Rivers

My first thought: Ha, being an amphibious doesn't help you in this situation! My second thought: "Russian tanks painted to look like crocodiles for ambushing LAVs approaching water" The russians will try anything...

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.