Armored Combat Vehicles (ACV)
Tracked Armored Fighting Vehicles | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vehicle | state | Weight (Tons) | Speed (MPH) | Range (Miles) | Armor | Gun (mm) | Engine | Crew | Unit Price |
| Type 89 | Japan | 29.2 | 43 | 191 | - | 35 | Diesel 600HP | 3 | $4.0M |
| Warrior | Britain | 28.3 | 47 | 410 | - | 30 | Diesel 550HP | 2 | $1.3M |
| Kampfer | Austria | 27.8 | 44 | 373 | Steel | 30 | Diesel 600HP | 3 | $1.3M |
| Bradley | USA | 24.9 | 41 | 300 | Aluminum | 25 | Diesel 500HP | 3 | $1.2M |
| Stridsn. | Sweden | 24.7 | 44 | 186 | Steel | 40 | Diesel 550HP | 3 | $1.3M |
| Puma | Germany | 24.3 | 40 | 404 | Steel | - | Diesel 429HP | 2 | $1.3M |
| BMP3 | Russia | 20.6 | 44 | 369 | Aluminum | 30 | Diesel 500HP | 3 | $796K |
| IFV | China | 16.9 | 40 | 313 | Steel | 30 | Diesel 360HP | 3 | $454K |
| AMX13 | France | 16.5 | 40 | 354 | Composite | 25 | Diesel 280HP | 3 | $521K |
| C13 | Italy | 16.1 | 44 | 311 | Aluminum | 25 | Diesel 360HP | 3 | $1.25M |
| APC | China | 15.9 | 40 | 311 | Steel | - | Diesel 320HP | 2 | $281K |
| IFV | Korea | 14.2 | 46 | 298 | Aluminum | - | Diesel 280HP | 3 | $1.1M |
An Armored Combat Vehicle (ACV) is a self-propelled vehicle with armored protection and cross-country capability. This includes armored personnel carriers, armored infantry fighting vehicles, and heavy armament combat vehicles. an Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle (AIFV) is an armored combat vehicle designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad, which normally provides the capability for the troops to deliver fire from inside the vehicle under armored protection and which is armed with an integralor organic cannon of at least 20 millimeters caliber and sometimes an anti-tank missile launcher. An Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) is an armored combat vehicle designed and equipped to transport a combat infantry squad and which, as a rule, is armed with an integral or organic weapon of less than 20millimeters caliber.
Infantry vehicles can vary from general transport assets such as trucks, to specially designed light armored fighting vehicles (LAFVs). The intensity of combat on the modern battlefield requires infantry vehicles that are mobile, survivable, and lethal. Many ground forces have programs underway to field infantry LAFVs for modern requirements. Because of budgetary constraints, many ground forces continue using infantry vehicles which we might consider obsolete, but which are well suited for their environment and military role. A number of forces have aggressive upgrade programs for older systems.
One of the most thorough published rationales for the heavy infantry fighting vehicle may be found in Richard Simpkin, Mechanized Infantry (London: Brassey’s, 1980), chapter 5. Grossly compressed, Simpkin’s thesis is that the main battle tank had (and has) grown so specialized as an anti-tank system itself and that the threat from other anti-tank weapons had grown so that there were many tactical situations in which IFVs, with their handier armament and dismountable troops, would have to lead. Infantry LAFVs are generally classed as armored personnel carriers (APCs) or infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs). The lighter, less protected and less lethal system is the APC. It is intended to carry soldiers to the close combat zone, then dismount them for their commitment to the fight. An IFV is designed to fight with soldiers onboard, to carry the soldiers forward without dismounting them if possible, and to support them with direct fires if they do dismount. The plethora of upgrade options available is permitting both APCs and IFVs to become more mobile, survivable, and lethal. Thus APCs with IFV survivability or IFV lethality, or with both, transforms them into IFVs.
Armies have been looking at ways to balance the need for increased protection with limitations that additional armor brings, such as the need to be amphibious. One solution is to accept a lack of swim capability for a segment of up-armored IFVs, coupled with a distribution of (less armored) amphibious vehicles within the force. Other armies are looking at limited addition of applique armor or active protection systems. Several companies have developed light explosive reactive armor (ERA), which can be used on LAFVs. However, this is a less likely upgrade, because exploding armor fragments are a hazard to dismounted soldiers.
