APC or IFV? Posted on March 13, 2023 by PrepHole Contributor Is it a heavy APC or light IFV? 2x14.5mm feels a bit much for an APC.
can it engage tanks? no? then its an APC
99% chance it's getting a Kornet ATGM clone attached to it so yes?
Is AMX-10P not an IFV
So heavy APC by modern standards unless it gets a ATGM?
That's the grey zone we are in, AMX-10P has a 20mm but is that better than 2x14.5 mm?
Eh I think it's doctrinal more than anything. An APC is anything that drops off the troops and fucks off, and IFV stays to support. An APC can have an autocannon/ATGM and good armor but if it's fucking off after dropping it's still an APC (though reasonable to argue such a vehicle is stupid to use that way). Vice versa you can have an IFV with shit armor and just a .50 cal and if it's staying to fight it's still an IFV albeit just an extremely shitty one. Adding a missile doesn't make one into the other or prevent one role from being filled. Mission and doctrine inform capabilities not the other way around.
An ATGM on an IFV is very handy but is still the equivalent of walking to your car at night with your keys between your knuckles. An IFV commander isn't actively going to engage tanks unless it is critical and even then there's factors like environment to consider. The CV90 didn't prioritize an ATGM because the areas where it was expected to fight suck dick for employing them.
>but is still the equivalent of looking to get into impromptu street fights with your cars keys between your knuckles
Sounds better, what you said is something someone could reasonably be expected to do given the situation they find themselves in.
>An APC is anything that drops off the troops and fucks off, and IFV stays to support.
Exactly. So how it is used is what it is . DPRK doctrine as far as we know is 'dump HE on them then stab them in the face' which isn't that bad of a idea.
There is a 107mm MLRS variant that can do direct fire.
I would argue the dropping troops and fucking off vs sticking around is less a factor of doctrine and more a question of how heavily armored the vehicle is. While neither is going to stand up to a modern ATGM, an IFV is normally armored against autocannon threats in the frontal aspect and HMGs in the side at the minimum, while an APC offers protection from little more then small arms and artillery fragments. Of course, commanders in the field can and will misuse things, but I think the design intention of sticking around to fight is plenty apparent in design and not just doctrine.
You're semi correct, but the armor design is the way it is because of the doctrine and mission. How heavily armored the vehicle is is directly a result of the concept of operations and how they envision it's use.
Take the Namer for example, it's an extremely well protected vehicle but it's still an APC because it still is meant to fulfill the battle taxi role. It's protection level exceeds an MBT (allegedly) but they generally won't keep it on the frontline despite the armor and active defense because they need it as an APC first. I'm not trying to cock around be a classification autist either I actually just think that if a vehicles classification was based on its CONOPs instead of what it could possibly do in swing rolls it would simplify a lot of shit for people but then again it isn't a super huge deal either.
gotta love the best koreans sometimes. Like anti-air missiles on tanks are kino even if their utility is questionable lol.
Sure, I totally agree that doctrine and mission play an important role in the classification, but my point is moreso that they are upstream of design and as a result you can normally, barring oddballs like the garden gnomes you mentioned, make the determination of whether it's going to stick around or bug out by looking at the armor. Even the Namer, you could take a look at the design and pretty quickly realize that it's probably not intended to get stuck in since it's biggest gun is a CROWS mount, but the garden gnomes have always blurred the lines between things with the Merkava carrying troops despite being nominally an MBT.
The Merkava is a weird one lol. I think I see what you mean, yeah you can definitely look at something and come to the conclusion based on attributes that it might be used for X or be good when swung into roles not necessarily intended to cover. Like a Namer staying on the front because it's armor is great if the situation dictates despite the lack of firepower. The Stryker Dragoon comes to mind as bit of the opposite, with enough firepower to be pressed into an IFV roll (minus the missile) but with very thin armor that's defeated at all ranges by anything bigger than 14.5mm or even 7.62 on the sides without the kits lol.
I think it was 2nd LAR had a scout climbing down from turret watch, go to grab his SAW, had an ND at point blank range on top of the turret and the 5.56 went right through. You can see how thin the top armor is anyways though.
