Re: (Stupid BMP tricks)

John Atkinson wrote:

> Actually, I don't like encouraging infantrymen to play tanker in the
> first place.	Prefer to split the vehicles into AT and APC versions.
> Why?	Coz if you engage with the TOW at 3.5km like God and the
> designers intended the TOW to be used (Why?  Max effective range on a
> T-72's main gun is 3km.  Hence you did your anti-tank ditch 3.4km from
> a significant terrain feature, put your ITVs behind it, and you've got
> a significant chunk of the NATO defense plan for West Germany), your
> infantry has to walk 3.5km under fire to get to where they are useful.
> If you get close, you're wasting a lot of range, and then someone
tries
> to get into a slogging match at point-blank range.  That works against
> Iraqis with ageing T-55s and Iraqi-manufactured ammo that can't
> penetrate tinfoil.  It won't against an army that could find it's arse
> with both hands and a flashlight.
>

 Now it sounds like you are questioning the validity of IFVs. You are
confusing mission profiles again. First off, you won't normally go
attack
tank units with pure infantry, that's why we have this little thing
called
"Combined Arms".  First off, you usually don't have the billiard table
type
engagement ranges you are talking about. All of your comparisons always
seem to be about two vehicles standing there trading hits. Anyone who
fights there vehicles like that deserves to die as soon as possible. In
the
infantry do you  think in those terms also? Hell no. You use fire and
manuever. Second engaging tanks is what AT and armor do. The IFV is
designed to support infantry with fire. The TOWs give the squad an
unprecedented AT capability that it never had before. Considering what
we
were coming from (M113), theres no compaison between APC and IFV. hell
if
they are going to replace my M113 with a vehicle that mounts a 25mm
cannon,
7.62mm bushmaster AND TOWS I'd fave to be an idiot not to accept.

Los

>