NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #3

[GHawkins]

When your vehicle is equipped with a 30mm autocannon and 14.5mm heavy machine gun, what does shoving an AK through a hole and firing randomly at the enemy actually achieve?

Wildly inaccurate automatic weapons fire that keeps people's heads down. People who aren't being shot at by the turret, for example.

That's the pray and spray tactic. Highly ineffective and not even deemed effective in the cold war by the Soviets who basically invented it. The IFV is supposed to actively support infantry. The APC uses the pray and spray tactic because it has lighter armament. The IFVs like the Bradley have their armament to support the advance. They are capable of taking on entrenched foes with their 20mm+ weapons and HMGs. Not to mention that almost all IFVs have some ATGM launcher, to take care of armoured enemies, like other IFVs or even MBTs. Infantry isn't supposed to stay in a single vehicle because that means a single ATGM missile can destroy it. That's why infantry always dismount in combat.

[Immoren]

Obviously Armoured Assault Carriage better name for than type of vehicles than Infantry Fighting Vehicle or Mechanised Infantry Combat Vehicle. *nods*

[Galla-]

Wildly inaccurate automatic weapons fire that keeps people's heads down. People who aren't being shot at by the turret, for example.

That's the pray and spray tactic. Highly ineffective and not even deemed effective in the cold war by the Soviets who basically invented it. The IFV is supposed to actively support infantry. The APC uses the pray and spray tactic because it has lighter armament. The IFVs like the Bradley have their armament to support the advance. They are capable of taking on entrenched foes with their 20mm+ weapons and HMGs. Not to mention that almost all IFVs have some ATGM launcher, to take care of armoured enemies, like other IFVs or even MBTs. Infantry isn't supposed to stay in a single vehicle because that means a single ATGM missile can destroy it. That's why infantry always dismount in combat.

That's not the IFV concept from the Cold War, though, which as I said was dumb and abandoned by everyone.

Obviously Armoured Assault Carriage better name for than type of vehicles than Infantry Fighting Vehicle or Mechanised Infantry Combat Vehicle. *nods*

There's also Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle and Armored Fighting Vehicle.

And Armored Ground Support Vehicle.

A few other terms were used that I cba to look up.

[GHawkins]

That's not the IFV concept from the Cold War, though, which as I said was dumb and abandoned by everyone.

I have constantly been talking about the modern definition of the IFV. The old concept might be abandoned because it posed too big of a risk to the infantry inside it. But my definition is what a modern day IFV is, what it's supposed to do and what it can do.

I do give you this; if the old concept was keeping the infantry inside, then yes, you're right. It was stupid and ineffective. But the modern IFV is a highly effective fighting vehicle. And that's what I've been trying to say all along.

[Galla-]

That's not the IFV concept from the Cold War, though, which as I said was dumb and abandoned by everyone.

I have constantly been talking about the modern definition of the IFV. The old concept might be abandoned because it posed too big of a risk to the infantry inside it. But my definition is what a modern day IFV is, what it's supposed to do and what it can do.

I do give you this; if the old concept was keeping the infantry inside, then yes, you're right. It was stupid and ineffective. But the modern IFV is a highly effective fighting vehicle. And that's what I've been trying to say all along.

viewtopic.php?p=15523857#p15523857

[GHawkins]

I have constantly been talking about the modern definition of the IFV. The old concept might be abandoned because it posed too big of a risk to the infantry inside it. But my definition is what a modern day IFV is, what it's supposed to do and what it can do.

I do give you this; if the old concept was keeping the infantry inside, then yes, you're right. It was stupid and ineffective. But the modern IFV is a highly effective fighting vehicle. And that's what I've been trying to say all along.

viewtopic.php?p=15523857#p15523857

I know that. It's part of what I've been trying to say; the IFV didn't die, it got improved, adjusted and re-tried, with great success. The first attempt at the IFV, as you described it, might have died in the cold war. I think we should be glad it did because it sounds stupid. However, the "2nd Generation" IFV, the ones we now know without firing ports and heavy armament, did make it.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

When your vehicle is equipped with a 30mm autocannon and 14.5mm heavy machine gun, what does shoving an AK through a hole and firing randomly at the enemy actually achieve?