Doesn't surprise me but still yikes, similarly the Abrams roof armor is like 25mm of RHA which means bomblets, drone dropped HEAT or a well place 14.5mm machine gun that can shoot down is probably going to cause problems lol. I hope militaries start prioritizing a bit more roof protection going forward with active defense proliferating too.
such a vehicle would be fucking retarded and it would never be done for a myriad of technical/common sense reasons, it would also be a massive waste of resources and effort that would make the LCS blush BUT they totally could if they wanted to.
>the Abrams roof armor is like 25mm of RHA
didn't you see the recent hatch photos? the Abrams has like 6 inches of armour, and I'd bet they're not 1:1 RHAe
>it's threatening in a cripple fight
yes, but still doesn't make it an IFV
DeShaun and Treyo can go at each other in Volkswagen Beetles with roof-mounted reenactment brass cannon and do a lot of damage to each other, but that does not make said vehicle an IFV
>with the Merkava carrying troops
AFAIK it almost never carries troops besides its crew and that capability is reserved for emergencies liek evacuating wounded soldiers with no other vehicles available.
Yeah pretty much this, Israel puts a premium on crew survivability so the frontal engine helps and the rear area allows them to evac quickly or specifically pick up other tank crews whos MBTs have been knocked out.
The frontal engine design raises the hull height significantly and they're lucky the turret is pretty low profile or else it'd be as tall as a T-14. Course with drones and modern thermals silhouette is becoming almost a moot point it seems like. Still it's an interesting way to address the problem of not wanting to lose valuable tankers on a very low total population, Israeli I feel like inherited the spirit of all the crazy ass early cold war ideas on military procurement that never made it out of drawing board lol.
Plus ATGM carried by a dismount is probably more useful than an vehicle mounted ATGM especially if it isn't a modern FCS and top tier optics and IR.
>Mission and doctrine inform capabilities not the other way around.
So assigning a mission to or documenting the purpose for an up-armor HMMWV to destroy tanks means it's capable of tank hunting on its own. Neat!
it's aesthetic as fuck, that's what. The difference between APC and IFV is overblown anyway, in actual combat APCs get used for fire support just the same as IFVs
did best korea just invent a new category of armored vehicles?
Viable armored vehicles that are really awesome in practice as well as looking good seems to be the new meta
Is there a reason there hasn't been an APC with a mortar built in? If it's meant to provide support, it can stay within range while remaining out of sight.
Direct fire weapons are always faster than missiles/bombs/mortars. A mortar is great but can't match the engagement speed of something like an autocannon. There's also the issue of counterbattery which can mean your dropped infantry is without fire support during relocation. That said I'm pretty sure a Merkava variant had a mortar installed but I could be remembering wrong.
>Merkava variant had a mortar installed
Some Merkavas had a 60mm mortar but it was primarily for area illumination in the border areas not dropping HE
>Same as most Nato Tank IR smoke grenade launchers can carry a HE-frag bomblet for anti-swarm tactics but its not their primary purpose
Didn't they stick mortars into M113 variants? Or am I deluded from too much arma
>there hasn't been an APC with a mortar
Everyone does it
That looks like it replaces the entire passenger section, though, so you no longer have an ACP and just have a mobile mortar?
>a hypothetical APC with an add on mortar without sacrificing the troop capacity
Can't be done
You either have not enough dismounts or not enough mortar ammo or, very likely, both
>the Merkava carrying troops
>it almost never carries troops
Merkava can only carry troops if it empties its ammo compartment
think of it as a tank with an ammo compartment that can fit a stretcher for emergency casevac
I think he's referring to a hypothetical APC with an add on mortar without sacrificing the troop capacity. Mortar carriers based on APC/IFV chassis are 100% not APCs anymore as far as mission is concerned. If it were a realistic design that leveraged both aspects you'd probably have an standard APC/IFV chassis and a fuck huge turret with ammo and autoloader self contained within so the hull space isn't breached. So essentially picture an sort of new age assault gun with the ability to carry dismounts maybe lol.
