Mechanised Infantry Past Present And Future History Essay

motorized foundation Past Present And Future explanation EssayAn spikeoured personnel carrier or an outfit personnel carrier is a vehicle deatheavored to nurse men along with their mechanisms and equipment into the battle field of operation. It delivers them limited justification once to a greater extentst sm completely arms and deliveres almost degree of resurrect support in the nominate of medium calibre mechanisms. Some of them argon as well referred to as Battle Taxis. In addition to these lightly protected stochastic vari confidents there are also the heavily armed types commonly called the animal foot Fighting Vehicles. outfit ice chests, though deadly and well protected, are eminently vulnerable on the battlefield if operating independently. These threats range from the rockets launched from aerial platforms to the single invertebrate footman carrying a hand held anti tank weapon. thitherfore, a need was felt to sort ft along with the outfit tanks to return them with protective cover against topical anesthetic threats epoch also allowing them to climb through and through eye sockets cleared by this substructure element. To distract the mobility incompatibleial between the two, this base was provided with vehicles to match the speed and reach of the tanks. This whitethorn be called the genesis of the APC or the Mechanised Infantry as it is now commonly referred to.The Mechanised Infantry has proved itself time again in various theatre of operations since its inception. Their richness has only been substantiate by their regular betrothal in a host of conflicts. Be it the Arab- Israel wars, the conflicts in Africa, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the present day insurgencys in Iraq and Afghanistan, these vehicles imbibe proved their mettle time and again. Despite their potential, in the consideration of the Indian array there is a reluctance to take this arm seriously. though this may not be true in the upper echelons of the organisation, indoors the middle rung there is a lack of comprehension and impudence in the capability of the motorize ft to carry out their task. Having personally witnessed the effect a platoon of ICVs crumb put one across on a aggressive aim in Congo it behind be confidently averred that an ICV/APC is the best platform to be employ in such(prenominal) tasks without the threat of an escalation in the conflict spectrum. This article give trace out the register of the motored ft, discuss it role and work in the present context and the likely future trends. It will also discuss the relevancy of this arm in context of the Indian army and the methods to enlarge its employability.Role of the Mechanised InfantryThe role of the Mechanised Infantry has much or little remained the analogous since its origin. The Wehrmacht during the Second knowledge domain War carried out an compendium of its Panzer force and identified certain weaknesses. To overcome the shortcomings the following regulation was framed for the coaction of the tanks and Panzer grenadiers. the tank fights the enemy tank and breaks other weapons. The Panzer grenadier looks for hidden anti-tank guns and fires on them. He prevents close quarter attack on the tanks. Covered by the tanks, he clears the enemys position. Mutual assistance is essential. In good country, the armour stir ups by bounds from cover to cover, giving fire protection to the panzer grenadiers following. In timbered areas, the Panzer grenadiers precede the tanks. and destroy the enemy with the weapons they carry on their vehicles.1The same field service regulations further explained the role of the panzer grenadiersEvery other arm is apply to helping the tank advance Tanks cannot completely clear the enemy from captured ground, and staccato groups of the enemy may combine to continue the fight. The Panzer grenadiers regiments follow the tanks in lengthen echelon, and, collabor ating with the fleck armoured wave, annihilate enemy remnants as well as carrying out the tasks of guarding and securing the rear and flanks of the armoured units. Panzer grenadiers hold the areas captured by tanks. Where a tank is obstructed by difficult terrain or by artificial barriers, the Panzer grenadiers advance first. The conditions for this are(a) attacking across rivers (b) in heavily wooded areas, swampland or badly cut-up terrain (c) minefields, anti-tank ditches and other tank obstacles (d) when breaking through enemy anti-tank fronts. The tanks will give supporting fire to the Panzer grenadier advance. erst eyepatch past the obstacles, the tanks resume the leadership of the advance .2The role, task and method of employment of the motorised ft make up more than or less remained the same since then with only refinements in the drills and tactics. However the equipment has evolved with time and what once a primitive machine with limited fire author and protection i s today a weapon with tremendous destructive and capability and adequate protection to allow the infantry to operate with relative comfort and safety.History of Mechanised InfantryThe write up of