Replacing Britain’s APCs

The programmed replacement of Britain’s armored personnel carrier (APC) force over the next decade poses a number of problems, not the least of which is cost. Some 2,300 vehicles of them432 (figure 1) family are due for replacement and, like the US. M113, are outdated. A requirement was recently laid down for 1,900 MCV8Os (figure 2) to be produced by GKN-Sankey, at a reported cost off 1,000 million (approximately $1.75 billion). Reliable sources indicate, however, that this requirement has been revised downward due to fiscal constraints. The discussion is now one of acquiring perhaps half the original number of MCV80s and other, less expensive, vehicles. It should be noted, however, that even the original requirement for 1,900 vehicles might be inadequate. Since the FV432 came into service in 1963, less than one third of Britain’s infantry battalions have been mechanized. The remainder are described as “airmobile” and would probably be transported to the battlefield in trucks to fight on foot. While the quality and flexibility of Britain’s airmobile infantry battalions cannot be doubted, it would be preferable to equip those earmarked to reinforce the 1st British Corps in Germany with some form of armored protection.

British concepts of the use of infantry carriers on the battlefield differ from those of many NATO countries in that most commanders see the FV432 as no more than a “battlefield taxi,” (an APC in its truest sense) designed to deliver the fighting men to the battlefield. However, even with the recent addition of a 7.62-mm machinegun turret, the W432 is not equipped to be aggressive on the battlefield. Perhaps because of the high fighting qualities of the British infantry, commanders have seen little need for a mechanized infantry combat vehicle (MICV). The proposed MCVBO does represent a halfivay house, with its respectable main armament, but without the capability for infantry to fire from within. The MCV80, as recently displayed at the British Army Equipment Exhibition, is armed with a 30-mm Rarden gun and a 7.62-mm coaxial machinegun in a conventional turret. Its firepower will be significantly enhanced when the 30-mm Rarden armor-piercing, discarding-sabot (APDS) round is made available. The Rarden can be fired in single shots or bursts and is effective against the full range of Threat armored vehicles except main battle tanks.

The MCV80 has aluminum armor on all sides and the floor. In its platoon mode, the vehicle carries ten men: driver, commander, gunner and seven infantrymen. While no provisions have been made for firing through gunports from inside the vehicle, there are two large roof hatches which may be used for this purpose.

Considerable emphasis has been placed on mobility. The Rolls-Fbyce OV 8 CA V-8 550-hp engine gives a power-to-weight ratio of 23.5 bhptton. The power pack is linked to an Allison X series (UK-built) transmission with four forward and two reverse gears. The differential steering system is based on a variable hydrostatic drive. Ground clearance is 490-mm (approx. 19 inches). GKN-Sankey has made use of new technology “squeeze-form” aluminum in the running gear to increase strength and reduce wear. Tracks are rubber-padded, and rubber-bushed track pins lower noise and friction. Torsion bars provide the suspension. The vehicle does not seem ARMOR 41 c. to have armor skirting over the tracks. The new engine and its power train, steering, and trackage give improved mobility to the 24-ton vehicle, but its increased weight, due to the improved armor, has reduced its mobility in the strategic sense because of its 9-ton weight increase over theFV4.32. It also lost the water crossing capability of the FV432.

A number of variants to the MCV80 are being studied by the manufacturers. The AF'C version would offer a 7.62-mm machinegun turret and the ability to carry 10 infantrymen. The "APC 90" version would have no Rarden turret and would be shorter with five, rather than six, road wheels. There are also recovery, mortar, and command vehicle variants under study. The automotive system is designed to operate with loads up to 30 tons and the addition, for example, of a 35-mm DCA antiaircraft turret would present no problems (Figure 2). The MCV80 is nearing the end of its main development phase and if all goes well, should be in service by the late 1980s. The biggest question now hanging over this vehicle is that of cost. Unofficial sources indicate that in-service costs off 750,000 (approx. $1,312,500), per platoon vehicle may be reached. Discussions now revolve around the question of purchasing fewer of these tracked vehicles and purchasing greater quantities of wheeled APCs. In this latter category, the front runner may well be theATlO5 Saxon, (figure 3) also manufactured by GKN-Sankey. The Saxon was designed primarily for the internal security role and has been sold to a number of developing countries. Its simple construction and conventional automotive components make it easy to maintain, give it reliability and, most important, it is inexpensive.

