Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1258433
BWP Tulpar that IFV plays within the structure of a mechanized platoon created a necessity to introduce and then enhance the effectiveness of the fire control system. The goal of this is for the IFVs to meet the new requirements associated with the evolved role - they now constitute the main source of mechanized infantry platoon's firepower. However, the FCS themselves are not the sole component that would also have an impact on effectiveness in acting against the emerging threats. Other factors may seem less relevant at first sight though. They include the type and efficiency of suspension, crew ergonomics, or turret and carrier design features influencing the vehicle's and armament's stability throughout the engagement. Only after numerous design factors are accounted for, along with a well-designed fire control system, we can speak of actual increase of accuracy and ability to become an actual foundation of the mechanized platoon's firepower. That matter also leads us towards another problem - the vehicle may look good on paper, however, this may have nothing in common with the actual combat capabilities. This is well exemplified by the Russian BMP-3 for instance, with its 100 mm gun capable of launching ATGMs, coupled 30 mm gun and 2K23 FCS, when it is compared to the US M2A3 IFV using solely a 25 mm gun and a dual TOW launcher. On paper, it may seem that BMP-3 has mighty firepower at its disposal (along with its export variants using the Mamut-Athos sights), far beyond what is available for the M2A3 crews. Realistically, however, this is not the case, as M2A3's IBAS provides the vehicle with the ability to fire on the move that is tantamount to the one characterizing the M1A2 MBTs. This, along with the sophisticated suspension and accurate 25 mm gun makes the comparison unclear, but the US design seems to be advantageous here. Additionally, M2A3 is well protected against Russian 30 mm APDS rounds used with 2A42 and 2A72 guns. No similar levels of protection apply to the APFSDS-T rounds. Meanwhile, 25 mm APFSDS-T rounds are certainly effective against BMP-3s, at a typical engagement distance in Europe, namely - 1000 m. A vehicle with armament that is theoretically much weaker can compete with at least equivalent counterparts. At night or when the visibility is limited, sensors of a vehicle as such may render it advantageous. Another example of a discrepancy between how the vehicle looks on paper, and the actual capabilities, can be found in this year's IFV tests in the Czech Republic. Comparing the marketing brochures between the contenders (ASCOD 2, CV9030 in two variants, Lynx and SPz Puma) it can be said that all of them have 30 mm, modern guns , along with theoretically comparable multi-sensor FCS coupled with thermal imagers. Realistically though, during the live-fire tests in static and dynamic settings at distances of 1,200-1,800 meters Schutzpanzer Puma left the competition (Lynx included) far behind. Puma managed to hit the target with 37 out of 40 rounds fired (in 5-round bursts). The vehicle that was ranked second managed to hit 50% fewer targets than Puma did. This is yet another example of the incomparable nature of seemingly similar vehicles, with similarities in the firepower and fire control system departments. The synchronization and tailoring of the individual elements of the vehicle, ranging from the suspension, through design, finishing with the primary weapons, FCS, and ammunition, are the most decisive factor that comes into play here. The FCS evolution can be tracked based on four IFV examples: Ulan, BMP-2, and its upgraded variants, CV90 and its derivatives and SPz Puma. These matters are going to be discussed in the next part of the article. ANALYSIS