These are meaningless distinctions. All of them are APCs, IFVs as a concept was only invented to distinguish existing APCs from the newer APCs that categorically outgunned them, and LAV is just another name for APC.
IFVs and APCs are not interchangeable terms and had different doctrine in the cold war
M113s would act independently after dropping off its dismounts while the M2 bradley would stay close to its dismounts
IFVs and APCs aren't interchangeable but the difference is an autocannon and/or some ATGMs. IFVs should have more armor but that's far from universal, the BMD series are IFVs armored with room temperature butter. If you put a 30mm turret and some armor on an M113 the result can be described as an IFV. It's not a "good" IFV, but it's a vehicle designed to fight with the infantry rather than dropping them off and running. And if you accept that an M113 with a 30mm hat is an IFV, why is a Stryker or BTR with a 30mm hat not an IFV?
the btr-70 and btr-80 is supposed to be amphibious, yet i have never once seen that tried in this war. clearly no one trusts the soviet gaskets and seals to keep water out
BTR-60, -70, and -80 are wheeled APCs, BTR-82A and the Ukranian BTR series are wheeled IFVs. They serve roughly the same role as Stryker, and equip motor rifle formations. It's better than sitting in a truck, it's an armored vehicle with a gun, it's protected against small arms fire and splinters. If the option is a BTR-60 or a Toyota you'd probably take the shitbox BTR.
Not that anon but "wheeled IFV" is the best descriptor given their role, they do a bit more than an APC, they're just not as well armored as other IFVs.
LAV is a vehicle name, not a role, that's like calling IFVs Bradley's. LAV also doesn't describe what they do, "wheeled IFV" or maybe "light IFV" are much better descriptors. If you want to shoehorn your own classification in at least make it descriptive and not just marketing name of some vehicle.
If you put a 30mm gun on an APC while still carrying dismounts you've created an IFV. BTR-80 and base Stryker are APCs; BTR-4E and Stryker Dragoon are wheeled IFVs. You don't put a 30mm gun on something that doesn't fight, and a vehicle that carries infantry and fights alongside them is called an IFV.
early ones are absolute fucking trash >supposed to be a troop carrier >doors are tiny deathtrap doors in between the wheels
no wonder almost all pics of soldiers traveling by BTR have them sitting on top
Purpose of a BTR was to replace soft skinned trucks or riding on the sides of tanks in battle
Its mostly a success in that regard
Its an IFV. An old under-armored IFV, but it does what every IFV does.
its not an IFV it is a LAV
These are meaningless distinctions. All of them are APCs, IFVs as a concept was only invented to distinguish existing APCs from the newer APCs that categorically outgunned them, and LAV is just another name for APC.
IFVs and APCs are not interchangeable terms and had different doctrine in the cold war
M113s would act independently after dropping off its dismounts while the M2 bradley would stay close to its dismounts
IFVs and APCs aren't interchangeable but the difference is an autocannon and/or some ATGMs. IFVs should have more armor but that's far from universal, the BMD series are IFVs armored with room temperature butter. If you put a 30mm turret and some armor on an M113 the result can be described as an IFV. It's not a "good" IFV, but it's a vehicle designed to fight with the infantry rather than dropping them off and running. And if you accept that an M113 with a 30mm hat is an IFV, why is a Stryker or BTR with a 30mm hat not an IFV?
the btr-70 and btr-80 is supposed to be amphibious, yet i have never once seen that tried in this war. clearly no one trusts the soviet gaskets and seals to keep water out
More like nobody trusts gaskets after 30 years of shitty Russian maintenence, during the Soviet times the gaskets were probably just fine.
BTR-60, -70, and -80 are wheeled APCs, BTR-82A and the Ukranian BTR series are wheeled IFVs. They serve roughly the same role as Stryker, and equip motor rifle formations. It's better than sitting in a truck, it's an armored vehicle with a gun, it's protected against small arms fire and splinters. If the option is a BTR-60 or a Toyota you'd probably take the shitbox BTR.
stryker and BTR are not IFVs
you even initally called it a "wheeled APC"
Not that anon but "wheeled IFV" is the best descriptor given their role, they do a bit more than an APC, they're just not as well armored as other IFVs.
so they're a LAV
"Light Armored Vehicle" is completely meaningless marketing speak that could accurately describe anything from an MRAP to an M113 to an A-10 Warthog
LAV is a vehicle name, not a role, that's like calling IFVs Bradley's. LAV also doesn't describe what they do, "wheeled IFV" or maybe "light IFV" are much better descriptors. If you want to shoehorn your own classification in at least make it descriptive and not just marketing name of some vehicle.
If you put a 30mm gun on an APC while still carrying dismounts you've created an IFV. BTR-80 and base Stryker are APCs; BTR-4E and Stryker Dragoon are wheeled IFVs. You don't put a 30mm gun on something that doesn't fight, and a vehicle that carries infantry and fights alongside them is called an IFV.
its made by slavic untermensch so its terrible
early ones are absolute fucking trash
>supposed to be a troop carrier
>doors are tiny deathtrap doors in between the wheels
no wonder almost all pics of soldiers traveling by BTR have them sitting on top
boochi the cock
Bucephalus is for SEXO.
Simple as.