IFV versus APC and its place in Combined arms

[chappy]

Here's a good read about australias upgraded m113 and its usefulness (or lack thereof) in combined arms.

http://www.defence.gov.au/ARMY/LWSC/Publications/journal/AAJ_Summer_05_06/rozzoli_vehicle_AAJ_Summer_05_06.pdf

[3Star]

I had a bit of a laugh at that guy's description of the UK Warrior.

He was looking at the stats for the Kuwaiti IFV, not the British one.

NTM

[ShermansWar]

I read it, i thought it was a flawed article.Inaccurate, and filled, not just with jargon and conclusions both without context ,but states conclusions it in no way proved.it sounded more like someone regurgitating something they didnt really understand,something they heard someplace else.

[DrDevice]

Agreed. Lots of assumptions without facts and a distinct lack of cohesive message. Why waste my time reading about US systems not in AUS use and the "eight inputs of a mechanized force?"

What was I supposed to get out of this? That the M113 is inadequate as an IFV? He points out that the M113 is an APC, even if it has an upgraded .50 turret. Was there a misconception there? I find his assumptions about the role of the IFV to be questionable as well. He assumes an anti-tank capability, which is a point of contention on IFVs. Some like it some don't. It's certainly not a given.

Without a firm definition on what your nation defines as an IFV, there is little merit to espousing one over another.

He seems very "pro Bradley" and envious of other nations' IVFs. He doesn't even acknowledge the more modern and capable European IVFs like the Puma or CV90X. He even ignores one of his own premises:

Fitted to the M113, the Delco turret would create a lighter version of a Bradley fighting vehicle. However, operation of the Delco turret requires two personnel. This requirement would cause some problems for the tightly capped manpower levels of the current HNA mechanised organisation.

So how is a 3-man Bradley any better here? It's STILL an increase in manpower.

It smells of "US defense industry marketing" rather than informed commentary.

[Yaegermeister]

I did not see any mention of the Stryker Combat vehicle. It is no where near as maintenance intesive like the bradley and is now combat proven. I have talked to soldiers from the Stryker brigade combat teams and they love it. Fast, lethal, and can take a beating.

Yaegermeister

[DrDevice]

Since the Australians already have the ASLAV, which is the same chassis as the Stryker, I don't think that entered into it. This seemed directly aimed at tracked vehicles only.

The Stryker also does not carry a anti-IFV/APC weapon system, like a cannon. I think that moves it to the APC column, not the IFV one. But as we said - HOW you define "IFV" is the real stickler! :)

[Cobra2]

i think the deciding factor if its an APC or and IFV is combat flexability. an APC cannot do much more than transport troops. an IFV has the option of sticking around for the fight. now you can have ATGMs fitted on an APC like the French did with their AMX13R (i hope i got the designation of the 6x6 APC right). so taking on other AFVs is not an essential consideration, but an APC will usually lose mobility or protection as it engages non-troop targets. IFVs can engage targets better bacause the weapons systems are all integrated into the FCS. the FCS is thus a factor in system identification.

so combat effeciancy is the where we should look. the better the combat system the more IFV it becomes.

[GaryOwen]

Interesting question:

Which of the following is an armored transporter and which is a fighting machine?

http://naoruzanje.paracin.co.yu/btr-t3.jpg


http://otvaga.vif2.ru/Otvaga/armour-rus-bmp2/bmp2-pic1.jpg


They appear to be very similarly armed.

The BTR-T also appears to be a better combat system, however, it is classified as an APC rather than an IFV.

[DrDevice]

i think the deciding factor if its an APC or and IFV is combat flexability. an APC cannot do much more than transport troops. an IFV has the option of sticking around for the fight.

Why? APCs carry support weapons to back up their troops too. Just because it's not carrying a cannon does not mean it cannot support the troops. Look at the AAV7A1 - it's a large APC, not an IFV. Yet it has plenty of support capacity for the Marines it transports, including 40mm grenade launcher and .50 cal MG.


now you can have ATGMs fitted on an APC like the French did with their AMX13R (i hope i got the designation of the 6x6 APC right). so taking on other AFVs is not an essential consideration, but an APC will usually lose mobility or protection as it engages non-troop targets.

Why? This is a baseless assumption. An M113 is no less mobile than a BMP. It's no worse protected, really either.

