Heavy Infantry Fighing Vehicles

[Gooseman2448]

The heavy infantry fighting vehicles (HIFV) are intended to carry out tactical operations either as integral part of tank combat formations in close co-operation with battle tanks or to operate on their own. In doing so, the troops can either deliver fire from the vehicle or dismount the vehicle and continue to fight as infantry soldiers. Use of heavy infantry fighting vehicles that feature armament, protection and mobility indentical to those of battle tanks ensures close teamwork of battle tanks and troops on the battlefield, with the combat capabilities of both being optimised. The fire control system (FCS) and armament of the heavy infantry fighting vehicle are equal to those of the up-to-date battle tank in enabling the vehicle crew to efficiently detect and engage armoured fighting vehicles and infantry of the enemy.

The heavy infantry fighting vehicles can be used for carrying out offensive and defensive operations, large-scale tactical operations and operations during local military conflicts as well as peace support operations.

http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/b...?menu=def2.php

[Marcello]

A tank with its own fire team. Basically taking the trend towards heavier, more heavily armed and with fewer dismounts IFVs and extending it to its logical consequences.

[JaM]

Merkava concept is ideal for this.

[Marcello]

"Merkava concept is ideal for this."

AFAIK, while the Merkava was employed in such role, it was a secondary one.They could carry a fire team, but at the expense of a substantially reduced ammunition load. Carrying wounded or bailed out tank crews was probably their main concern.Supposedly it could also serve as a command vehicle.
This vehicle is supposed to carry infantry as standard procedure.When you think to 40+ tons IFVs (the german Puma) with six troops or the increase of firepower (CV-90s sporting 40mm guns), then something like this isn't a big jump.

[pdoktar]

Still you need to put a top-line FC and TI and 120mm gun or some heavy missile, with enough rounds, if you want to meet requirement to take on heavy armored vehicles. So weight is an issue, logistics is an issue and cost is an issue. Still you just put 5-8 grunts on an armored box, where they don�t like to be anyhow, when the firing starts, as they themselves have no control over being killed or surviving, when some bloke on the enemy side wants to drill a hole into the vehicle, which HE considers as a first-rate THREAT, since it has the FIREPOWER and armor to knock HIM out.

[serg3d]

JaM said:
Merkava concept is ideal for this.

Seems Merkava to be discontinued. Production of new vehicles may be stopped, only heavy APC on Merkava chassis (Namer) will be produced. Decision was based on the Lebanon war results.

[Marek_Tucan]

From what floats on tank-net it seems this is a wrong interpretation and the production of Mk4 is going to be at least number originally ordered.

[Marcello]

pdoktar said:
Still you need to put a top-line FC and TI and 120mm gun or some heavy missile, with enough rounds, if you want to meet requirement to take on heavy armored vehicles. So weight is an issue, logistics is an issue and cost is an issue. Still you just put 5-8 grunts on an armored box, where they don�t like to be anyhow, when the firing starts, as they themselves have no control over being killed or surviving, when some bloke on the enemy side wants to drill a hole into the vehicle, which HE considers as a first-rate THREAT, since it has the FIREPOWER and armor to knock HIM out.

Frankly I find the IFV situation a mess. The issue is that there is an "arms race" of sort built in the IFV concept. You want an IFV capable of taking on enemy IFVs, which means progressively better guns and armor (and greater cost and logistical footprint).
In addition to this many IFVs have been equipped with ATGMs and tasked with tank destroyer missions.Add the RPG threat and mix it with the imperative to minimize casualties and the trend towards smaller forces. Considered all these pressures it does not seem all that implausible as an end point. Many critics can be made for any solution adopted.