the tank and the APC/ICV are entwined. They can be traced to the First foundation War with the instruction of the ____________. Though this is referred to as the first modern tank, archives is replete with examples where commanders film utilised the concept of heavily armed soldiers on chariots and elephants provided with adequate protection taking on the enemy. Ziska, a great warrior of his days, employ the Wagon-Lagers during the Bohemian Wars of 1410-20 against the Catholic Crusaders. These wagon mounted shanks were extremely effective against the German armies. The Scots, in 1456, invented a wooden cart that encased its crew and protected them. Horses, enclosed in wood for protection, were utilize to propel these carts. However, it was only afterward the Battle of Somme in 1916 that the potential of the tank was realised and they began to be regarded as the deciding factors in charge engagements throughout the world.The intro of the tank at the later stages of World War I did not bring round any(prenominal) change in the war fighting methods being employed. They were precisely regarded as a means to end the indecisiveness of Trench Warfare. elephantine scale casualties with no tangible territorial gains led to the development of this weapon system, architectural planed to cross the miles of barbed wire and torn up demesne between the two opposing forces. Success in such form of war was also only achievable if the foot soldier could move over the inhospitable terrain with speed and protection and exploit the uncoverings achieved. The tank was found to be the most suitable means of gaining the desired breakthrough. However, this too had it its inhering shortcomings, with the primary one being that of sustaining the success. Even though the tank was dependent of gaining the initial foothold, it was by itself vulnerable to indivi twofold/ group of soldiers who could close in with it and destroy it. The British were the first to realise it and developed the first armoured personnel carrier the Mark IX, essentially a redesigned and lengthened version of the Mark V Male tank. The initial idea was to provide about protection to the infantryman from the machine gun fire so as to allow them to cross the battle field and thereafter serve as the eyes and ears for the tanks as well as providing it with protection.Development of Mechanised InfantryThe inter war years were a period of stagnation in the field of armoured state of war for the US and most of the European countries. They persisted with the employment of tanks as supporting arm for the infantry in a stepwise manner. The Germans, under the guidance of Guderian, developed their own employment philosophy, that of Blitzkrieg. Accordingly they build the SdKfz25, a half trac k, to be used to carry the infantry back the rapidly despicable tanks. These combined task forces gave the Germans their famous victorys and changed the face of armoured warfare. They were referred to as the Panzer grenadiers, a forerunner of the present day Mechanised Infantry Concurrently, the US developed their M2 and M3 half tracks plot of land the British made the Bren Carriers. Often, APCs were armoured cars with the capacity for carrying troops, but they subsequently evolved into purpose- strengthened vehicles to suit the demands of motorised warfare of the Second World War. at that placeafter, subsequent development of the Mechanised Infantry was through with(p) on the basis of the employment philosophy being followed by the various(prenominal) countries. The US and the USSR went about developing their own versions of the APCs which differed in two design and use.USSR/Warsaw Pact CountriesThe USSR continued development on ICVs after the end of the world war and develo ped the vehicles as per their philosophy. found on the stimulate of the World War, they identified the need for greater protection and firepower to the APC than the US and introduced the Infantry Fighting Vehicle The aim was to achieve a breakthrough to allow the infantry to get through with speed and exploit the easy opportunity. The increased lethality of the anti tank missiles demanded greater protection to the infantry soldier sitting within the vehicle. The soldier sitting inside was provided the ability to bring to bear his personal weapon composition under fire. Accordingly, the BMP-1 was designed which catered for all the above requirements. It had a 73 mm gun, the Malutka anti tank missile and machine guns. on that point was also the provision of port hole in the stick compartment that allowed for use of the personal weapons while sitting inside the vehicle. The BMP intend to pin down the enemy soldiers while on attack and to provide fire support with the heavier wea pons while the infantry was dismounted. The Israel-Arab conflict of 1967 and 1973 exposed some picture in the vehicle which saw the development of the BMP-II. The 30 mm cannon set backd the 73 mm gun while the missile was upgraded to the second generation AT-4/5s. The commander was given additional protection and the strength of the segment was reduced from 11 to 10. Thereafter, the Russian create the