Mechanized Infantry Perceptions 2010

[Fuchs]

During recent small wars casualty aversion has been general.

In a great war, casualty aversion means to sacrifice few to not need to sacrifice many.
This means that often times commanders need to be reckless in their use of few in order to do their job right, to keep casualties relatively low.
Examples are the use of small and weak scouting teams (aggressive armoured reconnaissance, for example), the use of LRRP without a huge institution of heliborne extraction on call, the reckless push disregarding losses in the three digit range in order to seal the fate of an entire opposing peer force brigade.

It's a different military culture, one in which recklessness has a justified role.


This doesn't change that away from highly important actions, extreme caution and often even outright refusal of combat may be a very good idea.

[Distiller]

'Light' is easy. Walking men with everything they might possibly need in their rucksacks, in units without organic technical mobility assets. Focus tactical mobility and low signature, but with man-portable missiles and other systems very dangerous in the infight. And I think to maximize effectiveness such units have to be organized almost irregularily and very flat. Mobility and fire support assets as needed.

But then it becomes complicated, so lets start with the upper end. I think the real place these days for heavy mech inf is urban combat. Vehicles are rolling fortresses with protection far outweighing mobility. Bringing infantry directly and under fire to the close-in combat. Here also the assault gun would come into play, as part of the direct-indirect fires mix. Such units are way too unwieldy for fast open terrain movements and their standard effector portfolio not suited for long range combat. But equipped with guided missiles also very good for defensive operations over longer ranges.

And for 'in between' I'm not sure infantry is the right tool. Rather I'd think of cavalry. Focus on mobility (also air portable and amphibious - so let's keep under 15/18 tons) and (missile) firepower. Very important aerial ISR, primary fire support via air power, also logistics support primarily via air. Think VDV and think BMD-4. A reduced infantry contingent can be valuable for some tasks, but dismounted combat should not even be tried as it robs the units of its greatest assets speed and mobility. Designed for rapid maneuvers in rural and vehicle-compatible environment. These are the units for 'recklessness'.

[Compost]

This short version summarises conclusions on the armament of infantry carrying armoured vehicles developed in a 3-part version which follows. The attributes for an armoured vehicle that carries infantry in and near combat zones can be generally ranked in order as protection, mobility and then armament. The minimum load has been set as an 8-man squad/section. The vehicles considered are the tracked and wheeled light and medium APCs used mainly by mechanised infantry, the wheeled PMV used by light infantry, and the medium tracked AIFV and the heavy BW used by armoured infantry.

Installation of a heavy armament on an infantry carrying vehicle is - excluding the AIFV - a hazard to be carefully avoided. Being able to deploy and manoeuvre powerful weapons is the role of purpose-designed AFVs that have the space and weight capabilities needed to keep such weapons in operation.

APC – General. An APC needs a defensive armament for use against ambush and for local security when in overwatch and laager. That armament might also be employed offensively while infantry dismount. Stabilisation is useful but increases weight, complexity and cost. Development of effective systems for operation of external weapons and skeletal RCWS mounts has been accompanied by a trend to remotely operated turrets. With ready magazine(s) included in the turret the need for bulky trunking is reduced. However the turret itself tends to become bulky and there is still a need for manual or mechanical replenishment of magazines from lower in the hull.

Alternatively a weapon can be in an external mount above a mini-turret or cupola or independently mounted as a RCWS. Both those types of overhead mount avoid in-board concerns such as bore evacuation and venting, but magazine arrangements and clearance and reloading of overhead external mounts are more complex than in a turret. And for a RCWS, there is the further difficulty that its pedestal must include the traversing and elevating mechanisms that can for an external mount be included as part of a mini turret or cupola.

Similar to the 1-man turret on a light APC, the cupola or mini-turret or unmanned turret on a medium or heavy armoured vehicle can be offset to one or other side of the roof centreline. And to reduce the intrusion of trunking or cable runs any 2-man turret or large unmanned turret might be installed near the forward bulkhead of a troop cabin

Light wheeled and tracked APCs – mechanised infantry. The APC was mainly developed to transport infantry and their equipment and stores in the vicinity of - but not actually into - close combat. The appropriate main armament for a light tracked or wheeled APC is a semi or fully stabilised AGL/MMG combination in an electrically driven 1-man turret occupied by the commander of a 2-man crew.

