Is the APC concept outdated?

Is it just replaced with IFVs now?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the US Army just bought like 5000 turretless bradleys. so no

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, and honestly if we dont look at costs than every APC should actually be a tank like the merkava

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    they just need to be replaced by devilfish.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >a chimera isn't enough
      report to the local commissar

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >is a thing every nation fields, wishes for more to field, or wishes to field some outdated
    Name even a single country giving up ALL of their APCs to replace with AFV

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They have the old and ran out of money. That is no argument for APC, it argues for not being poor.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The need for large numbers of available mechanizdd/motorized transport became very apparent early on in the ukrainian war so no, the battle taxi is absolutely not dead nor being replaced by IFVs, which fulfill a different role.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's interesting, I guess it really just is like a armored truck with tracks, and trucks will never be obsolete

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you just know the first guy is autistic as shit

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No. APCs can ultimately carry more troops than an IFV. APCs are also useful for carrying supplies and non-infantry personnel. Does your Battalion HQ really need it's own Bradley's, or just something to carry the staff in?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Are M113s going to remain the standard US APC for awhile?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not really. They're still the most available, but Bradleys took over the role of transport for combat infantry a very long time ago. M113s have been almost solely used for transport of staff personnel, ambulance work, perimeter duties, etc since 2000. They're being actively replaced by the AMPV.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          IFV cannot replace APC. The 2 man turret taking up ~4 seats, Cutting dismount from 10-9 to 6 seriously hurt and there is no way to replace each APC with 2 IFVs. Alternatively one can add an armored long bus to keep the other 20 infantries for IFVs to make another run.

          I don't think the AMPV replacement is for APC transport roles, I just can't find one that carries 9+ troops. They look like merely a replacement for m113 as staffmobile

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What on earth is the point of a four man APC, like it literally has no weapon other than a machine gun and can carry four fricking people?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              each vehicle carries a fireteam

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What if instead we give each member of a fireteam their own apc?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Some Anons who served in Stryker brigades did nearly that. Driver, Commander, Gunner and two or three dismounts. It's just enough door-kickers to check on something suspicious.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              it carries command posts, Fire Direction Centers, is an Ambulance ect. ect.

              The AMPV does all the jobs that the 113/1068 was still kinda barely hanging onto. None of those is "APC" in the traditional sense, if you want to make a case for APC's in the modern Stryker is the only one in US Service used in that role unless you wanna include the ACV, which doctrinially is used very differently.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How the frick can something the size of of a whole ass Bradley only seat for 4 dismounts and 2 crew? The Spartan (which is a tiny twink sized little APC that's like 1/3 the size of the AMPV) could seat 3 crew and 4 dismounts or 2 crew and 5 dismounts.

            EVEN THE PROTOTYPE WEASEL 2 APC COULD SEAT 2+4.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Wiesel 2 was powered by Cold War era Teutonic Space Magic?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The APC is the basic b***h bare minimum. There's no reason to ever use a truck for troop transportation except in utter peacetime, so you might as well have a lightly armored vehicle to transport soldiers that keeps them safe(r) from bullets, shrapnel, and IEDs if possible.

          The bradley being used as a chassis is really a smart move. Simplified logistics and it just werks.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >There's no reason to ever use a truck for troop transportation except in utter peacetime
            Well that's just ridiculous
            If you're 1,000km behind the frontline you don't need an APC for transport

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Now do 10, 20, or 30km behind the front lines.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You don't need it for 1,000km back
                >Yeah but what about 10km back???
                You really got me there

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Fair, but I'm thinking of recent conflicts where there is no frontline to speak of, and the only conflict liable to have +1000km distances within the country is Russia (and we're never going to have a land war invading to Moscow, that's nuke time) or Iran. And if I was the Us military in Iran I'd worry about insurgents in sistan and baluchistan even if it's 1000km+ from Tabriz.

              But you still have a point that in Ukraine they'll use trucks to ferry troops from Lyviv to Kiev (500km), so I guess you're right but you see where I am coming from - in any kind of insurgent situation soft trucks are a huge liability because there is no front line. So unless it's pretty much just a war with Russia in Eastern Europe where NATO is holding the line rather than marching on moscow (as again, that's when nukes come out), trucks feel like a risk.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >APCs can ultimately carry more troops than an IFV.

      Not inherently. IFV can be designed for any size group. Why are you making shit up? With the war everywhere Battalion HQ does need its own Bradley and it better be carrying SHORAD for drones too.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Not inherently. IFV can be designed for any size group
        Sure, as long as weight and size restirctions isnt a problem, wich in the real world, they happen to be.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the periscopes look so cool, I love shiny colorful optics

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Stryker currently fills the APC roll

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    3 IFVs
    or
    1 MBT and 2 APCs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Anon, the new meta is one T-62 Obr. 2024 and 3 golf carts.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        May I interest you with 2 motorcycles and an ATV?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Only if I get to install premium EW cope cages on them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Fine but on the condition you also install the battering ram wooden panels.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Da Tovarish, now we win

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Namer is bretty good.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not expeditionary though. IDF fights next door so it's ideal for them.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't the line between APC and IFV becoming increasingly blurred altogether?

