APC or IFV?

Is it a heavy APC or light IFV?

2x14.5mm feels a bit much for an APC.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    can it engage tanks? no? then its an APC

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      99% chance it's getting a Kornet ATGM clone attached to it so yes?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Is AMX-10P not an IFV

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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?

      >AMX-10P
      That's the grey zone we are in, AMX-10P has a 20mm but is that better than 2x14.5 mm?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Eh I think it's doctrinal more than anything. An APC is anything that drops off the troops and fricks off, and IFV stays to support. An APC can have an autocannon/ATGM and good armor but if it's fricking 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.

      [...]
      [...]

      So heavy APC by modern standards unless it gets a ATGM?

      >AMX-10P
      That's the grey zone we are in, AMX-10P has a 20mm but is that better than 2x14.5 mm?

      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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        .
        >An APC is anything that drops off the troops and fricks 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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I would argue the dropping troops and fricking 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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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 wiener 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.

          .
          >An APC is anything that drops off the troops and fricks 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.

          gotta love the best koreans sometimes. Like anti-air missiles on tanks are kino even if their utility is questionable lol.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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 israelites 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 israelites have always blurred the lines between things with the Merkava carrying troops despite being nominally an MBT.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

                [...]
                >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

                such a vehicle would be fricking moronic 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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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

                >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'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

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >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!

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    it's aesthetic as frick, 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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      did best korea just invent a new category of armored vehicles?

      interdasting

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Viable armored vehicles that are really awesome in practice as well as looking good seems to be the new meta

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Didn't they stick mortars into M113 variants? Or am I deluded from too much arma

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >there hasn't been an APC with a mortar
        says who

        Didn't they stick mortars into M113 variants? Or am I deluded from too much arma

        Did
        Everyone does it

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          That looks like it replaces the entire passenger section, though, so you no longer have an ACP and just have a mobile mortar?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            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 frick 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.

            >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

            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 israelites 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 israelites have always blurred the lines between things with the Merkava carrying troops despite being nominally an MBT.

            >the Merkava carrying troops

            >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.

            >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

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          That looks like it replaces the entire passenger section, though, so you no longer have an ACP and just have a mobile mortar?

          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 frick 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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Didn't they stick mortars into M113 variants? Or am I deluded from too much arma

        The LAV has a mortar variant. That’s not an APC though, I mean, to split hairs.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Those are called mortar carriers and not APC or IFV. The mortar, team and ammo prevent the APC role.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Also your vehicle mortar team can't be firing while the vehicle is doing APC transportation.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Correct.
      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.

      Etc.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >All IFVs are tanks
        I forgot to exclude the wheeled ones, and the ones with little to no armour. They are not tanks.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >they are not tanks
          of course they are anon 🙂

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            WRONG

            Tank is also AA and SAM platform.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            None of the left "structural" definitions are the actual definition of a tank reeeeeeeeeee

            Armoured, tracked vehicle with a gun or frick off.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >IFVs are also tanks
        moron alert
        >unless they have a gun attached
        WHAT KIND OF GUN DIPSHIT
        >Not all IFVs are APCs
        wrong
        >To an infantryman, there's not that much difference
        morono armchair theorycrafting
        >they're still effectively the same threat to you
        lol
        lmao even

        literally everything in this post is wrong

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Literally any gun by definition, anon.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Not every IFV will carry infantry. If it's not carrying infantry is it still an APC.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Not every INFANTRY Fighting Vehicle will carry infantry
            what did he mean by this?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >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 butthole 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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Vehicles like picrel. There is a very blurred line between things like Infantry Mobility Vehicles, Armored Cars, MRAPs and an APC

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/XDLueHh.jpg

        >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 butthole 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.

        But somehow they think a 2x30mm AGL for close support is bad.

        Would you like to be shot by it?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Friendly reminder that the LAV-25 is an armored reconnaissance vehicle, not an APC or an IFV.
      You know, just to complicate it further.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          wow where'd they get the Stryker blueprints?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            China via Canada. Or Australia, they’re right there and use LAV’s

            https://i.imgur.com/P6tBbIB.jpg

            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.

            Is that a 30mm? The US did put a 105 on it too.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Is the commander just sitting on the engine?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    stop trying to put a label on everything

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      In this case it matters as their nations only vehicle that isn't a SAM launcher..

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    4 IR lights and thermals say IRV as does the light tank chassis .

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You sound like a Russian who is whining that North Korea is surpassing you.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I'm pretty sure that the DPRK uses 12.7mm in the 12.7mm role. They have been doing that for 80 years.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Its better than a BMP

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Is that Korean Elon Musk?

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        China tried to overthrow the Kim Regime, they failed. The NK nukes are aimed at the PRC.

        Trump was right.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Twin 14.5s = same amount of ammo as 1 x 14.5mm but wasted twice as fast
    >Ork tier design

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Moar Dakka is best dakka. dats just logik

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It means you can fire for twice as long before having to reload.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It's a heavy APC
    twin 14.5s aren't doing shit to modern IFVs proofed against 25mm+

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It comes in a quad cannon flavor besides a 24x107mm direct fire MLRS version.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *