Jump to content

IFV versus APC and its place in Combined arms


chappy

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

btr_t_bashni.jpg

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...