IFVs can engage targets better bacause the weapons systems are all integrated into the FCS. the FCS is thus a factor in system identification.
The M113AS4 has an FCS, yet its still an APC. Or is it? I think an FCS is valuable to the combat strength of the vehicle, but it's not the defining difference.

so combat effeciancy is the where we should look. the better the combat system the more IFV it becomes.

I think that's too subjective. "Combat efficiency" is a vague term. The difference should be spelled out:

An APC transports, protects and supports the troops it carries. Its weapons are limited to the role of infantry support and soft vehicle engagement. It cannot kill other APCs or tougher vehicles. An APC usually carry squads 7-9 men. Protection usually extends to 14.5mm HMG or less and artillery fragments. Mine protection (to date) has been mostly an after thought. More recent evolutions are much better protected, as with most AFVs.

An IFV transports, protects and supports the troops it carries. It can also engage other armored targets and sometimes even tank-class vehicles, depending on the owning nation's decision on the AT role. These capabilities come at the price of reduced squad size, often only 6-7 men. Protection often ranges in the sub 30mm cannon range, sometimes up to RPG and shaped-charge levels, and artillery fragments. Mine protection is more common as the vehicles get more modern.

There are exceptions, surely, but this defines the broad array of APCs and IFVs world wide. So, the M113AS4, the BTR-80 (w/14.5mm only) or the LAVIII are all APCs, despite some having FCS, or more or less protection. Unless it can kill another APC/IFV, it doesn't seem like an IFV to me.

[ShotMagnet]

Which of the following is an armored transporter and which is a fighting machine?I thought 'IFV' was a distinction of that larger category known as 'APC'. An IFV is meant to be a platform from which infantry can fight under armor, therefore. An APC is a vehicle designed to carry troops under armor, but not one which necessarily allows them to fight from inside the vehicle.

Answering the question, both vehicles pictured would be IFV. This assumes however that my distinction bears some validated authority.


Shot

[GaryOwen]

Answering the question, both vehicles pictured would be IFV.

BTR-T = BronyeTRansportor-Tyazhelyy = Armored Transporter - Heavy

BMP = Boyevaya Mashina Pyekhota = Fighting Machine, Infantry

Thus, by definition, the T-55 chassis based dojammer, the BTR-T, is an APC. Amazingly enough though, much like Cinderella's carriage turning into a pumpkin at midnight, it can transform into an IFV, which is why it is also called the BMP-4.

[ShotMagnet]

...much like Cinderella's carriage turning into a pumpkin at midnight, it can transform into an IFV...For inclusion in the next upgrade; an addition to the Mission Editor which will turn any vehicle into a pumpkin. Expecting someone to make this request in 3...2...1


Shot

[Cobra2]

i much rather have the troops turned into mice.

[Vati]

Thus, by definition, the T-55 chassis based dojammer, the BTR-T, is an APC. Amazingly enough though, much like Cinderella's carriage turning into a pumpkin at midnight, it can transform into an IFV, which is why it is also called the BMP-4.
Indeed.. the BTR-T concept is indeed primary to be a heavy APC with modular design concept, as are other newer APC systems around the world, which can transform it into IFV with appropriate package.
http://www.rustrana.ru/articles/3177/btr_t_bashni.jpg

Since this baby is not in service, I do not see ShotMagnet's fear anywhere near of materialization.

[ShotMagnet]

Do you two have a link for the BTR-T? Or maybe I should be a man about it and go try Google.


Shot

[Vati]

Sorry ShotMagnet, I do not have any particular one. Since this is more a concept than actual production, there is not much available on it. If you search for BTR-T and БТР-Т, you will find most of information that is available on it. If you understand russian, then go for russian sites first.

[3Star]

I guess the difference between BMP and BTR-T is that of the primary purpose. What does BTR-T do better than BMP? Transport troops under armour: It's reason for existance is to increase the survivability of the troops within it. If anything, it probably qualifies more as a heavy assault vehicle than an IFV which is more generic.

NTM

[RecceDG]

That's the definition I'd go with.

If the carried troops are expected to be able to fight while mounted, it's an IFV.

If the carried troops must dismount to fight, it is an APC.

DG

[DrDevice]

If that's the defining factor, I think that removes Bradleys, Marders, Warriors, BMP-3, and the new Puma from IFV status. None of these vehicles has the ability for the carried troops to fight under armor, I believe. The Brads in service covered 4 of their 6 firing ports and the others do not use them/ have them either.