BMP-III which was less of an ICV and more of a light tank with a 100 mm gun, an additional 30 mm cannon and a gun barrel launched missile system. It enjoys give out armour protection and is still light enough to be transported by origin.NATO/US APCsThe US developed their version of the vehicle on a different doctrine. Their concept involved the vehicle to provide mobility to its infantry while simultaneously protecting it. Emphasis is not on firepower as the same would be catered by the tanks moving ahead. Accordingly they built the Armoured military unit Carrier or the APC. Thi s operated on the concept of Battle Taxis. The vehicle was meant to carry the infantry into battle and thereafter was left out of battle. The most favourite of these was the M113 box on tracks. They were introduced in service in 1960 and since then almost 80,000 of these shake off been built. They were used effectively for the first time in the Vietnam conflict. There were a make out of variants build alongside the primary version. These were used as Command Posts, mortar carriers and ambulance APCs. Because of their versatility, these cook been used very effectively used by commanders for tasks they were not designed for. For instance, M-113s were used to lead the attack on the Vietcong in the absence seizure of tanks. This family was extremely popular among the US allies and a large digit were inducted in almost 50 other nations. With the introduction of the BMP-1 in the Soviet army the US had to rethink their approach. The large number of A vehicles (tanks and ICVs) availabl e with Russia forced the US army to concentrate on increasing their anti tank capability. They introduced the draw missile into their force. However the TOW didnt possess any protection leaving the firer vulnerable to return fire while he tracked the missile to the target. The US built the M2 Bradley as a counter to the Russian BMP-I. They revised their existing philosophy and built a vehicle with laborious armament and armour protection. It was given a TOW missile launcher with the operator under armour. It had an additional 25mm Bushmaster cannon and portholes for the infantry to fire from. It was fairly heavy by the standards of an APC and was vatic to fight behind the infantry and not operate as a Battle Taxi. The Army believed that the Bradley, initially known as the MICV, was essential so the Army could adopt an armour doctrine that was similar to German doctrine and appropriate to a motorised battlefield characterized by highly lethal modern weapons and numerical superior ity of the enemy. They have proved their value in numerous theatres be it Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan. But these have been service since 1964 and the US army has been looking for an alternative. This led to the introduction of the Stryker family of vehicles. This is an eight wheel drive combat vehicle and the focus of the US armys Transformation. It provides enhanced protection to the soldiers from RPG and IED attacks. It has operated extensively in Operation Iraqi Freedom to the tune of six million miles. It is plotted to enhance the armour protection by adding reactive armour modules. The US army plans to induct 2691 vehicles for the seven Stryker Brigade Combat Teams that it is raising. Despite the instruction execution of the Stryker, it does a have its share of detractors who warrant against the replacement of the M-113s and M2 Bradleys. The major(ip) detriment with the Stryker is the calculatet of the vehicle which reduces its strategic/tactical mobility. As a comparison, the C-17 can carry four combat ready M-113s against two Stryker vehicles. There are other inherent disadvantages with the Stryker family, however the US is keen to continue use them and there have been mixed reviews regarding their accomplishance from the soldiers on ground.Other NationsThe development of APC/ICVs has not remained with only the US and the Russians. Other nations have also built/ developed models base on their requirements and doctrines. The French army is development the Vhicule de lAvant Blind or VAB (Armoured Vanguard Vehicle in French). This is an extremely popular wheeled APC in service since 1974. Its popularity can be gauged by the fact that the US is using the same for their own police departments. One more vehicle that merits attention is the Israeli Achzarit which is based on the Soviet T-55 tank. The IDF modified the tanks they had captured from the Arab armies by removing the turret and modifying the chassis for troop swindle by adding a rear door. The engine was replaced and reactive armour installed. This design of APC was contrary to the existing philosophy of light vehicles. The IDF considered troop protection to be the primary factor and hence the heavy protection at the cost of weight. Availability of strategic mobility not being an imperative IDF could sacrifice to build these heavy APCs.Mechanised Infantry for Indian ArmyThe Indian army acquired its first Mechanised unit in 19__. Since then it has raise the Mechanised Infantry Regiment and converted the Brigade of the Guards to a mechanise profile. These units