Alternatively the armament could consist of an AGL and MMG or possibly a 12.7mm HMG, with the AGL mounted in a 1-man turret and the MG on an overhead mount. To minimise the intrusion of trunking the turret should be located at the front of the cabin and/or offset to one side. If heavier weapons were required then it would be necessary to employ light scout cars or scout carriers or else medium or heavy armoured vehicles.

The secondary armament of light (and also of medium and heavy) infantry carrying armoured vehicles should include vehicle and turret or cupola mounted 76mm multi-tube dischargers for smoke and other types of grenade. Additionally, pintles or even swing-arm mounts should be available beside some rooftop hatches to support weapons such as MMGs and mounted infantry launchers for recoilless weapons including especially any standard LATGW.

Medium wheeled and tracked APCs – mechanised infantry. Medium tracked vehicles typically weigh more than 30 tonnes and have a HV cannon of 25 to 35mm calibre in a 2-man turret and are clearly intended for use as an AIFV rather than an APC. On that empirical basis, tracked vehicles are not further considered under this medium APC heading.

With a lesser proportion of its weight allocated to carrying and protecting a powerful cannon and its ammunition, a medium wheeled APC can be protected by homogeneous, composite and spaced armour to all-round S-4569 Level 4 with bow and forward protection in excess of Level 5. That passive protection can be complemented by installation of a defensive aids suite. Further protection can be provided by operating whenever practicable hull down and behind cover. That requires a means of observation by means of devices elevated above or extended to either side of the vehicle.

Extensible masts and articulated booms are already used to elevate equipment pods ten and more metres above stationary armoured communications and reconnaissance vehicles. Use of a raisable weapon pod has already been implemented in the limited elevation of a multi-tube TOW ATGM launcher on a modified M113 vehicle. Prospective use of multi-capable sensor and weapon pods that can be manoeuvred on articulated booms of several – say four to five - metres overall length has been discussed in technical journals for several decades. The base mechanisms for manoeuvring the boom would probably need to be installed in a small unmanned cleft turret, and the pod would have to be operable in high and low profile modes.

Assuming that such a boom and manoeuvrable pod can be engineered in the fairly near future, a useful armament for a medium wheeled APC with a 3-man crew would have for the commander an unmanned cleft turret with articulated boom and pod containing observation devices and a MMG with ready ammunition. That could be complemented by 1-man gunner’s turret armed as on the light APC with a stabilised AGL/MMG combination, or with an AGL in the turret and a HMG overhead. Despite the risk of over-tasking the vehicle commander the boom might also be arranged to carry an attachable launcher for a command guided or self-homing close-range missile.

If the boom were not feasible then the commander should be provided with a cupola fitted with overhead observation devices and a MMG. The gunner should then have a 1-man turret armed as above and also able to carry an attachable launcher for a command guided or self-homing close-range missile.

PMV - light infantry. The PMV is a simple but carefully engineered type of light or medium wheeled infantry-carrying vehicle that can be provided with protection of its lower hull protection to at least S-4569 Level 4 and of the upper hull to at least S-4569 Level 2. Some commentators consider tracked and wheeled APCs too intimidating and provocative for use in security operations. Depreciating that viewpoint is one reason to include well armoured truck-like PMVs in a balanced fleet of armour vehicles. And some armament can be installed provided it is clearly of small calibre.

Ultimately the need for a PMV - in addition to other and more capable wheeled APCs – is predicated on its being relatively inexpensive to procure and operate. In accordance with that austerity and ostensible appearance, the suitable armament for a PMV is a readily-removable/installable MMG flexibly mounted and protected against sniper fire: in a manually or electrically traversed 1-man all-round gunshield rather than a turret or RCWS.

Medium tracked AIFV – armoured infantry. The AIFV is a hybrid intended to transport, accompany and support armoured infantry in close combat zones where it will be exposed to adversary fire. Typically it is expected to be capable of some types of operation without intimate support from more heavily armed and armoured vehicles such as tanks. So the AIFV is expected to combine the capabilities of an APC together with a more powerful armament, and the ranking of its big three attributes is modified to become protection, armament and mobility.

Hence, a useful AIFV armament would consist of an offset 1-man or unmanned turret with a fully stabilised automatic cannon of 30 or 35mm calibre plus coaxial MMG. Assuming any major problems relating to an articulated boom can be solved in the fairly near future, the turreted armament should be complemented by a boom-mounted pod controlled by the vehicle commander. That manoeuvrable pod should contain observation and target acquisition devices and a MMG. Additionally the pod should – despite the risk of overtasking the vehicle commander - be able to carry an attachable launcher for a light AT or assault missile with command or semi-active guidance.