The LAV has a mortar variant. That’s not an APC though, I mean, to split hairs.
Those are called mortar carriers and not APC or IFV. The mortar, team and ammo prevent the APC role.
Also your vehicle mortar team can't be firing while the vehicle is doing APC transportation.
IFVs are also tanks.
But APCs are not tanks, unless they have a gun attached in which case they are tanks.
Not all IFVs are APCs though. The definitions of those words encompass large broad categories that have vehicles within them that can be defined as either, both at the same time, or singular.
The obsession this board has with only calling things by their current working definitions rather than their actual ones confuses me to no end.
To an infantryman, there's not that much difference between a heavy armoured IFV or a lightly armoured MBT. They both have dangerous guns, armour that survives light AT, and both are fast. Tanks like the merkava can drop infantry on you too. This definition of "tank" just means armoured vehicle.
To a tankmen, an armoured vehicle with the capability of penetrating yours is a tank. But an IFV with ATGMs or a large gun, or an MBT, they're still effectively the same threat to you.
An APC with a gun is a tank.
Most APCs with larger caliber guns are IFVs.
All IFVs are tanks.
MBTs are tanks.
Light scout tracked vehicles like fv403's with guns are tanks.
Being more clear.
APCs are just vehicles that carry infantry wheeled or tracked, and armoured. Tanks can be APCs, IFVs can be APCs.
Tanks just means tracked vehicle with a gun and armour, so IFVs and various APCs with guns can also be tanks.
IFVs are the only definition that is arguably more specific with a more strict definition.
>All IFVs are tanks
I forgot to exclude the wheeled ones, and the ones with little to no armour. They are not tanks.
>they are not tanks
of course they are anon 🙂
Tank is also AA and SAM platform.
None of the left "structural" definitions are the actual definition of a tank reeeeeeeeeee
Armoured, tracked vehicle with a gun or fuck off.
In these charts I always tend to fall into an L shape because structure radical doctrine neutral/doctrine radical becomes contrarian-ly stupid. In this case being a shallow L because a wrap is not a sandwich so it ends at sub. Maybe hotdog. That being said the PT76 is a tank. If the BMP wasn't designed to carry trops then it'd be a tank too.
>IFVs are also tanks
>unless they have a gun attached
WHAT KIND OF GUN DIPSHIT
>Not all IFVs are APCs
>To an infantryman, there's not that much difference
retardo armchair theorycrafting
>they're still effectively the same threat to you
literally everything in this post is wrong
Literally any gun by definition, anon.
Not every IFV will carry infantry. If it's not carrying infantry is it still an APC.
>Not every INFANTRY Fighting Vehicle will carry infantry
what did he mean by this?
When you're armchair it's natural to get into the weeds of pedantic speculation and theorycrafting. I'm not mocking it because I am an armchair, and unless someone is in active military use (peacetime or not) it's going to be armchair. But that's why we'll give a shit about APC vs IFV whereas in a conflict it's a more prosaic "I need fire support, bring that M113/Stryker/whatever up". Not "Oh gosh golly gee I need fire support but we can't bring the APC up that's against doctrine". The military isn't - at least I'd hope it isn't, WW1 style autistic. Russians are obviously but that's besides the point.
Also don't forget
>An APC with a gun is a tank.
>Most APCs with larger caliber guns are IFVs.
>All IFVs are tanks.
>MBTs are tanks.
>Light scout tracked vehicles like fv403's with guns are tanks.
>This poster is a tank
>I am a tank
>PrepHole is a tank
>2x14.5mm feels a bit much for an APC.
I would say anything below a 20mm cannon is APC territory. Still though, when it comes to categorizing military hardware, it's like saying X is a fork and Y is a spoon and everyone agrees and is happy until some asshole comes along and makes a spork. The main difference between an IFV and an APC is that an APC is a troop transport first with armaments for defense while the IFV while still a troop transport is designed to stay on the battlefield and fight.
