NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Dayganistan]

So I've been thinking about mechanized infantry, and more specifically different roles for mechanized infantry in wheeled IFVs vs mechanized infantry in tracked IFVs. I'm looking at the idea that troops in tracked IFVs would be the main offensive push alongside tanks and supported by artillery, while troops mounted in wheeled IFVs would use superior speed and mobility to outflank the enemy. To do this, the wheeled IFVs would be fast and heavily armed (large caliber autocannon, ATGM, 14.5mm RWS, 7.62 coax), but lightly armoured (maybe with an active protection system to increase survivability without a major weight increase) as the tradeoff here. Is this where the distinction is made irl or are wheeled IFVs generally used by people who are too cheap to buy tracked vehicles/want something lighter that can be transported by air to overseas combat zones? Would this sort of doctrinal difference in use of wheeled vs tracked mechanized infantry even be worthwhile?

[Austrasien]

So I've been thinking about mechanized infantry, and more specifically different roles for mechanized infantry in wheeled IFVs vs mechanized infantry in tracked IFVs. I'm looking at the idea that troops in tracked IFVs would be the main offensive push alongside tanks and supported by artillery, while troops mounted in wheeled IFVs would use superior speed and mobility to outflank the enemy. To do this, the wheeled IFVs would be fast and heavily armed (large caliber autocannon, ATGM, 14.5mm RWS, 7.62 coax), but lightly armoured (maybe with an active protection system to increase survivability without a major weight increase) as the tradeoff here. Is this where the distinction is made irl or are wheeled IFVs generally used by people who are too cheap to buy tracked vehicles/want something lighter that can be transported by air to overseas combat zones? Would this sort of doctrinal difference in use of wheeled vs tracked mechanized infantry even be worthwhile?

Light and heavy armour advance at more or less the same speed. This is more what you are looking for.

It is probably better to think in terms of infiltration for getting around flanks. Modern land combat includes aviation which moves incomparably faster than anything on the ground and cannot be "outmaneuvered". The OODA loop tends to lengthen with distance though (the time which elapses between the observation of a force by the enemy and the time that is likely to elapse before that force is brought under attack by X tends to increase with the distance from X, infantry will open fire with small arms in seconds, tanks in a minute or so, artillery on-call and nearby aircraft in a few minutes, unready artillery/aircraft/missiles in tens of minutes to hours, reserves and other out-of-place forces in hours or days...) so a force which maintains a sufficiently high tempo of operations (move-fight-hide not necessarily in this order) has a proportionately better chance of evading being "fixed". High-speed sneak.

[Gallia-]

simpkin rising

[Amidia-]

Technical brigade is go
EDIT: maybe I skipped over this when reading the earlier charge of the ultralight brigade but is there a reason to go with a random commerical pickup as opposed to normal Humvee alike or 2 1/2 ton?

[Doppio Giudici]

Does anyone know anything about "Metal Foam" armor and how useful it might be for IFVs?

Snip.

And about the recent research at one or more universities? The biggest problem I am finding with the material is that it appears to use up more mass and cost a lot more, and only have the ability to shave off weight for comparable protection against 12.7mm of all things.

So I've been thinking about mechanized infantry, and more specifically different roles for mechanized infantry in wheeled IFVs vs mechanized infantry in tracked IFVs. I'm looking at the idea that troops in tracked IFVs would be the main offensive push alongside tanks and supported by artillery, while troops mounted in wheeled IFVs would use superior speed and mobility to outflank the enemy. To do this, the wheeled IFVs would be fast and heavily armed (large caliber autocannon, ATGM, 14.5mm RWS, 7.62 coax), but lightly armoured (maybe with an active protection system to increase survivability without a major weight increase) as the tradeoff here. Is this where the distinction is made irl or are wheeled IFVs generally used by people who are too cheap to buy tracked vehicles/want something lighter that can be transported by air to overseas combat zones? Would this sort of doctrinal difference in use of wheeled vs tracked mechanized infantry even be worthwhile?

Currently wheeled APCs/IFVs/AFVs appear to be really close in offroad capability as tracked counterparts, while also: being a lot faster on roads, a lot easier to repair or maintain, being typically cheaper, being a lot easier to drive, ect ect. They are popular in urban settings, France and South Africa have gotten plenty of use of them on the flat plains or savannas of Africa. I believe the Russian BTRs were designed for the Eurasian Steppe and Europe.

