SAF Motorised Infantry Vehicle
-
well you're right there about motorisation being a hot topic!
well, i'd share abit. motorisation has really been a god-send for infantry Bns. its by far the best development that the army has come out with in years. In general and briefly, i don't think i need to emphasise how awesome it is to walk less when we have to move around, not to mention the added firepower and protection that comes with the armoured vehicles.
however, i'd have to politely disagree with the previous posts that we're more 'mechanised' than 'motorised'. i've read the definitions in wikipedia too, and somehow i get the feeling that 'mechanised' infantry are those large, tracked armour assets such as the Bradley in the US Army, and Warrior in the Uk (think AI). Motorised is a more accurate description for us, especially should/when the terrex be adopted, bringing us into a more US Army Stryker Brigade role (which seems to be the direction we're heading).
For the Infantry, the new motorised platforms offer us unparalled flexibility in movement. Also with the whole 3G soldier concept coming into play, in addition to further developments in the UO field, i think we're in for a very exciting future indeed. =D
-
motorised infantry for MOUT
mechanised infantry for ops other than MOUT
-
motorised infantry for MOUT
mechanised infantry for ops other than MOUT
I_love_my_toilet
Is this the doctrine for motorized and mechanized infantry ?
-
Originally posted by I_love_my_toilet:
motorised infantry for MOUT
mechanised infantry for ops other than MOUT
that sounds interesting. is that your opinion, or from experience?
but you do have a point there. the AI and infantry ops are vastly different, though i wouldnt go so far as to distinguish them into MOUT and conventional. Infantry are still very much involved in conventional warfare, and any armoured vehicles that we have in our disposal would definitely play a big part in any assault.
I think mechanized infantry's role would more be suited to protected the armoured spearhead, i.e our leopards and SM1s, clearing key terrain for these vehicles to move unopposed to damaging infantry ambushes.
Motorised seems to imply that infantry only dismount from the vehicles, and use them like 'taxis' if you may, though i dont think this is the effect the SAF is going for. As from the Iraq war, we can all see the active involvement the Strykers actually have in the Stryker Brigades, utilizing their overwhelming vehicle firepower and C&C to complete their mission. so do we merely label them as 'motorised' infantry? i think this is more angled towards mechanized.
-
Maybe, u are in a clearer position to know which direction SAF is heading to, as u are still in it.
Regardless of motorised or mechanised, both have the capability to supplement and/or support an armour spearhead. Yet, the prospect of mechanised infantry has been undergoing trials. I am not sure if motorised (aka, APCs as 'taxis', IMO) is just a interm stage. Furthermore, there is still no official motorised platform yet.
Secondly, the idea of 'motorised' will still take alot of time to sink into ppl's mind. Even for AIs, while their norm is vehicular bound, they are still trained to walk weird distances. I am pretty sure the same would apply for 'motorised' infantry, we the chance to showcase "My unit walked the furthest/ more hills/ more watever" ... ... -
Rumours are that Broncos will transport infantry in the future. My OC told me so back in 2001-2002. That was the time before Terrex even exist and Bronco was rather new.
Even though, there is a chance that our infantry will be transformed into Stryker-styled battalions as seen in our training with US troops in Alaska, personally i still think Broncos are more suitable as seen in the recent purchases by UK.
-
haha no dude. ord loh.
and that i definitely agree with you. when i was still in unit, and despite the existence of the vehicles, we resorted often to walking long distances, just cause it was more 'comfortable' an idea to my senior commanders.
maybe they felt the vehicles were too big a target. who knows.
-
Yes, first the vehicle is too big a target. And that there is no tactical silent engine for it (Maybe there's, but haha). But then, if there acan be creation of stryker brigades, i dun see why Armoured vehicles cannot integrate fully to our ops.
Lolx, i thought u sounded like fresh out of the motorised experience.
Compared, the Terrex to Broncos, which one is more cramped? Judging by the new sh.it that the infantry (think AMCS) have to carry and fight with, i hope there would be mods to make the platform a comfy one. Plus the certain assets of the infantry bn might be too bulky, i am guessing a mix of Terrex for main troops and broncos for assets troops. -
oh i am! just orded in march.
the terrex is alot more spacious as opposed to the Bx. some of my guys went for a trial just before i orded, and they reported back to us how awesome they were. cant really comment about the broncos though. they're for rear echelon forces (log etc). The M113 is more spacious than the BX, so Terrex > M113 > Bionix 2.
and you're right about the ACMS! the terrex is supposed to be the mothership for infantry operations. i havent seen how that works out yet though. probably not in ICT.