Now days it feels like more and more newer APC's are being upgunned to be able to fight if necessary even if that is not their main purpose. The big question is why on earth would you not put an automatic cannon and a couple ATGM's on them, professional soldiers are much more expensive, putting them in an aluminum shit box with no real weapons seems like a waste now days. Then again we are seeing more high capacity armored cars to fill the gap of dirt cheap vehicle that moves soldiers around.
Vehicles like picrel. There is a very blurred line between things like Infantry Mobility Vehicles, Armored Cars, MRAPs and an APC
But somehow they think a 2x30mm AGL for close support is bad.
Would you like to be shot by it?
AGLs are weird for a vehicle weapon because of short range, you already have a solid firing platform so why gimp yourself with low pressure when you can upscale to a real autocannon
Modern armored cars have excellent horsepower per weight, high road speed, and can travel thousands of miles between maintenance intervals. They're superior to tracked vehicles outside the tracked niche of muddy terrain and very heavy vehicles. Even then tracks get stuck in the mud.
Friendly reminder that the LAV-25 is an armored reconnaissance vehicle, not an APC or an IFV.
You know, just to complicate it further.
Friendly reminder that Best Korea already put a D-30 on a LAV.
>anti-air missiles on tanks are kino even if their utility is questionable
Why wouldn't you? If the one advantage you have as a nation is being a 25 million man missile factory then you should should have missiles everywhere. Work with your strengths.
wow where'd they get the Stryker blueprints?
China via Canada. Or Australia, they’re right there and use LAV’s
Is that a 30mm? The US did put a 105 on it too.
Is the commander just sitting on the engine?
>professional soldiers are much more expensive, putting them in an aluminum shit box with no real weapons seems like a waste now days.
You're correct for the wrong reason. Soldiers are expensive and vehicles are cheap so you want to protect your troop transports from needless harm and maximize your combat power per troop.
Vehicle crews are also expensive so you don't want tankette IFVs either. Current balance is about a squad per transport.
stop trying to put a label on everything
In this case it matters as their nations only vehicle that isn't a SAM launcher..
4 IR lights and thermals say IRV as does the light tank chassis .
Nork 14.5 fulfills the same role as a 12.7 does in other armies. You wouldn't call an AAV with a .50 and a 40mm an IFV so why would you this.
People are way too autistic about splitting hairs over vehicle categories on something that can realistically fulfill either role. Whichever it's designated as it is because that's how the army using it intends to use it.
You sound like a Russian who is whining that North Korea is surpassing you.
I'm pretty sure that the DPRK uses 12.7mm in the 12.7mm role. They have been doing that for 80 years.
Its better than a BMP
Is that Korean Elon Musk?
this thread made me wonder on why couldn't Russia just bought all Norks vehicle for their war given current situation. just promise them that they would be compensate with something else.
Because North Korea trusts no one and they sure as hell will not stop Putin if he decides to waste so much Russian power that the DPRK is in a position to dictate to Russia from a position of strength .
Make no mistake; a DPRK-RUSSIA fight would see Russia slaughtered.
Because the US will pressure China to pressure Norks from doing it
Kim knows his tinpot kingdom is actually dependent on sucking China dick, which is the only reason the CIA hasn't gotten 10 million pissed-off Norks to overthrow him or at least plunge the DPRK into civil war
China tried to overthrow the Kim Regime, they failed. The NK nukes are aimed at the PRC.
Trump was right.
Twin 14.5s = same amount of ammo as 1 x 14.5mm but wasted twice as fast
>Ork tier design
Moar Dakka is best dakka. dats just logik
It means you can fire for twice as long before having to reload.
It's a heavy APC
twin 14.5s aren't doing shit to modern IFVs proofed against 25mm+
>twin 14.5s aren't doing shit to modern IFVs proofed against 25mm+
Any real threat is a BMP or PRC equivalent which those twin 14.5mms will turn into swiss cheese.
It comes in a quad cannon flavor besides a 24x107mm direct fire MLRS version.
That thing has 6 x 14.5mm guns .I don't care what you call it i really don't want it shooting at me because i will probably die
14.5mm is just a heavy machine gun. It isn't much different from 12.7mm. dual MG and cannons are common in Soviet vehicles because the recoil of one firing loads the other.