8x8

All of the above.

www.twz.com

This Is Poland’s New Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle

Even as the utility of heavy armor is being questioned, the 40-ton Ratel aims to bring more protection and firepower to a rapidly modernizing Polish Army. The 40-ton CBWP Ratel plans to bring more armor and firepower to a rapidly modernizing Polish Army.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
Further to the above.

The Rosomak is the 8x8 Patria built in Poland. About 1000 in service with continuing orders and production for Poland

The swimmable track is being ordered as 1014 IFV variants and 386 specialists.

Several hundred of the heavy tracks are being built.

All of them have a Polish built RWS with a 30x173 Bushmaster, a pair of Spike-LR (4-5 km) and a 7.62 coax.

All vehicles so equipped are considered IFVs. All of them have a 3 man crew in the hull and 8 passengers.
 
Kirkhill said:
Poland

Ratel - 40 ton heavy track
Borsuk - 28 ton swimmable track
Rosomak - 22 ton swimmable 8x8
Click to expand...
I see the role for the 40-50t HIFV Track

I see a role for a <15t swimmable 8x8 (LAV-25, LAV 2.0 series vehicles)

They lost me at the 28t swimming track.

I do see a role for a 3rd type of armored vehicle, but that would be a BvS10 <10t swimmable track - mainly for northern mobility.
 
KevinB said:
I see the role for the 40-50t HIFV Track

I see a role for a <15t swimmable 8x8 (LAV-25, LAV 2.0 series vehicles)

They lost me at the 28t swimming track.

I do see a role for a 3rd type of armored vehicle, but that would be a BvS10 <10t swimmable track - mainly for northern mobility.
Click to expand...
I could see a use case for the 28t swimmer in the European arctic, but not much else. Neither fish nor fowl.
 
Finland and Korea both place a lot of emphasis on amphibiosity in their manoeuvre fleets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
British infantry small arms
Replies
8
Views
13K
onecat
onecat
R
  • Locked
British infantry small arms
Replies
2
Views
10K
Pikache
Pikache
foxtwo
Bolt Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Replies
13
Views
18K
TheShepherd
T
B
Should Canada adopt the LAV III (AKA: Stryker) as its primary armoured vehicle family?
36 37 38
Replies
749
Views
530K
a_majoor
a_majoor
Back
Top