The idea of creating a light wheeled tank appeared in the 1920s, but it was possible to fully implement it only in the second half of the 20th century. The first mass-produced vehicle of this class was the French armored car AMX-10RC, created in the early 1970s. Close to the concept was also the German heavy armored car Sd.Kfz.234 / 2 "Puma". The need to create a wheeled tank was dictated by the time and nature of armed conflicts in the world. The first time wheeled tanks appeared was in those countries that were engaged in the colonial wars, in territories where they were moving more on the roads than on the road. When large-scale wars were the primary focus, such machines were not needed. At the same time, the participation of wheeled tanks in small local conflicts and counter-terrorist operations is more relevant than main battle tanks. Such a machine can be used as a fire support machine for anti-terror units - often this is a necessity. In this case, the wheeled tank, having good tactical and operational mobility, using general roads, can quickly come to the aid of a particular unit and provide fire support. This is a combination of mobility and high firepower.
For example, the M1128 MGS (Mobile Gun System) on the wheel platform Stryker, which was intended for use in low intensity conflicts. In drawing up the fleet of light infantry brigades of US land forces, on the basis of this family of armored personnel carriers in the early 2000s, it was decided to equip the base machine M1126 only with a machine gun of 12.7 mm M2HB. Self-propelled artillery M1128 MGS with a modification of the 105-mm gun M68A2, located in an uninhabited tower, should have provided fire support. Each battalion on the Stryker BTR is given a battery of nine M1128, which is not enough to support the unit’s fire support in an all-arms battle.
25 leading armored vehicles companies
|
Improved secondary armaments for aerial targets permit the main weapon to focus more on heavy targets. Thus, several countries are adding remote day sights and night sights and improved ammunition for machineguns (MGs). Others are adding automatic grenade launchers to supplement MG fires.
The aerial threat to AFVs has prompted ground forces to address that threat. One response is proliferation of air defense assets, such as shoulder-fired SAMs. A more direct response which is difficult to counter, is cost-effective, and has long-term benefits for force effectiveness, is to better equip the vehicles for counterair fires. Some infantry vehicles have been fitted with high-angle-of-fire turrets (e.g., BTR-80) and antiaircraft sights (BMP-3). Improved fire control technology has led to more exotic ammunition solutions. The BMP-3 gun-launched ATGM has a higher velocity for use against helicopters. Another new development is ballistic computer-based electronically-fuzed frag-HE rounds, including forward- and side-firing rounds, which can defeat rotary-wing aircraft and ground-based antiarmor positions at stand-off range. Infantry vehicles offer the most economical armored vehicle chassis for development of combat support and service support vehicles, including air defense vehicles, artillery, C4, reconnaissance, etc.
Protection options are available for upgrading systems. The wide variety of supplemental protection packages include active and passive armor, active protection systems and countermeasure systems. Although upgrades are being advertised and are technically possible, that does not mean that they are tactically sound.
Armor material has evolved significantly throughout the decades both in terms of technology and concept of use. It has been a continual battle between weapons’ capabilities on the side and striking a balance between protection and weight increase on the other. Active protection systems being increasingly used to tackle the size, weight and power issues associated with more armor.The growth in material science engineering and the development of lightweight armor materials is one of the key drivers for this market. The development of materials like Kevlar and Dyneema for soldier protection systems is expected to increase the ballistic protection capabilities of a soft armored vest.
Protecting lives in the modern battlefield has become a priority during the recent wars, with modern militaries increasingly investing in bullet-proof protective equipment for their soldiers. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq provided an incentive for vehicle manufacturers and components’ supplier to develop platforms that would increase crew protection and also provide optimum mobility and physical dimensions to operate in a wide variety of combat scenarios.