Pending availability of such an articulated boom the commander of an AIFV should in its place be provided with an independent cupola carrying an external MMG, with the gunner in a 1-man turret with 30mm cannon and MMG and arrangements to carry an attachable launcher for a light AT or assault missile with command or semi-active guidance.

BW – armoured infantry. Battle Wagon is the term used here to describe a heavy tracked vehicle designed to transport armoured infantry and also combat engineers operating in close conjunction with MBTs and particularly during entry into heavily defended localities.

For its escort and assault role a BW would be usefully armed with a stabilised cupola-mounted MMG or HMG plus a commander’s partly or fully stabilised observation and weapon pod with MMG on an articulated boom for elevation overhead and to the sides. That pod operable in both high and low profile modes might also carry an attachable launcher for a command guided or self-homing close-range missile. However, to provide redundancy for observation and supporting fire it might be practicable to install two such booms. In that case the second boom operated by a fourth crewman should be arranged to carry an AGL or MMG, and also the launcher for a command guided or self-homing close-range missile.

[Compost]

Here it is in six sections because of the 10,000 char limit.

Every infantry unit can for some tasks benefit by working dismounted alongside armoured vehicles and by making routine and expedient use of armoured vehicles for infantry mobility and transport of stores. The initial question to be asked when planning an infantry carrying armoured vehicle is ‘ how many dismountable infantry should it carry ? ’ And the immediate answer that comes to mind is ‘ a complete section/squad ’. The alternate and final answer is probably ‘ a complete squad plus a support element ’.

However infantry are organised and equipped in different ways. Some armies – including the American, British and German – have several types of infantry mounted on armoured vehicles. Firstly they employ a 6- to 8-strong infantry squad in a tracked vehicle armed with a powerful turreted cannon. The vehicle is intended for combat and together with its crew of two or more can function as a weapon team and support the squad after it has dismounted. Units mounted on such vehicles are usually described as armoured infantry.

Secondly there are mechanised infantry units that when dismounted are expected to sometimes operate independent of fire support from their vehicle. Each mechanised squad typically includes a dismountable weapon team, and a whole squad of 8 to 10 or sometimes as many as 12 dismounts is transported in one tracked or wheeled armoured vehicle, or in two such vehicles.

Thirdly for operational and local mobility it can be useful to provide light infantry with armoured transport vehicles. Light infantry squads in most industrial armies vary in size from as large 13 in the USMC to as small as 8 in other forces. The larger squads of 10 or 12 often include a weapons team of three or four which may deploy close to or at some distance from the rest of the squad. Similar to mechanised infantry the whole squad may be transported in one armoured vehicle. Alternatively 8 or 9 infantry could be in one vehicle with a 3- or 4-man weapon team in another vehicle. Forces organised with smaller light infantry squads of 9 or fewer dismounts usually employ those squads in conjunction with weapon teams detached from platoon and company level that are transported in the same or accompanying vehicles.

Is it necessary to provide different vehicles for armoured and mechanised infantry, and similarly for mechanised and light infantry ? The common needs applying across different types of organisation are that a mounted squad or part squad be small enough to restrain the size of its transport vehicle, big enough to put a useful number of infantry on the ground, small enough to enable some commonality of sub-unit doctrine across different types of infantry, and big enough to limit average procurement and operating costs for each crew and infantry seat.

Those size-related considerations together with the attributes of protection, mobility and armament and dollar costs are essentially determined by doctrine and the extent of interaction between infantry and their vehicle in combat and in the vicinity of combat. If doctrine has established a need for three distinct types of infantry based on such interaction, then it is probable that three distinct types of squad carrying armoured vehicles will be required. However, for flexibility those vehicles - or at least those intended for mechanised and light infantry - should be able to transport all manner of customary squads.

Most seats for dismounts are arranged to face inwards or outwards. With each seat shock-resistant and spall-protected the length of an armoured transport vehicle’s cabin can increase by at least 70cm for each pair of seats. From an organizational perspective, having seats in one vehicle for 10 infantry would enable transport of a 6-man to 8-man squad or part squad plus a 4-man to 2-man weapon or command team or other specialised element Seating for twelve infantry might seem to be a reasonable maximum as it would allow for a large 12-man squad, or an 8-man squad plus a 4-man weapon team or other element, or two 6-man squads.