-
watch BlacktailFA youtube vids on stryker and you will know how deep is the sh1t SAF is in when buying 8x8...
and its shocking to see how US army treat their soldiers...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn6cyaOBmUg&feature=channel_page
-
from mobility point of view, wheels sux big time...
better to stay on road... hence MOUT
whereas tracks are best off-road hence more conventional ops...
-
Having a portion of SAF's infantry battalions in wheeled AFVs just adds to the flexibilty of SAF to utilize various units for different roles or scenarios.
The mindset shud always be that all riflemen are infantrymen first & that they are expected to dismount & fight almost all of the time irrespective of whether they are in wheeled or tracked AFVs.
The AFVs provide protected mobility, firepower, rapid deployment & staying power for the infantrymen.
There are pros & cons for wheeled or tracked AFVs. The fact that SAF will in future have a mix of both is a good strategy.
M113s are still useful but they are not as well protected & do not have the firepower of Bionix. However, M113 has better off road performance than Bionix while wheeled AFVs have the worst.
-
Originally posted by Sepecat:
However, M113 has better off road performance than Bionix while wheeled AFVs have the worst.
It would be useful to understand what is the performance parameter for determining off road performance eg speed, endurance? And why the M113 has better performance in that regard vis a vis the Bionix.
-
duplicate
-
be mindful that 8x8 is an armoured car with 8 wheels...
compare apple with apple, tracks with tracks, wheels with wheels...
compare to ULTRAS, BX probably has better suspension due to larger wheel travel during off-road which i can think of...
Drive an ULTRA and a BX over sine wave humps to see the difference...
and not forgetting the continual existence of M113s around the world is mainly due to its darn cheap life cycle cost, this is a very huge plus point
-
It would be useful to understand what is the performance parameter for determining off road performance eg speed, endurance? And why the M113 has better performance in that regard vis a vis the Bionix.
slim10
Anecdotal evidence based on comments made by drivers and commanders who have operated both M113s and BXs suggest that BXs are not as good as M113s in off road performance especially over muddy & soft terrain.
slim10 may have the scientific inclination to attempt a comparison between M113s and BXs using data such as gross weight, width / length of track, ground pressure, wheel travel etc. Otherwise , a test drive report will also be ok.
-
Originally posted by Sepecat:
Anecdotal evidence based on comments made by drivers and commanders who have operated both M113s and BXs suggest that BXs are not as good as M113s in off road performance especially over muddy & soft terrain.
slim10 may have the scientific inclination to attempt a comparison between M113s and BXs using data such as gross weight, width / length of track, ground pressure, wheel travel etc. Otherwise , a test drive report will also be ok.
Yup, that's me. My understanding is that the Bionix had the same cross-country speed as the M113 and the Bionix 2 almost double its speed arising from the power output.Agree, that track width, ground pressure, range etc will all have impact on cross country performance and as indicated above, results in a smoother ride. Not surprising considering that the Bionix takes advantage of later tech. Can be something as simple as cushions & air con/fan as well...
-
I am afraid we (even slim10) do not have the engineering comparison between M113s and BXs...
probably another thing BX can do but M113 cannot is pivot turning about a spot.
A higher engine power is to drive a heavier BX and not necessary more powerful than M113s.
As for comments by drivers and commanders, we should take it with a pinch of salt sometimes. Especially drivers roles whom are performed by conscripts and seldom trained in both platform...
-
Originally posted by I_love_my_toilet:
I am afraid we (even slim10) do not have the engineering comparison between M113s and BXs...
True, unless one happens to be working at ST (which I'm not). -
learn from IDF a bit of urban warfare lo... like their heavily modded Merkava IV into a apc.
-
-
So which vehicle has greater strategic or tactical potential in terms of the following performance parameters?
Speed Range
Terrex8X8 110km/hr 800km
Bionix 70km/hr 400km
-
It doesn't matter whether we have a platform that can fly at 110km/h ...
It will stll be limited by "50km/h" .... ...
-
Originally posted by gd4u:
It doesn't matter whether we have a platform that can fly at 110km/h ...
It will stll be limited by "50km/h" .... ...agreed
plus i am very sure the range for 8x8 is not 800km (although 8 is a gd number :D)
cannot imagine the scene when a 8x8 crashed at 110kph...
-
Cant imagine wat happen 2 e thing it crashed into @ 110kmh