are primarily meant to operate in the Western Theatre, both in the desert and the plains sectors. They are trained to operate as per the new Indian Cold Start Doctrine which envisages the armour and mechanised infantry forming integrated Battle Groups to launch into an adversary. However there is a school of fantasy within the army that suspicions the utility of the ICV. With better mobility available with the infantry, their being able to keep pace with the tanks is no longer an issue. In addition, the BMP-II does not have enjoy adequate protection against the adversarys anti- tank capability. indeed, it may be argued that the infantry may be able to perform the tasks meant for the mechanised infantry. In any case, grouping an infantry battalion with the armour to carry out represent Crossing on the water obstacle to overcome the shortfall of mechanised infantry is an woof occasionally practised. If that be so, can the infantry replace the Mechanised Infantry outright?This line of though needs to be negated at the earliest. The more logical question that needs to be asked is that can the mechanised infantry do tasks traditionally associated with the armoured tanks. Before addressing that question let us first reemphasise the importance/relevance of the mechanised infantry. The mechanised infantry is traditionally contained to follow in the wake of the leading(a) armoured column and thereafter clear/ mop up the remnants. This envisages the mechanised infantry moving close behind in relative safety. The ICVs though vulnerable to anti tank missiles provide adequate protection against aimed polished arms weapons and artillery splinters in comparison to motorised infantry. Therefore it is unlikely that motorised infantry could replace the mechanised infantry. The employment of infantry for tasks such as Encounter Crossings on obstacles is due to the non accessibility of mechanised infantry and hence logically, there is a need to raise more units of the same.Both in plain and the desert sector, it is envisaged that certain built-up areas will have to be cleared to ease up the axis. This will entail the initial isolation/investment being done by the mechanised columns and thereafter the infantry soldier support by tanks carrying out the physical clearance of the township/village. This tactics though possible in theory is unlikely to advance in practise. Thi s was best illustrated in Operation Iraqi Freedom where in the battle for the town of Fallujah the initial operations were carried out by the M1 Abrams and the Bradleys both, with the infantry man only being employed in the last phase. Based on this experience of fighting in built up area, it may be confidently averred that own mechanised infantry will have to be committed for the clearance of these areas which as of now do not factor in the troops to task. The mechanised infantry is relieved by the follow up infantry to allow them to reach the projection area at the earliest. Clearing of a built up area in the adversarys terrain is unlikely to involve fighting only regular enemy troops. The local population is likely to put up a resistance as well, similar to what is being seen in both Afghanistan and Iraq. If that be the case the ICV will assume greater importance and may have to be employed for a longer period to overcome the resistance. This merits a greater availability of mech anised infantry to allow for the dual task of fighting the expulsion area battle while simultaneously clearing the inter objectives to open the axis at the earliest. Similarly, Corridor Protection will be of extreme importance and ICVs may have to be employed in larger numbers. any these only reinforce the requirement of a larger strength of mechanised infantry.India desires to be recognised as powerful global player both economically and militarily. The same has been reflected in the Army Doctrine which states Indias desire to be able to conduct Out of Area Contingencies. This capability requires the force to possess adequate strategic mobility. There is a need to have the air/sea assets to move this force in the envisaged time frame and adequately strong force to be put on ground capable of achieving its aim till such time the remainder force is built up. The sheer weight of the tank precludes it being available to such a force in the desired numbers. Therefore the adjacent bes t alternative is the ICV which though much less destructive is still better than the vulnerable infantry. Even the US faced this problem while deploying in Iraq scorn having the best air assets in the world. Against an initial plan of a heavy infantry division of 15,000 soldiers and 1,500 armoured vehicles, they could only achieve 2000 airborne soldiers supported by less than two dozen Bradleys and M1 Abrams. This was primarily due to the absence of rapidly deployable light armoured vehicles.3India is not a rich country, it has to weigh its options, prioritise and then select the best compromise. It would be futile to expect a large increase in the number of mechanise infantry battalions. Similarly, keeping the constraints of finances, equipment management and