8x8 Mobile Gun Systems | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| vehicle | origin | weight | length | width | height | Max speed | Crew | arms |
| Rooikat | RSA | 28 tons | 7.1 m | 2.9 mt | 2.8 m | 120 km/h | 4 | 105mm smoothbore |
| ZTL-11 | PRC | 26 tons | 8 m | 3 m | 2.1 m | 100 km/h | 4 | 105mm smooth rifle |
| Type 16 | Japan | 26 tons | 8.45 m | 2.98 m | 2.87 m | 100 km/h | 4 | 105mm line gun |
| Centauro | Italy | 26 tons | 7.40 m | 3.05 m | 2.73 m | 108 km/h | 4 | 105mm smoothbore |
| Cloud Leopard | Taiwan | 22 tons | 7 m | 2.7 m | 2.3 m | 105 km/h | 3 | 105mm smoothbore |
| M1128 MGS | USA | 19 tons | 6.95 m | 2.72 m | 2.64 m | 100 km/h | 3 | 105mm smoothbore |
| AMX 10 | France | 17 tons | 6.24 m | 2.95 m | 2.60 m | 85 km/h | 4 | 105mm smoothbore |
8x8 Armored Fighting Vehicles | ||||||||
| vehicle | origin | weight | length | width | height | Max speed | Crew + troops | arms |
| Boxer | Germany | 36.5 tons | 7.93 m | 2.99 m | 2.37 m | 103 km/h | 3 + 8 | |
| Berdia | Finland | 26.0 tons | 7.7 m | 2.8 m | 2.3 m | 10x km/h | 3 + 12 | 12.7mm HMG |
| VBCI | France | 25.6 tons | 7.6 m | 2.98 m | 3.0 m | 100 km/h | 9 | 25 mm M811 cannon |
| AV-81 | Singapore | 25.0 tons | 7.0 m | 2.7 m | 2.1 m | 110 km/h | 2 + 2 | 40mm AGL |
| Cloud Leopard | Taiwan | 22.0 tons | 7.0 m | 2.7 m | 2.3 m | 105 km/h | 2 + 3 | M242 chain gun |
| Pand 2 | Austria | 22.0 tons | 7.02 m | 2.67 m | 1.85 m | 105 km/h | 2 + 2 | 12.7mm HMG |
| BTR-4 | Ukraine | 19.8 tons | 7.76 m | 2.93 m | 3.20 m | 110 km/h | 3 + 8 | 30mm ZTM-1cannon |
| Stryker | USA | 16.5 tons | 6.95 m | 2.72 m | 2.64 m | 100 km/h | 9 | 12.7mm HMG |
| BTR-3 | Ukraine | 16.4 tons | 7.65 m | 2.9 m | 2.9 m | 85 km/h | 6 + 6 | 30mm ZTM-1cannon |
| 96-type | Japan | 14.5 tons | 6.84 m | 2.48 m | 1.85 m | 100 km/h | 2 + 2 | 12.7mm HMG |
| BTR-80 | Russia | 13.6 tons | 7.7 m | 2.9 m | 2.41 m | 80-90 km/h | 2 + 2 | 30mm 2A72 cannon |
The fighting vehicle concept was a Soviet idea reflecting Soviet doctrine. It was every bit as much an achievement as the T34 tank and the Kalashnikov rifle — so much so that all major armies copied the concept shortly after the BMP was introduced. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, particularly in the field of weapons design, where original thought is so scarce. Soviet doctrine since the spectacular WWII victory that saved their country has been to concentrate forces at the critical point, conduct a mounted breakthrough under overwhelming artillery attacks and drive for deep, critical objectives. This very consistent doctrine drove their infantry, tank, and artillery design: large numbers of relatively simple weapons systems that support this doctrine, i.e., large, relatively inaccurate guns on small tanks; small infantry squads that fight mounted during the breakthrough (hence Infantry Fighting Vehicle); and massive artillery/rocket/missile formations.
The American Bradely Fighting Vehicle, therefore, is a Soviet concept done in grand American style — bigger, better, and more expensive. When the BMP was being deployed, the US was mired in a land war in Asia, more worried about bombers and jungle boots. When Abrams/DePuy/Starry and some outstanding Chiefs of Staff put the Army back together, we threw large dollars at modernization and came up with the Abrams tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and the Crusader artillery system (20 years later). The Abrams is a world class tank, thanks to some very talented, disciplined designers at Chrysler Defense and TACOM, albeit with German armament and British armor. The Bradley suffered from uncertain U.S. infantry doctrine in the post-Vietnam era.