Typically wheeled vehicles have a cap at armor against 14.5mm autocannon rounds in the front, but tracked vehicles with comparable armor are about as easy to ship by air, from what I understand.

From what I know, the US shoves tracked IFVs into "Armor" Brigade Combat Teams and Russia shoves BMPs/Tanks into "Armor" divisions. Both of them appear to keep the wheeled APCs/IFVs in "Mech Inf", "Styker", or "Motor Rifle" divisions/brigades.

[Dayganistan]

Light and heavy armour advance at more or less the same speed. This is more what you are looking for.

That's actually what I was looking at, but trying to make a version with heavier firepower hence the wheeled IFVs. As far as I know, South Africa used the Ratel for this sort of purpose. And since if I were to launch an offensive war into a neighboring country it would be into the central Asian steppe, Iran, or the Punjab I figured I could get the same sort of use out of wheeled IFVs. But at the same time, giving every squad a couple technicals armed with HMGs and AGLs and then having dudes with MMP zipping around in Ford Rangers can probably solve the firepower issue.

[The Akasha Colony]

Currently wheeled APCs/IFVs/AFVs appear to be really close in offroad capability as tracked counterparts, while also: being a lot faster on roads, a lot easier to repair or maintain, being typically cheaper, being a lot easier to drive, ect ect. They are popular in urban settings, France and South Africa have gotten plenty of use of them on the flat plains or savannas of Africa. I believe the Russian BTRs were designed for the Eurasian Steppe and Europe.

Typically wheeled vehicles have a cap at armor against 14.5mm autocannon rounds in the front, but tracked vehicles with comparable armor are about as easy to ship by air, from what I understand.

This is only true below a certain weight class. Above 25-30 tonnes, tracked vehicles start becoming decisively better than wheeled vehicles in performance and size. This is why there are no wheeled main battle tanks and why most wheeled carriers tend to fall in the 10-20 tonne range (e.g. Piranha III family, BTR, etc.). Newer wheeled vehicles have pushed into the 20-tonne range like Terrex and SuperAV, but Boxer has gotten so big and heavy it is now showing the limits of wheeled platforms. This weight limit in turn creates an upper boundary on maximum protection. Meanwhile tracked IFVs regularly surpass 30 tonnes with no real problems (assuming they were designed for that weight class, of course).

[Purpelia]

Something I've been struggling with a lot lately is finding a place for infantry in the modern army. And the more I think about it the more I feel there basically isn't one. I mean, mechanized and motorized troops aren't infantry. They are mounted infantry aka dragoons. That's something different. Infantry is defined by being foot mobile. And basically I feel there is just no need for that any more. Am i wrong?

[Miranda-22]

Something I've been struggling with a lot lately is finding a place for infantry in the modern army. And the more I think about it the more I feel there basically isn't one. I mean, mechanized and motorized troops aren't infantry. They are mounted infantry aka dragoons. That's something different. Infantry is defined by being foot mobile. And basically I feel there is just no need for that any more. Am i wrong?

Air cavalry and light infantry both play important roles in modern conflicts, but you're broadly right IMO that mobility has increased to the point that footsloggers just aren't viable without mechanized support when facing mechanized forces. Most modern forces, to my knowledge, value the mobility provided by mechanized infantry too much to give it up when they're capable of utilizing it. I would like to point out, though, that urban environments generally force more man-to-man, close-quarters actions and infantry movements, and your average insurgent force most certainly doesn't have mechanized elements, so when looking at the role of non-mechanized infantry, consider nonconventional roles such as running about, planting mines, positioning fireteams and strike teams, and the like.

[Hrstrovokia]

For Hrstrovokia, wheeled APCs feature in rapid reaction/independent brigades.

Tracked IFVs feature in Tank/Mech inf Divisions.

[The Manticoran Empire]

For Hrstrovokia, wheeled APCs feature in rapid reaction/independent brigades.

Tracked IFVs feature in Tank/Mech inf Divisions.

Sounds kinda like my view on the matter. Wheeled AFVs serve in Motorized Brigades and Divisions while tracked AFVs serve in Mechanized Brigades and Divisions because, as far as my military is concerned, wheels means motorized and tracks means mechanized.