training in mind, it would be difficult to have different vehicle for different roles. The best option would be to have a single family of vehicle capable of conducting multiple tasks. This leads us to the contiguous questi on, is it time to replace the BMP-II with something better (if not better, then more suitable). I would like to suggest that it is time to phase out the BMP-II and replace it with the more superior BMP-3. The BMP-3 can be, at a stretch, grouped under the spoken communication of a light tank. With its 100mm cannon, barrel launched missile and an additional 30 mm cannon, it packs considerably more fire power than a BMP-II and only a little less than a tank. It has better armour and NBC protection than the BMP-II while being only marginally heavier (18.7 Tons against 14.4 Tons). It can easily be transported by air and on landing is adequately strong to perform in the absence of tank support. It is able to carry seven infantry soldiers, similar to the BMP-II. It is the most suitable vehicle for any Rapid march Force that India plans to raise for conducting Out of Area operations. The Israel-Lebanon conflict of 2006 reinforced the vulnerability of armoured tanks in Low Intensity confli cts noticed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The high profile Merkava was targeted repeatedly by the Hamas insurgents along its vulnerabilities leading to material defile and loss in morale. In these circumstances, it is imperative that tanks operate in alliance with infantry. The inherent disadvantage of a tank operating in a built up area is its lack of visibility and arc of fire, both vertically and horizontally. The BMP-3 can traverse vertically from -6 to 60 degrees which is a major requirement for clearing of high buildings. The presence of seven infantry soldiers moving in close proximity provide the requisite close protection, while the 100mm gun and 30 mm cannon are sufficient to destroy any target. It may be argued that the BMP-3 may preclude the requirement of a tank to be grouped along, gum olibanum freeing them for more all important(p) tasks. The BMP-3 has recently been tested in UAE against the US Bradleys and British Warriors. Their performance has been apprehended and the Arabs are looking to induct them though they have traditionally relied on the US and British for military equipments. The BMP-3 may be considered for induction in the Indian army to bridge the gap between the ICV and the heavy tanks thus filling a long felt absence of an interim vehicle.The next important aspect to be considered is the required increase in the number of mechanised infantry units. India has a large land boundary with different terrain features. Economics and world pinch do not allow it to increase the strength of its standing army. The next likely option is to convert more infantry units to a mechanised profile. This against has its disadvantages, as there would be lesser number of units available for standard infantry tasks along the Line of Control, the transnational Boundary and the Line of Actual Control. There would be greater pressure of the units and the present turn over period of 2-3 years would further reduce. There is, however, one more option worth considering. This option envisages ICVs to be considered as part of sector stores in the Western theatre. The infantry battalions would be dual trained i.e. holding ICVs when deployed in Plains/deserts while reverting to infantry in mountains leaving their mechanised equipment behind for the unit relieving them. Training a fully operational mechanised battalion takes time therefore this is an option that will only work in a long run. There are likely to be equipment management issues as well for such an option. Feasibility of this can only be gauged after detailed analysis and study. In the meantime the mechanised infantry has to continue to function in its present form.ConclusionThe importance of mechanised infantry cant be stressed upon more. It is an integral part of the mechanised forces and has its tasks delineated. For all the fire power and protection available to the tank, it still needs the infantry sitting inside the ICV to operate. The tanks have relied heavily on the mec hanised infantry since Second World War for their survival. This reliance is stated in a memorandum by the German Oberkommando des Heers( OkH) There can be no doubtfulness that, without the closest cooperation of the panzer grenadier and the tank, the latter is of limited value It is even verbalise by some that commanders would prefer to lose tanks rather than their infantry..4Regardless of how the panzer grenadier arrived in the battle, these mechanised infantrymen were indispensable to the German concepts of combined arms and frolic warfare as the Wehrmacht practiced them during the Second World War.5The tenets of mechanised warfare have not changed in the intervening years. Therefore what was true of mechanised infantry then remains so today. Instead of questioning the relevance of mechanised infantry, there is a need to increase its numbers and provide it with a better platform to allow it to perform its task better.