Wildly inaccurate automatic weapons fire that keeps people's heads down. People who aren't being shot at by the turret, for example. Your firing arc is no longer restrained to where the turret is facing, but is now 360' around the vehicle affording complete visibility and protection all around.

This'd make sense if IFVs weren't intended to operate in co-operation with each other anyway and often with infantry dismounted or in desant.

[Galla-]

Wildly inaccurate automatic weapons fire that keeps people's heads down. People who aren't being shot at by the turret, for example. Your firing arc is no longer restrained to where the turret is facing, but is now 360' around the vehicle affording complete visibility and protection all around.

This'd make sense if IFVs weren't intended to operate in co-operation with each other anyway and often with infantry dismounted or in desant.

Who would ever ride an IFV desant in a high intensity war?

[Kouralia]

This'd make sense if IFVs weren't intended to operate in co-operation with each other anyway and often with infantry dismounted or in desant.

Who would ever ride an IFV desant in a high intensity war?

Russians, most likely.

[GHawkins]

Who would ever ride an IFV desant in a high intensity war?

Russians, most likely.

*Edit*

First picture is from the Afghan war in the 80ties. The Russians were using tank desants ever since WWII.

[Galla-]

Who would ever ride an IFV desant in a high intensity war?

Russians, most likely.

Wrong.

The correct answer is "Africans", so basically no one.

Russians, most likely.

*Edit*

First picture is from the Afghan war in the 80ties. The Russians were using tank desants ever since WWII.

That's cool.

What does that have to do with my post though?

[GHawkins]

That's cool.

What does that have to do with my post though?

You said nobody would ride an IFV desant into combat. I gave you two examples of IFVs being sat on. One of them in combat.

Russia-Georgia war of 2008. Again, infantry riding an IFV (BMP) desant. I can't give you a more recent example of the IFV being used like that.

[Galla-]

That's cool.

What does that have to do with my post though?

You said nobody would ride an IFV desant into combat.

Who would ever ride an IFV desant in a high intensity war?

The quoted image is from a rear deployment area obviously, of course you can ride desant that way.

[GHawkins]

You said nobody would ride an IFV desant into combat.

Who would ever ride an IFV desant in a high intensity war?

And you had your examples. The soviets rode them into Afghanistan. The Russians rode them into Georgia. It's not smart, but it does happen.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Russians, most likely.

Wrong.

The correct answer is "Africans", so basically no one.

According to all those field manuals that Allanea used to translate, Russians yes and surprisingly often.
It's quicker to dismount during assault as a desant than when buttoned up.

[The UK in Exile]

Wrong.

The correct answer is "Africans", so basically no one.

According to all those field manuals that Allanea used to translate, Russians yes and surprisingly often.
It's quicker to dismount during assault as a desant than when buttoned up.

I think also the troops didn't think riding inside the vehicles offered much better protection from enemy fire either.

[Questers]

The Russians did use desantniki in Chechnya in combat, btw.

[Galla-]

And you had your examples. The soviets rode them into Afghanistan. The Russians rode them into Georgia. It's not smart, but it does happen.

I suggest you re-read that. Yes, you can ride desant when your biggest threat is a child with a Lee Enfield. You're basically not fighting at that point anyway.

No one rode desant in Zapad-81.

[GHawkins]

According to all those field manuals that Allanea used to translate, Russians yes and surprisingly often.
It's quicker to dismount during assault as a desant than when buttoned up.

I think also the troops didn't think riding inside the vehicles offered much better protection from enemy fire either.

It wasn't that. It was the fact that the vehicles burn like hell. If you're inside and only have 1/2 hatches to get out for 8 men, people will die. They preferred to ride on top of the vehicle so that if the vehicle got hit, they could jump off and get to cover instead of being inside. Also, being inside a vehicle that's being hit by an RPG can cause a concussion and make soldiers bang into each other, injuring them. If you're on top, you'll be thrown off the vehicle by the blast but you'll be outside and capable of getting to cover. And if injured, you don't have to be pulled out of a (possibly burning) vehicle through a small door.