[Amidia-]

The issue with arguing tracks v wheels for speed is kinda ignoring what speed means in the equation. You're not talking huge differences in tactical speed or anything. They'll road march a pretty similar pace because most armies don't ride they're vehicles until they break and then camp for the night. BTRs were sort of interchangeable with BMPs for soviets either could operate just fine with tanks to them it was mostly an issue of cost for mechanizing the whole massive Soviet army. An ifv is an ifv and much easier to spot than dude's in cover or high tech hole they dug with a shovel, wheels or tracks aside. Especially if you're going to have some God awful massive boxer equivalent, the boxer is literally like tank sized. Of course I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as some of the regulars hear so take this with a grain of salt

[Gallia-]

Stryker brigade lost its M8 AGS because it couldn't road march.

Without wheels you need a lot of tank transporters. Or accept marching at like 5-10 mph. You won't notice the difference since GMTI field artillery will slay anything moving under 100 mph pretty easily.

Things going faster than 100 mph are going to be small motorcycle gangs and helicopters. Motorcycle double duos moving at 100 mph with Sten guns and RPGs are probably the real threats the Gallan Army has to face in the XXI but only after it gets chronically nuked and cyber biker gangs start plowing the wastelands and stealing engines from the Army's stockpiles.

Eventually I'll draw cyber gangsters with Honda Helixes and 800 cc yellow bee bikes and Dainese Tempest jackets/pants with explosive CO2 dynamite guns (PETN balls) and Sten guns.

These guys fight Galla's technical army of Datsun compacts with .50 BMGs and "Sven and Ole with the company's two functional M60s" in the post nuclear holocaust law and order occupation campaign.

[Amidia-]

Stryker brigade lost its M8 AGS because it couldn't road march.

Without wheels you need a lot of tank transporters. Or accept marching at like 5-10 mph. You won't notice the difference since GMTI field artillery will slay anything moving under 100 mph pretty easily.

Things going faster than 100 mph are going to be small motorcycle gangs and helicopters.

Motorcycle double duos moving at 100 mph with Sten guns and RPGs are probably the real threats the Gallan Army has to face in the XXI but only after it gets chronically nuked and cyber biker gangs start plowing the wastelands and stealing engines from the Army's stockpiles.

Russian gaz pickup brigade is designed for the post apocalyptic forging wars of 202x. Mad max armored thrusts, deep battle never dies

[The Manticoran Empire]

Stryker brigade lost its M8 AGS because it couldn't road march.

Since the M8 never entered service, this is a disengenuous argument, since Stryker Brigades never HAD them to begin with.

[Gallia-]

Stryker brigade lost its M8 AGS because it couldn't road march.

Since the M8 never entered service, this is a disengenuous argument, since Stryker Brigades never HAD them to begin with.

funny joke

Stryker brigade lost its M8 AGS because it couldn't road march.

Without wheels you need a lot of tank transporters. Or accept marching at like 5-10 mph. You won't notice the difference since GMTI field artillery will slay anything moving under 100 mph pretty easily.

Things going faster than 100 mph are going to be small motorcycle gangs and helicopters.

Motorcycle double duos moving at 100 mph with Sten guns and RPGs are probably the real threats the Gallan Army has to face in the XXI but only after it gets chronically nuked and cyber biker gangs start plowing the wastelands and stealing engines from the Army's stockpiles.

Russian gaz pickup brigade is designed for the post apocalyptic forging wars of 202x. Mad max armored thrusts, deep battle never dies

Galla's military equipment (bulldozers, trucks, cars, self-moving guns, APUs, etc.) uses identical civil engines for this reason.

Except for the heavy mechanized vehicles of course, which can't be scavenged except off themselves, so yeah. The Strv 141 and M1s get replaced by a Datsun with a SPG-9 PF-98 or "Sven with the Javelin" something on the back.

[Almadaria]

Reading about the Eurocopter Tiger and its purported stealth capabilities-- how effective are measures like reduced radar cross section and infrared reduction on a helicopter like that, or should one not even bother with stealth because of the inevitable noisiness and proximity of the aircraft?