The AT1 05 S m n is equipped with light armament. In its AF'C version it can be unarmed, or armed with a single 7.62-mm machinegun, or twin guns. Such armament must be considered somewhat inadequate in the context of a high-intensity European battlefield. The Smon is, however, equipped with firing ports for small arms. Its conventional armor can defeat 7.62-mm and 5.56-mm and Garand armor-piercing rounds at point blank range. It can also defeat petrol bombs and other incendiary devices. The crew consists of commander and driver and it can carry eight infantrymen. It has an angled belly to resist mines and its GM Bedford 500, 6-cylinder diesel powers the 10-ton vehicle at road speeds of up to 96 kdhr. According to Saxon drivers who have spoken to the author, the Saxon does not have a significant cross-country capability because of its design features and the fact that it was primarily meant for road travel. The Diredor of Army Training has apparently developed a concept of a mixed AF'C force in which tasks of close support for armor, transport to the battlefield, and rear security are differentiated. The wheeled APC is seen as filling the third requirement. Other wheeled APCs currently available include a four-wheeled, two-axled Vickers Valkyr (figure 4) armed.with turret-mounted, twin 7.62-mm ma-l '

- - - ----chineguns and equipped with firing ports and vision blocks for the troops inside. Its conventional armor can defeat 7.62-mm armor piercing rounds at point blank ranges and 105-mm splinters within 10 meters. In addition to the driver and commander, it can carry 10 troops. The Valkyr‘s GM 453T, 180-hp diesel engine allows road speeds up to 100 km/hr and the vehicle can climb 60 percent gradients. It has a 500-km cruising range, and is amphibious. Command and ambulance variant modes have been developed and it has also been fitted with a turret-mounted HOT antitank missile system. Another armored wheel vehicle is GKN-Sankey’s FSlOO Simba, (figure

5) variants of which include vehicles armed with the 90-mm Cockerill gun and a TOW/ITV turret.

Another British-made armor vehicle on hand is the Alvis Stormer. The Stormer’s hull is an elongated Spartan hull with an extra road wheel. A turret-mounted 25-mm Bushmaster gun is fitted, and the vehicle has impressive mobility.

A decision factor now under consideration in Britain is the possibility of adopting the US.

M2 infantry fighting vehicle, The reasoning behind this possibility lies in the probable extremely high unit cost for MCV8Os if the original requirement for 1,900 is reduced by half. Furthermore, there already exists cooperation between Britain and the U. S. in the proposed setting up of two government-contractor (Go-Co) bases in Britain to service and modify USAREUR vehicles, including the M2. The M2 would, no doubt, provide a more sophisticated and effective alternate than any of the vehicles mentioned above, except perhaps the MCV80. However, political considerations involved in such a step would be difficult to resolve. A deterrent could be the argument that the M2 is overly sophisticated for British needs, driving up total cost.

Meanwhile, command variants of the FV432 have already been replaced in many British Army on the Rhine (BAOR) units by Sultan command vehicles of the Scorpion family. Similarly, Striker antitank vehicles may further replace the Swingfire FV436 variant of the FV432. The British Army may, therefore, find itself with a curious mixture of MCVOS, Scorpion family vehicles, FV432s, and wheeled, armor vehicles. Obviously this is a somewhat unsatisfactory solution, at least from the point of standardization. (The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and ab not represent those of any agency or part of the Ministry of Defense.)

MARK L. URBAN served as an officer in the 4th Royal Tank Regiment and currently is an officer in the (British) Territorial Army. He is a student of International Relations at the London School of Economics, England.