[The UK in Exile]

I think also the troops didn't think riding inside the vehicles offered much better protection from enemy fire either.

It wasn't that. It was the fact that the vehicles burn like hell. If you're inside and only have 1/2 hatches to get out for 8 men, people will die. They preferred to ride on top of the vehicle so that if the vehicle got hit, they could jump off and get to cover instead of being inside. Also, being inside a vehicle that's being hit by an RPG can cause a concussion and make soldiers bang into each other, injuring them. If you're on top, you'll be thrown off the vehicle by the blast but you'll be outside and capable of getting to cover. And if injured, you don't have to be pulled out of a (possibly burning) vehicle through a small door.

that sounds exactly like what I just said.

[GHawkins]

that sounds exactly like what I just said.

I guess I took what you said wrong then. I thought you meant that the IFVs offer zero protection when inside. Sorry about that.

But it's still a trade-off. Being vulnerable to small-arms fire while riding on top and having a better tanks versus rockets or being inside protected from small arms fire but being vulnerable to rockets.

[Galla-]

I think also the troops didn't think riding inside the vehicles offered much better protection from enemy fire either.

It wasn't that. It was the fact that the vehicles burn like hell. If you're inside and only have 1/2 hatches to get out for 8 men, people will die. They preferred to ride on top of the vehicle so that if the vehicle got hit, they could jump off and get to cover instead of being inside. Also, being inside a vehicle that's being hit by an RPG can cause a concussion and make soldiers bang into each other, injuring them. If you're on top, you'll be thrown off the vehicle by the blast but you'll be outside and capable of getting to cover. And if injured, you don't have to be pulled out of a (possibly burning) vehicle through a small door.

RPGs and IEDs are not a threat in high intensity conflict.

This is:



So is this:



Both can hurt you less if you're under armour.

[GHawkins]

RPGs are not a threat in high intensity conflict.

This is:

(Image)

So is this:

(Image)

Both can hurt you less if you're under armour.

(images are too big to [img])

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/FGM-148_Javelin_-_ID_DM-SD-04-07567.JPEG
http://www.defensereview.com/wp-content ... sile_5.jpg
http://www.armyrecognition.com/Amerique ... USA_03.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y125/i ... srifle.jpg

All these are threats. And I rather be blown off my vehicle and land somewhere away from it when an ATGM hits, or even better, jump off it when I see it approaching, than sit inside it and be blown in two when the metal bends to the inside cause of the impact.

[Galla-]

RPGs are not a threat in high intensity conflict.

This is:

(Image)

So is this:

(Image)

Both can hurt you less if you're under armour.

(images are too big to [img])

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/FGM-148_Javelin_-_ID_DM-SD-04-07567.JPEG
http://www.defensereview.com/wp-content ... sile_5.jpg
http://www.armyrecognition.com/Amerique ... USA_03.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y125/i ... srifle.jpg

All these are threats. And I rather be blown off my vehicle and land somewhere away from it when an ATGM hits, or even better, jump off it when I see it approaching, than sit inside it and be blown in two when the metal bends to the inside cause of the impact.

Afghanistan is not at all comparable or relevant to a high intensity war tbh. The highest casualty producer in Afghanistan is UXOs, compared to long range artillery in a serious war. Come on, bro.

[GHawkins]

Afghanistan is not at all comparable or relevant to a high intensity war tbh. The highest casualty producer in Afghanistan is UXOs, compared to long range artillery in a serious war. Come on, bro.

I stopped talking about Afghanistan. I went for your high intensity war where both sides have ATGM or other heavy tank-defeating armament at their disposal.

Since we'll go for solid examples, give me a high intensity war situation, hypothetical or whatever you want to make it.

And I don't think we'll ever find common ground on this. As much as I love a good discussion, I think we should soon clear the table for the other questions that are to be asked here.