Heavy infantry APCs Vs. Light APCs and humvees.

You guys have some mean military hardware!! :tank:

I've seen several of these when I was in Lebanon, and I'm really impressed by their size and armor.

But mobility vs. armor is a difficult subject..
Most of your vehicles would be too heavy for Norwegian terrain (and several other countries terrain too), but they are perfect for the tasks you are using them for.
From what I have experienced you don't need to go much in the terrain, and if you do the terrain down there can support that kind of weight..(correct me if I'm wrong...)

One vehicle I was very impressed by was a heavily armored buldozer, that kept on making a road, even if it was under attack by an 81mm mortar...
It all depends on the scenario. Heavy Armor and Light Armor both have their place in an army's armament.
All APCs suck in a urban environment, lets at least get that strieght. That being said the one that sucks the least is the Stryker.

I dont know... those Achzarit are not really an APC...they weigh in at 40 tonnes....Basically T54/55/62 w/out turret.....They are said to have the same protective level as a Merkava MBT...These are no M113.....
The Pumas are like Centurions....Very good for urban warfare because no RPG can take them...Maybe a AT missile, but not nessasirly...A new AT maybe, but a Sager wont...

REDLEG-The terrain is usually good for tanks....Plus right now there is alot of city fighting.....so there are paved roads....
Personally I would rather I was either in a warrior IFV (rough equivalent to a Bradley) or a soft skinned Landrover. That way commanders would not be under any illusion as to the amount of protection afforded to the troops by their vehicles. I feel for the US soldiers I see in Humvees getting shot up in a place that they should have never been in in Humvees in the first place.
The Stryker isn't a good vehicle. But you can get a good protection package for a very light weight

Apparently the Brits have a prototype APC vehicle made of plastic that can withstand 30mm over the front and 14.5mm on the sides with a weight of 9 tons.
Yep, we use plastic on our tanks, only in peacetime though. The plastic used is actually extreemly strong, allmost like the real material which they replaced. (side panel armor that protects the tracks on the tank)

The conscripts soldiers kept destroying these armor side plates so they had to replace it with something about as tough but cheaper so they used plastic :)
There is another issue regarding weight not linked to air-portability. 90% of the worlds bridges are classed as have load bearing capabilities of 35 tons or under. Therefore any troop carrier should ideally be under that wieght. This is an issue that we Brits are looking into, especially as we become a more expeditionary army, and it is where, hopefully, those clever bofins who meddle with plastics may be able to help out.
On the other hand, we are allready driveing 100+ tons (Trucks loaded with MBT tanks) trucks over these bridges without a problem, you just have to take it easy ;)
Although they can handle probebly 50 tons weight, so 35 tons bridges might be a problem. But you can allways make another bridge ;)
Animal Mother said:
Kozzy Mozzy said:
The whole point of a Stryker is to be C-130 transportable.

40 tons carriers cannot do this.

That reqirement has been dropped.

It was not (surprise, surprise) considered feasible.

I haven't heard anything about this
The entire point of the IBCT is to go anywhere in the world in under 96 hours.