But if 12 why not 13 to provide for squads organised with three 4-man teams and a squad commander as in the USMC ? There is a practical limit beyond which the dimensions of a vehicle become so large and its armour protection so stretched that it becomes an unnecessarily bulky and vulnerable target. Also it is impractical to squeeze extra infantry into a small vehicle by using foldable jump seats instead of shock-resistant and contoured seating. One certain result of the former is to deliver infantry whose fitness has been degraded by the inadequacies of cramped and uncomfortable seats.

Here in order to simplify things it is supposed that a squad carrying armoured vehicle should be restricted in size and designed to carry its basic crew and at least eight dismounts. That minimum capacity would provide for any squad - or part squad - up to 8-strong, or alternatively two 4-man weapon teams or other combinations such as a weapon team with an engineer, HQ or other element.

An alternate minimum of 10 would enable transport of an 8-man squad plus a 2-man element but would still not suit the needs of the USMC. Transport of its complete 13-man squad implies a needed capacity for up to 15 dismounts and a large increase in vehicle size. Hence in order to reduce potential vulnerability and despite any loss of co-ordination it is also supposed here that the maximum capacity for an infantry carrying armoured vehicle should be the vehicle crew plus 12 dismounts.

The capability to deploy and manoeuvre powerful weapons is a role for purpose-designed AFVs that have the space and weight arrangements to keep such weapons in operation. Infantry-carrying vehicles - including to some extent the AIFV - need a restrained form of armament because the weight and space of a substantial armament modifies the armour and protection that can be provided for the crew and mounted infantry. Prospective and actual use of weapons can also distract a vehicle commander, and additionally encourage inappropriate manoeuvre in hazardous zones.

The vehicles considered are the tracked and wheeled light and medium APCs used mainly by mechanised infantry, the wheeled PMV used by light infantry, and the medium tracked AIFV and the heavy BW used by armoured infantry.

APC – General

The Armoured Personnel Carrier was mainly developed to transport infantry and their equipment and stores in the vicinity of - but not actually into - close combat. That covers transport of mechanised infantry and occasionally light infantry but not armoured infantry. However, roles and priorities vary and some armies persist in confusing the APC concept with that of an AIFV suitable for use by armoured infantry.

Early APCs such as the German SdKfz 251 and US M3 halftracks used during the 1940s were open-topped but - within a loaded weight of about 10 tonnes – they could carry an upper belt of frontal and side armour protection equivalent to about S-4659 Level 2 standard. Their typical armament consisted of one or more MMGs on pintles attached to the vehicle’s front or sides, and sometimes a HMG on a pintle or ringmount.

More recently airburst and other fuses enable artillery shells, rockets and bombs to reliably produce downward and radial destructive affects instead of cratering the landscape. Open-top APCs may also be subject to overhead attack by EFP, liquids, aerosols and gas. And every APC is liable to all-round roof to wheel attack by kinetic and chemical energy warheads delivered by guided missiles, direct-fire guns and rockets. Additional attack especially on vehicle sides and belly can be made by bomblets and buried and off-route blast and EFP mines detonated by pressure-plate, tilt-rod, vehicle counters and other sensors or remote command. Hence most recent APCs have a fully enclosed 6-sided armoured body, and many have a roof-mounted turret for observation and defensive fire. Protection when closed up can also include filtered over-pressurisation.

The deployment and manoeuvering of powerful weapons is a task for purpose-designed AFVs that can be built with the space and weight arrangements to keep such weapons in operation. And it can be supposed that the mobile forces of an industrialised army will be equipped with a mix of small and larger AFVs. Also access to and movement within operational areas is important for all vehicles. Hence, the attributes of an infantry squad-carrying vehicle or APC can be clearly ranked in order as protection, mobility, armament.

[Compost]

Each member of an APC crew and each embarked infantryman needs about one cubic metre of protected volume. With additional space for movement that becomes more than 10 cubic metres for a minimum size crew of driver and commander and a squad of eight, and makes the squad-carrying APC a quite bulky vehicle. Some APCs have upper and lower sides that are inward sloping but a sculptured and confining bodyshape such as on the 1950s Alvis Saracen has become uncommon because it does little to conserve the area and weight of armour.

To protect its crew and mounted infantry with their equipment - and separately the engine compartment and fuel tank(s) - the armoured surface area of an APC is typically more than 40 sqm. Hence within the light category it is feasible to shape and protect a modern light APC to all-round S-4569 Level 3 with homogeneous steel armour and to obtain a somewhat higher protection for its underbelly and over its frontal aspect. Getting to all-round Level 5 with homogeneous armour protection is impossible for a light APC but almost possible for a medium APC.

Higher general levels of protection can be passively achieved by use of composite layered armour and spaced armour. These armours can have their outer surfaces augmented by ablative arrangements and explosive reactive armour (ERA). A major problem with ERA is that it cannot be de-activated before infantry dismount. Also stand-off protection against shaped charge projectiles can be extended by attaching see-through steel or aluminium screens with close-set bars or slats. Using modern passive armour techniques - and without resort to ERA - the general protection provided to a medium vehicle of APC size can be raised above S-4569 Level 5, and the forward part of the hull can be further protected to withstand threats such as 30mm cannon fire.

Research has been conducted into reactive electric armour but without apparent employment to date. Research into active/passive defensive aids suites has been more successful. Numerous suites are being developed and some have been installed to provide early-warning and intercept or disruption of various types of anti-armour threat. However, many such systems are problematic because they are signature dependent. Also a wide spectrum suite can be costly and provide only limited multi-shot protection. Use of ERA and defensive aids radiation and interceptors can also be hazardous to dismounted infantry. But - unlike ERA - defensive aids suites or selected sub-systems can be deactivated whenever appropriate.

An APC needs a defensive armament for use against ambush and for local security when in overwatch and laager. That armament might also be employed offensively while infantry dismount. Stabilisation is useful but increases weight, complexity and cost. And it is appropriate to emphasize that notwithstanding its armament an APC is mainly intended for use as CS vehicle rather than for routine employment as a lightly-armed AFV. With protection and mobility as its main attributes it is apparent that the appropriate defensive/offensive weapon or weapons for an APC should be unobtrusive in terms of in-board volume and length, and that the weight of each weapon and ammunition should also be constrained.

A one-man 360 degree rotatable cupola or turret can provide top-mounted all-round viewing by the vehicle commander. If located near the front centreline of the cabin the increase in cabin length might be reduced below 0.7m but could still equate to suppression of probably two infantry seats. A location offset to one side anywhere down the cabin can similarly mean that head clearance will not be obstructed by cable runs. And an offset 1-man turret can be accommodated in little more than the space needed for one infantry seat. The ‘second’ seat in a 2-man turret was sometimes promoted on the basis that it could be interchangeably used by an infantry squad commander to see outside the vehicle. However, episcopes and electro-optics such as CCTV now enable such viewing by infantry seated anywhere in a vehicle.

Development of effective systems for operation of overhead weapons and skeletal RCWS mounts has been accompanied by a trend to remotely operated turrets. With ready magazine(s) included in the turret the need for bulky trunking is reduced. However the turret itself tends to become bulky and there is still a need for manual or mechanical replenishment of magazines from lower in the hull. Provision for head-up – but not simultaneous all-round – direct viewing by a vehicle commander and/or gunner and also manual operation of any ancillary external weapon such as a MMG can then be arranged by means of roof-mounted hatches or cupolas forward and aft of the turret. Overall an unmanned turret is more suitably mounted on a medium than on a light APC.

Alternatively a weapon can be in an external mount above a mini-turret or cupola or independently mounted as a RCWS. Both those types of overhead mount avoid in-board concerns such as bore evacuation and venting, but magazine arrangements and clearance and reloading of overhead external mounts are more complex than in a turret. And for a RCWS, there is the further difficulty that its pedestal must include the traversing and elevating mechanisms that can for an overhead mount be included as part of a mini turret or cupola.

Similar to the 1-man turret on a light APC, the cupola or mini-turret or unmanned turret on a medium or heavy armoured vehicle can be offset to one or other side of the roof centreline. And to reduce the intrusion of trunking or cable runs any 2-man turret or large unmanned turret might be installed near the forward bulkhead of a troop cabin

For head-up operation on a light, medium or heavy vehicle, the vehicle commander or gunner may also be provided with a flexible MMG or AGL mounted on a swing-arm or a ring and skate around a hatch or an otherwise unarmed cupola.

Light APC – mechanised infantry

Initially there is the question of wheeled or tracked. The important difference is that of operational or tactical mobility. The army of any large industrialized state will tend to have both wheeled and tracked light APCs, with the wheeled APCs concentrated in cavalry/reconnaissance and early entry units and the tracked APCs used for main force infantry and CS units. Examples of well configured light APCs are the Rheinmetal Tpz-1 Fuchs 6x6 and GDLS Stryker 8x8, and the tracked Steyr 4K7 and - despite slab sides - the UDLS M-113A3 and M-113A4/MTVL.

The largest readily installed and operated defensive/support weapon for a light APC is the 12.7x99mm HMG or - for approximately the same weight and space - a 40mm AGL combined with a 7.62mm rifle-calibre MMG. As a general purpose DF weapon the choice is either a 7.62mm MMG or a 12.7mm HMG. However a 40mm AGL is clearly superior to either for bombardment tasks and also useful for DF and anti-armour fire. Hence instead of a single HMG, a combined armament of AGL and MMG would provide a vehicle commander with useful choice. Due to their different characteristics it would not be practicable to use both weapons simultaneously, and concern to keep one or other weapon in use at any particular time would reduce the risk of overtasking. For flexibility also an AGL/MMG combination is preferable to the short-term prophylaptic benefits of twin MMGs and the complexities of an alternate rotary MG.

So an appropriate armament for a light APC could have a 40mm AGL and MMG in a 1-man turret. If a capability for hull-down fire were rated as essential, then somewhat less satisfactorily the MG could be on an overhead mount carried above a 1-man turret mounting the higher trajectory AGL whose feed and re-loading/replenishment is also more problematic. Regardless of the increase in weight and despite its cost, stabilisation of the armament for elevation/range should be rated as essential with full stabilisation rated as desirable.

A more powerful armament would have a 12.7mm HMG combined with a 40mm AGL. However, an AGL/MMG combination provides more flexibility for counter-ambush and harassing fire than the HMG/AGL and also the HMG/MMG alternative. Additionally a 40mm AGL and a MMG can be more readily dismounted and deployed on tripods than a 12.7mm HMG that weighs about 40kgs plus the weight of its tripod. Also the 12.7mm HMG with its ammunition may not already be in service with a
supported infantry unit. Finally, arming an APC with all three weapons would overtask the commander in a 2-man crew and hence necessitate a third crew member and an additional cupola or turret. The result would over-crew a light APC and increase its weight and bulk.

[Compost]

Depending on the operational environment and the armaments of friendly and adversary vehicles - and possible threat of attack by fixed or rotary wing aircraft – some armies have nonetheless considered it necessary to arm a light APC with a cannon of typically 20mm calibre in a 1-man or 2-man turret. A 1-man turret with cannon and by necessity an MMG would be larger than a 1-man AGL/HMG turret but would occupy much the same volume in the cabin. Top weight would be larger but a 20x139mm cannon only weighs about 90kg or twice that of a HMG. The troublesome needs would be the increased volume and weight allowances needed for replenishment ammunition.

Installing a 2-man turret would be much more demanding. The space occupied by the trunk of a 2-man turret has a minimum diameter of about 1.5 metres. Accommodating such a turret in an APC can due to the limits of practical cabin width occupy the same cabin length and space as three or four infantry seats. The weight of a 2-man turret, cannon, ammunition and a necessarily larger vehicle also results in a lower degree of armour protection.

A useful example is to compare two of the older types of tracked APC, the high and wide slab-sided Giat AMX-10 with 2-man 20mm turret against the slope-sided Steyr 4K7 with 1-man turret armed with a single 12.7mm HMG. The Steyr APC has similar all-up weight but is narrower and lower and has thicker and better sloped armour protection. However and partly explaining the differences, the AMX-10 is amphibious and was probably developed for DP use by cavalry and mechanised units.

With usually a 2-man crew of driver and a commander - also functioning as a gunner and controlling the turreted or cupola or RCWS mounted weapons - there is little point in fitting other permanent armament. If doctrine absolutely requires that a light APC have a 3-man crew of driver, commander and gunner then the commander could be provided with a separate cupola located away from a 1-man turret. Masking of the turret by a weapon mount on the cupola would apply on a temporary basis depending on the offset nature of the mount on its cupola. That restriction - and the reciprocal loss of the commander’s direct all-round vision from the cupola might not be acceptable. Alternative all-round vision could be provided by electro-optics relayed from the turret roof. Also the armament at a cupola might anyway be lowerable or displaced for re-loading and clearance of the turret arc. Failing that and unless some masking is accepted it is back to the problems inherent in a 2-man turret.

A light APC with a 20mm or larger calibre cannon does have a nominal capability to function as an AFV. It might be considered suitable for use as an accompanying fire support vehicle - presumably with infantry already dismounted or as a scout carrier. However, both those capabilities are illusory. A cannon-equipped light APC is certain to be somewhat less well protected than the scout carrier widely used by cavalry as a light AFV. And a purpose-designed scout carrier – though likely to be built on the same light chassis as an APC – can be readily armed with a 20mm or larger cannon because its cabin need only accommodate a 4 or 5-man scout team.

Many older types of APC had provision for infantry to fire weapons and particularly MMGs through ports in the sides and rear of the vehicle. All mounted infantry small arms and support weapons including shoulder-fired LATGW and other recoilless launchers could also be fired through roof hatches where pintles were sometimes provided. Such use of roof hatches is certain to continue because the potential use of ports is being increasingly obstructed by addition of full height spaced and bar/slat armour on the sides and rear of vehicles.

And finally some APC-type vehicles include a ball-mounted forward-firing MMG for use by an already busy driver or another crew-member. One example is the Russian BMP-3 light tracked vehicle. It has a rear-mounted engine, 3-man crew with two in a turret with a 100mm medium velocity gun and co-axial 30mm cannon and MMG, plus two ball mounted MMGs in the forward hull controlled by a 7-man mounted infantry squad. The BMP-3 is also amphibious and was clearly developed as a rapid exploitation vehicle with exceptional armament and correspondingly poor protection that is below that reasonably expected of an APC.

Summarising, the appropriate main armament for a light tracked or wheeled APC is a semi or fully stabilised AGL/MMG combination in an electrically driven 1-man turret occupied by the commander of a 2-man crew. Alternatively the armament could consist of an AGL and MMG or possibly a 12.7mm HMG, with the AGL mounted in a 1-man turret and the MG on an overhead mount. To minimise the intrusion of trunking the turret should be located at the front of the cabin and/or offset to one side. If heavier weapons were required then it would be necessary to employ light scout cars or scout carriers or else medium or heavy armoured vehicles.

The secondary armament of light (and also of medium and heavy) infantry carrying armoured vehicles should include vehicle and turret or cupola mounted multi-tube 76mm dischargers for smoke and other types of grenade. Additionally, pintles or even swing-arm mounts should be available beside some rooftop hatches to support weapons such as MMGs and mounted infantry launchers for recoilless weapons including especially any standard LATGW.

[Compost]

Medium APC – mechanised infantry

Almost all recently designed medium wheeled armoured vehicles are built with an 8x8 driveline, and most are offered in an APC and also an AIFV configuration. The APC variants include the 30-tonne GDELS/Mowag Piranha 5 with crew of 2 plus 9 dismounts armed with 12.7mm HMG in a RCWS, the 33-tonne KMW/Rheinmetall Boxer with crew of 3 man plus 8 dismounts and overhead 12.7mm HMG above a 1-man turret, and the 30-tonne BAE/OMC RG41 with crew of 3 plus 8 dismounts armed with two LATGMs on each side of a low-profile unmanned turret that also carries an overhead MMG or HMG.

Medium tracked vehicles typically weigh more than 30 tonnes and have a HV cannon of 25 to 35mm calibre in a 2-man turret and are clearly intended for use as an AIFV rather than an APC. There are few medium weight tracked APCs. Those that have been built are of comparatively low weight (20 to 25 tonnes) and hence protected to much the same level as light APC. On that empirical basis, tracked vehicles are not further considered under this medium APC heading.

With a lesser proportion of its weight allocated to carrying and protecting a powerful cannon and its ammunition, a medium wheeled APC can be protected by homogeneous, composite and spaced armour to all-round S-4569 Level 4 with bow and forward protection in excess of Level 5. That passive protection can be complemented by installation of a defensive aids suite. Further protection can be provided by operating whenever practicable hull down and behind cover. That requires a means of observation by means of devices elevated above or extended to either side of the vehicle.

Extensible masts and articulated booms are already used to elevate equipment pods ten and more metres above stationary armoured communications and reconnaissance vehicles. Such masts and booms generally enhance LOS access by enabling observation over and to some extent around solid or other cover. Use of a raisable weapon pod has already been implemented in the limited elevation of a multi-tube TOW ATGM launcher on a modified M113 vehicle. Prospective use of multi-capable sensor and weapon pods that can be manoeuvred on articulated booms of several – say four to five - metres overall length has been discussed in technical journals for several decades. The base mechanisms for manoeuvring the boom would probably need to be installed in a small unmanned cleft turret, and the pod would have to be operable in high and in low profile mode.

The electro-mechanical or hydraulic means of rapidly orienting and manoeuvring such a boom and its pod are generally similar to those employed in current RCWS and hence might already be capably engineered. Arranging full or even part-stabilised observation and target acquisition on the move could be difficult but that should be reducible by using wide angle viewing arrangements. If a podded MG was included then the boom and pod could be also used to deliver elevated or round-the-corner fire. Stabilised fire on the move might require an impractical increase in pod weight. Other difficulties would include along-the-boom or podded supply of ready ammunition, replenishment of ready ammunition, and vulnerability of the pod and boom systems.

Assuming that such a boom and manoeuvrable pod can be engineered in the fairly near future, a useful armament for a medium wheeled APC with a 3-man crew would have for the commander an unmanned cleft turret with articulated boom and pod containing observation devices and a MMG with ready ammunition. That could be complemented by 1-man gunner’s turret armed as on the light APC with a stabilised AGL/MMG combination, or with an AGL in the turret and a HMG overhead. Despite the risk of over-tasking the vehicle commander the boom might also be arranged to carry an attachable launcher for a command guided or self-homing close-range missile.

If the boom were not feasible then the commander should be provided with a cupola fitted with overhead observation devices and a MMG. The gunner should then have a 1-man turret armed as above and also able to carry an attachable launcher for a command guided or self-homing close-range missile.

PMV – light infantry

The Protected Mobility Vehicle is an austere form of wheeled APC to provide protected mobility in place of an unarmoured GS truck. It is essentially intended for use by light infantry and by CS and CSS units. The South African army was effectively the first to experience an unrestricted landmine campaign. And it went on to write the definitive book on PMV design as exemplified by the skeletal and V-bottomed 12-tonne Reumech Casspir 4x4. The British failed to recognise the merits of that vehicle and instead developed a poorly configured and top heavy 4x4 of similar loaded weight known as the GKN Saxon. It was mainly procured to transport Territorial light infantry battalions from the UK into Europe, and might have adequately performed that limited role. The French produced a somewhat better PMV with the amphibious GIAT VAB 4x4 that weighed about 13 tonnes. However, it may have been relatively expensive.

An important attribute of a PMV is that it should - in comparison to more capable wheeled and tracked APCs - be cheap to procure and operate. For economy combined with resistance to mine blast that means a PMV will be a specialised type of truck, usually a 4x4 truck. Protection of its lower hull can reach at least S-4569 Level 4 with the upper hull protected to at least S-4569 Level 2. That protection is typically based on homogeneous and spaced armour and engineered features such as a monocoque chassis, V-shaped hull and sacrificial wheel stations.

Some commentators consider tracked and wheeled APCs too intimidating and provocative for use in security operations. Depreciating that viewpoint - regardless of its validity - is one reason to include well armoured truck-like PMVs in a balanced fleet of armour vehicles. And some armament can be installed provided it is self-evidently of small calibre.

Examples of well configured PMVs are the International/Navistar MaxxPro DXM 4x4 and the Thales Bushmaster 4x4 each of which weigh less than 15 tonnes. For transport of more than 10 dismounts there are also some overgrown medium weight PMVs of more than 30 tonnes such as the BAE RG-35 6x6 and some similarly large MRAVs that been built or upgraded with independent suspensions. In time almost every industrialised army is likely to provide its light infantry battalions with PMVs rather than GS trucks. Those PMVs will probably be complemented by light armoured weapon carriers for a proportion of a unit’s support weapon teams.

In keeping with austerity and to reduce any tendency to employ a PMV like an AFV, its basic armament should consist of a MMG complemented by ubiquitous 76mm multi-barrel dischargers. Again to minimise complexity, weight and cost a semi-permanently fitted MMG or a MMG provided by embarked infantry can be flexibly mounted in a manually or electrically traversed all-round gunshield or small turret on top of the PMV. The sometime practice of instead fitting a complicated multi-function turret or an expensive RCWS can be kindly said to be illogical but is more accurately described as misplaced and irrational.

Ultimately the need for a PMV - in addition to other and more capable wheeled APCs – is predicated on its being relatively inexpensive to procure and operate. In accordance with that austerity and ostensible appearance, the suitable armament for a PMV is a readily-installable/removable MMG flexibly mounted and protected against sniper fire: in a manually or electrically traversed 1-man all-round gunshield rather than a turret or RCWS.