Battlefield taxi vs. fighting vehicle. The Bradley was designed as a fighting vehicle but was immediately compromised by weight/size limitations and US doctrine. US infantry wanted to keep the large squads, did not really want to fight mounted, and was smart enough to know it didn’t have overmatching artillery support anyway, with WWII formations declining from fully one third of a division to the paltry numbers of today. Firing ports were discarded soon after fielding. Armor protection was state of the art, but completely inadequate in the face of another Soviet invention, the Sagger anti-tank missile. Ft. Benning wisely accepted the better mobility and firepower of the Bradley but avoided the fighting vehicle doctrine whenever possible.
Armament. The TOW AT missile launcher and two-man turret were major design compromises, caused by lack of capability against Soviet tank divisions in Europe at the time, and continue to cause doctrinal problems. How can the vehicle be 2-3 kms in overwatch and still be accompanying the Abrams onto the objective? Is the 25mm a precision or area weapon? Suffice it to say that the BMP had a direct fire cannon and missile launcher — ours do, too. The advent of fire-and-forget AT missiles, such as the U.S. Javelin, may cause new thinking.
Mobility. The Bradley was a great improvement in battlefield mobility for its time, although it is still its greatest limitation for future battlefields. The next infantry vehicle, and tank for that matter, needs to fly over obstacles and fight successfully on the ground. Technology is not the limiting factor, only doctrine and proponent inertia. The Bradley swimming issue, another BMP mirror-image threat and infantry-cavalry compromise, can be avoided by flight if some original thinking is done.
The modern battlefield is becoming increasingly mobile and lethal. The challenge for reconnaissance systems is to acquire the enemy, transmit intelligence, and survive for the next mission. Therefore, ground forces use specialized reconnaissance vehicles. Most will employ a mix of systems, including tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, dismounted reconnaissance patrols, aerial reconnaissance, and reconnaissance vehicles. The spectrum of reconnaissance vehicles currently ranges from older systems ill-suited for modern requirements, to survivable, mobile, and lethal systems, equipped with complex sensor arrays and communications suites.
A number of forces fielded combat reconnaissance vehicles (CRVs) designed for operations at or beyond the FLOT, not to initiate combat but to survive if engaged. They may operate in combat reconnaissance patrols with heavily armed vehicles such as tanks and IFVs. Many offer sensors no better than those on other armored vehicles, and use optics for a variety of combat support missions, such as fire support. Examples of these are the British Saladin Armored Car and the Austrian Pandur armored reconnaissance Fire Support Vehicle. Main guns on these vehicles can range up to 105 mm (South African Rooikat). A growing trend is for CRVs with added sensors (such as the Russian BRM-3K). It is a versatile vehicle configured for maneuver reconnaissance with thermal sights and a 30-mm gun, but is also useful for setting up a stationary surveillance position with its Tall Mike radar. As a command (-K type) vehicle, it employs a mix of radios to transmit intelligence across several nets in a combined arms force.
A recent trend is the fielding of vehicles with sophisticated multi-sensor arrays specially designed to operate behind or near the FLOT and provide continuous data to combined arms forces. Vehicles designed to support specific branches are included with those branches (such as PRP-3/4 for artillery).
A class of vehicles widely proliferated for light patrol duties is the armored scout car. With wheels rather than tracks, light armor, and guns generally of 7.62 - 20 mm, they offer low cost but are vulnerable to a wide variety of weapons. Examples include the British Ferret and Russian BRDM-2. A recent category of vehicle which US Army forces will encounter is lightly armored vehicles on truck or jeep-type chassis with very light armor for security, and patrol. Some are unarmed; whereas others employ sophisticated weapons stations and lethal firepower (up to 30-mm guns). Smaller 4x4 scout vehicles (such as French VBL) and ultra-light fast-attack vehicles have also been built for light patrol and rapid reconnaissance missions.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