[Triplebaconation]

my army has replaced all dumb "field manuals" with Twilight 2000 books

[Gallia-]

baste

[The Akasha Colony]

Reading about the Eurocopter Tiger and its purported stealth capabilities-- how effective are measures like reduced radar cross section and infrared reduction on a helicopter like that, or should one not even bother with stealth because of the inevitable noisiness and proximity of the aircraft?

Radar stealth isn't hugely important because the greatest threats to a helicopter (MANPADS, ground fire from vehicles or infantry positions) are generally not radar-cued or guided. Reducing IR profile is probably nice to have but a truly modern IR MANPADS is probably good enough to detect it anyway. It does help to streamline the design as much as possible to reduce the frontal profile, which for a helicopter is the same as trying to reduce a tank's height.

[Gallia-]

Most far reaching use of attack helicopters is not using them.

[New Visayan Islands]

Reading about the Eurocopter Tiger and its purported stealth capabilities-- how effective are measures like reduced radar cross section and infrared reduction on a helicopter like that, or should one not even bother with stealth because of the inevitable noisiness and proximity of the aircraft?

Nope, not this; there is merit in stealth measures. The understanding is that if you're close enough to see or hear a helo with stealth capabilities, you are already dead.

[Gallia-]

A helicopter can be heard by an electronic-acoustic identification system from about a dozen miles depending on the atmospheric conditions.

From the information provided solely by its fundamental frequency a helicopter can be classified in model (Lynx has a 22 Hz fundamental frequency, UH-1 17.2 Hz, etc.), speed, direction of movement, and range to microphone within about 90-95% of accuracy. It's certainly not target grade but it orients an entire company or battalion on the direction of an incoming helicopter well before they get into Hellfire range. The equipment needed to do this exists on most armored vehicles, too (Thales AccuSonic and Boomerang come to mind), and probably would require a small software update at most to make happen. Stealth measures for a helicopter generally derive from simply not existing on the battlefield. Otherwise they will lost in fairly large numbers as soon as they're detected, which is pretty easy for a modern military with decent (late 2000's) equipment, although they will still be lost in huge quantities for people equipped with broadly WW2 levels of low altitude air defense (2003 Iraq, modern Syria, etc.).

Historically gunships tended to be lost in such large amounts during any ambush situation that they stop operations of whole divisions' worth of aircraft for days at a time, and ambushes are easy when your enemy makes so much noise they can be heard from 5-10 miles away, while you're making noise barely above a whisper. Or no noise at all.

The ideal attack helicopter is probably a vertical takeoff robotic drone, more akin to a VTOL Predator than an Apache or Tiger, because this can fly above the most egregious issues that helicopters face: small arms fire and short range missiles. It's also high enough that acoustic classification would be annoying and tell you little about where the threat is. Helicopters fly low enough that their ground horizons rarely breach a few miles, and those that can shoot further might as well be a truck or something, since you certainly don't need a FLIR and 30mm cannon on someone flinging FMTI or Spike-NLOS when you could just mount a launch console in a UH-60 and get the same result.

Going all out on trying to retain low altitude flying as a means of existence is kind of stupid unless you can armor the helicopter to survive cannon rounds or something. Just fly higher, at which point you're better off using a robotic fixed wing aircraft like a Predator, or don't bother.

[Manokan Republic]

Something I've been struggling with a lot lately is finding a place for infantry in the modern army. And the more I think about it the more I feel there basically isn't one. I mean, mechanized and motorized troops aren't infantry. They are mounted infantry aka dragoons. That's something different. Infantry is defined by being foot mobile. And basically I feel there is just no need for that any more. Am i wrong?

That's not exactly the defintion of infantry, hence the term mounted infantry, but basically yes large masses of foot troops don't really have a place in modern warfare as even a lightly unarmored truck is a far better troop transport than going in on foot. The only real idea would be in very short distances, largely for defensive purposes, such as in trenches or on foot patrols, or perhaps in really rough terrain where large vehicles have trouble getting in to, such as the deep jungles or mountains. Airborne troops are often used to be deployed very quickly, by surprise, or in areas where vehicles have trouble going. With something like a mech robot suit or powered exoskeleton, this may change, especially if it can travel a lot faster, but you'd still probably be better going in with a vehicle at first.

[Manokan Republic]

For some reason I thought this might be relevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si7dl6BU78E