The crew fights in an IFV, rather than the troops. The CV90 and the BMP1/2 are the only IFVs that still have provisions for troops to fight mounted, I believe.

[dejawolf]

well, that a very soft and pliable definition, several APC's also have troop hatches, which allows infantry to fight from the vehicle.
i'd say the definition of IFV would be 2 man turret, while APC is 1 man turret, or pintle. weight is also soft and pliable definition.
you have heavy APC's and light IFVs.

theres almost a need to go philosophical to be able to give accurate definitions of what an IFV and APC consists of.
it basically just boils down to general "feel"

the LAV-25 by technical definition would be a wheeled IFV.
although its armour isn't IFV class.

[Smaragdadler]

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/frijof/aah.sized.jpg

I think this is from Yugoslav Wars. Now, would this count as an IFV or an APC?

[Trekker]

"Steel transport thingy."
I bet it's called "the Pig" by it's users.

[Cobra2]

just call em troop/personnel carriers with potato guns.

[Vati]

That's the definition I'd go with.

If the carried troops are expected to be able to fight while mounted, it's an IFV.

If the carried troops must dismount to fight, it is an APC.

DG
The way it was explained in our army was that APC primary role is to transport troops to the battle and not be part of direct fire combat while IFV is a part of direct fire combat.

Granted that is how it is in theory when they designed such vehicles. Practice was of course much more dynamic...

[Maj.Hans]

What the heck is that thing? I've got stuff in my basement that could take that thing out by the looks of it...Well, I think its already been worked over.

To me an APC moves troops into battle, and provides fire support if need be.

And IFV moves the troops into battle, provides fire support, shreds enemy APC's and IFV's, and may or may not have the weapons to give a tank a good thrashing.

[LtGeorge]

I think this is from Yugoslav Wars. Now, would this count as an IFV or an APC?

Looks like a Soviet copy of the US half-track with overhead armor option. They made them with tires in the back instead of tracks because it was cheaper, and they used the half-track as Lend-Lease. I dimly recall some had overhead armor - this must be the result. Looks like it met something it didn't like, too. Shrapnel?

[Cobra2]

nah, it dont look anything like the M3 halftrack. i think its the Russian troop carrier based on Unimog. BTR 20-40 or something. that vehicle did not have an armored top, but the wheels and engine-hood look very similar.

[Maj.Hans]

Granted I am no expert, but, comparing the kind of damage done on that to other things I have actually seen, I want to say it's some 20/30mm cannon fire ontop of HMG rounds.

[Rivers]

That's the definition I'd go with.

If the carried troops are expected to be able to fight while mounted, it's an IFV.

If the carried troops must dismount to fight, it is an APC.

DG


I think some people are misunderstanding this. When it is said that an IFV's troops can fight from the vehicle, this is NOT in reference to the troops firing their rifles from the vehicle, but the crew firing the weapon itself. An IFV can fight on its own without ever dismounting the infantry.

An APC has a self defense weapon like a 7.62 or a 12.7.

An IFV has a cannon and possibly an AT missile.

The APC is a 'battle taxi'. It gets the troops in by providing them with bullet-proof protection and speed they otherwise wouldn't have. The fire it puts out is in self-defense. Once the troops are on the ground, the APC heads for cover or withdraws.

The IFV is a weapon platform in its own right. It gets the troops in with armor that can withstain more punishment and has firepower enough to suppress and destroy the enemy. Once the troops are on the ground, it can continue to support them. The troops can remain mounted while the IFV performs operations; thus the "fighting from the vehicle" phrase. In some ways, it's a light tank and an APC.

Of course, what you consider to be an APC/IFV depends on your doctrine. A M113 with a gunshield for the .50 can be an IFV if it's the best thing you have. And IMO APCs and IFVs are seperate beasts. An IFV is not just a type of APC; they are seperate entities.

And regarding the Stryker: As far as I'm concerned, the Army only calls it a IFV so that people won't say, "why are we going back to APCs again? Aren't IFVs better?". It really fits the APC role, and IMO an army should have APCs and IFVs in its arsenal. They both have their purposes. But the Stryker is most definately not an IFV by most people's standards. Calling it one to boost support and get it funded does not make it so.

[TopKick]

There you go.

Heh! Edited for clarity. I was under the alkafluence of inkalcohol when I spouted off. :D

[Norfolk]

I think some people are misunderstanding this. When it is said that an IFV's troops can fight from the vehicle, this is NOT in reference to the troops firing their rifles from the vehicle, but the crew firing the weapon itself. An IFV can fight on its own without ever dismounting the infantry.

An APC has a self defense weapon like a 7.62 or a 12.7.

An IFV has a cannon and possibly an AT missile.

The APC is a 'battle taxi'. It gets the troops in by providing them with bullet-proof protection and speed they otherwise wouldn't have. The fire it puts out is in self-defense. Once the troops are on the ground, the APC heads for cover or withdraws.

The IFV is a weapon platform in its own right. It gets the troops in with armor that can withstain more punishment and has firepower enough to suppress and destroy the enemy. Once the troops are on the ground, it can continue to support them. The troops can remain mounted while the IFV performs operations; thus the "fighting from the vehicle" phrase. In some ways, it's a light tank and an APC.

Of course, what you consider to be an APC/IFV depends on your doctrine. A M113 with a gunshield for the .50 can be an IFV if it's the best thing you have. And IMO APCs and IFVs are seperate beasts. An IFV is not just a type of APC; they are seperate entities.

And regarding the Stryker: As far as I'm concerned, the Army only calls it a IFV so that people won't say, "why are we going back to APCs again? Aren't IFVs better?". It really fits the APC role, and IMO an army should have APCs and IFVs in its arsenal. They both have their purposes. But the Stryker is most definately not an IFV by most people's standards. Calling it one to boost support and get it funded does not make it so.

A great deal of the arguments over the differences between APCs and IFVs are based upon the respective theories of their use. I would suggest that both theories are impractical except under favourable, even ideal conditions.

Both the APC and the IFV exist to get the infantry as close as safely possible to their objective in the attack; their ways of doing so differ, each with its pros and cons. In the attack, the infantry need to get within not less than 300 m of the objective in order to have a real chance of taking it, and even at that range it's pretty iffy; 100m is ideal. The closer to 100m from the enemy position the tracks are able to get before dismounting the infantry, the better the odds of a successful attack. The farther away, the worse the odds, as enemy fire, friendly losses, and the greater potential for loss of momentum and control militate aginst a successful attack.

At 300 m, many APCs and some IFVs are vulnerable to HMG fire, especially on the sides. Even the best-protected IFVs are only armoured against 14.5mm AP up to 200 m on the sides, even if their frontal arc is proof against 30mm AP. Obviously, many AT weapons are effective against any APC or IFV at such ranges. Moreover, enemy tanks possess a hard, quick-kill ability that is unmatched on the battlefield. In 2001, the Canadian Army conducted the MAIS Trials, which found that 72% of IFV losses were to enemy MBTs. Granted, the MAIS Trials used LAV III Stryker IFVs with 25mm cannon but no ATGM; the trials report stated the necessity or arming IFV with medium- or long-range ATGM. But especially at dismount ranges, ATGMs are not a clear match by any means for a tank's main gun. In any case, few APCs or IFVs possess sufficient protection to approach up to 100 m from an enemy position without being extremely vulnerable.

The fundamental flaw of both the APC and IFV concepts is that they lack the same protection as the MBT that they are working with in Combined Arms operations. If either the APC or IFV had MBT-level protection, getting their infantry close enough to the enemy objective would be much easier. APCs/IFVs using MBT chassis and hulls with MBT-level protection carrying full strength rifle squads/sections (not the anemic 6 or 7 man dismount elements most IFVs manage) should have the best chance of fulfilling their primary function: getting the infantry as close as possible to the objective in order to avoid taking unsustainable losses prior to the assault. The Israeli Namera HAPC is the best example of such a vehicle:

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/namera/Namera.htm

As to armament, an MMG and an ATGM are clearly necessary. Besides that, I suspect there would be precious little room for anything other than an HMG or a 40mm AGL/GMG and ammo/tools, etc. for said. Most APCs can carry a full-strength infantry squad/section because they don't have a turret basket (amongst other things) hanging down in the middle of the vehicle, whereas IFVs have to shed infantry in order to make way for armament. It strikes me as being self-defeating if the IFV's armament substantially reduces its infantry carrying capacity.