    Even the much maligned M113 was basically getting IFV'd until the Bradley entered service.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the m113 was never an IFV in American infantry doctrine, ever.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I saw a Vietnam war documentary where they used it to close in on the enemy, support fire, drop soldiers off in combat, etc.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The same goes for the M3 halftrack. It was never doctrinally intended to get into combat, just to transport the troops specifically as an APC. Yet still there are plenty of examples of M3s directly engaging enemies.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            M3 half-tracks seeing direct combat was a rare occurence
            and most of those instances were self-defense and mostly consisted of surviving long enough to break contact and then run, rather than an offensive attack

            half-track drivers would drive away and then park far from the battle and then either stay put and just occasionally ping off targets with the .50
            or leave the vehicle unattanded if possible and have the driver and commander proceed on foot to reinforce their dismounts
            but never driving the half-track deliberately to the enemy by choice

            worth noting that the humvee was also never intended for frontline combat initially, but then in GWOT we uparmored them

            >worth noting that the humvee was also never intended for frontline combat initially, but then in GWOT we uparmored them
            the armor was was for backline protection from buried explosives
            not frontline protection from RPGs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Isn't the line between APC and IFV becoming increasingly blurred altogether?
      Did that line ever actually exist, in reality, not just in some "reformer"'s imagination? Soldiers have been trying to convert battle taxis to overwatch since the first chariots

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The line exists. APCs are 2 crew(driver commander) and the weapon is pintle mounted on hatch ring, maybe gun shields, optics to at most a fully covered singleman turret/remote weapon station. IFV would have 3 crews(driver gunner commander) and 2 man turret with heavier weapon and fire control system. Without a dedicated gunner the APC commander would have too much to handle. With a turret and large gun sitting much backward, most IFV made it hard for open top because hydralic powered autocannon can mangle the hatch door and infantry, limiting their sky view and small arm fire on the move.
        The only blurred line is some APC can have remote turret with great firepower like the dragoon on stryker but they don't have a dedicated gunner. It is said to be able to reload under armor. Again, APC would have too much responsibility on commander. Similarly stubby 30x113mm helicopter turrets are also made available to lighter vehicles at single man turret foot print.
        Battle taxi, a misnomer that says vehicle has to leave dismounted and leave the area perhaps go to base, don't exist outside of transport aircrafts. All ground vehicles that have arms will be used at bare minimum a mobile reserve just outside of harms way and as organic supply unit, at regular they are a weapon squad for each rifle squad. Infantries are expected to operate independent of the APCs at times when APCs can be positioned elsewhere where their longer range weapon can cover and watch over the infantries and a slope to hull down.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    APCs are an outdated concept which has been replaced by IFVs in modern warfare.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      APCs were replaced by IFVs in rifle platoons, but APCs still see use for specialist vehicles like mortar carriers, HQ platoons, ambulance, etc,

      Isn't the line between APC and IFV becoming increasingly blurred altogether?

      Even the much maligned M113 was basically getting IFV'd until the Bradley entered service.

      AMPV is a true APC, with only machine guns for self-defense and not being used for direct combat and will replace the M113

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        so APCs in the tactical combat role are gone, but still useful in the logistics rear-guard role?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Think of APCs as an armored truck. If you need to carry a bunch of shit around they are great, be it Officers, POGs or other assorted equipment that should stay away from the frontline.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's where the leaders, medics, mechanics etc sit. They need something tracked to keep up with a tracked unit.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          FMTV (M1083) = strategic transportation
          IMV (JLTV) = operational transportation
          IFV (Bradley) = tactical (combat) transportation
          APC (AMPV) = tactical (logistics) transportation

          simple as

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            where does the Strykers fit then?
            Strykers feels like they were made for tactical combat transportation for COIN battlefield, and not for a near-peer battlefield.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              strykers are IFV/APC hybrids
              the stryker dragoon fits the formal definition of an IFV, having a large gun
              it keeps 9 dismounts at the cost of combat endurance, the cannon only has a 200 round drum and needs to be serviced externally due to using a RWS rather than a turret that opens up into the vehicle

              >and not for a near-peer battlefield.
              SBCTs go in the armored division, a medium response unit
              basically, they give an infantry-heavy option to armored divisions that can still keep up with the pace of maneuver
              the 2 ABCTs, equipped with tanks and brads, are used for maneuver and combat
              the SBCT, equipped with strykers, are deployed when they need infantry quickly and they cant spare something as logistically expensive as tanks

              they were originally intended for asymmetrical combat, a quick response unit
              but they adapt easily to conventional war, filling a gap between light trucks and heavy IFVs

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              A Stryker brigade can be anywhere in the world within three days as long as that place has airfields.
              If that is your operational requiment for transporting a vehicle by air, it will naturally have to cut some corners.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Strykers came out long before Iraq. Please stop calling every vehicle used in GWOT "coin vehicles"

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                IIRC Strykers came about after the Gulf War when people realized that transporting large armored units over half the world takes time, and only the 82nd and some other support units was able to be sent in quickly as a stop gap to Saudi Arabia before the ships could arrive.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >will replace the M113
        Many a contender have made such claims but have fallen to the wayside. The M113 will be deploying Terran troops on Mars.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    APCs are extremely useful for medevac, resupplying, troop rotation, moving troops anywhere where there's a risk of indirect fire; IFVs are used for direct assaults against prepared enemy positions.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Ukrainians war has shown accurate artillery + drone spotters make the IFV and APC ideas obsolete

    Infantry belongs in trenches and bunkers

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Infantry belongs in trenches and bunkers

      Yep, lets just go back to WW1 fighting, surely that is the best option for offensive ground operations.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ukrainian war has only shown how third world countries should fight.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Infantry belongs in trenches and bunkers
      How do they get there vatnig, golf carts?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Armored segways

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >How do they get there
        By drunk chechens with broomsticks.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm leet I'm nine and I fight dirty
    Whorin 'round in my APC

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >APCs/AMPVs are not for frontline transportation, but for backline transportation!
    >backline transportation:
    Let's face it, APCs/AMPVs will be used exactly where IFVs are, which is around the frontlines. It's just a matter of whether the vehicle needs to do the support themselves or if there's another vehicle to do it for them (combined arms).

    You can't always decide when the combat it's going to be in its most active phase. Of course, it's a different thing when the entire country is a potential combat zone with insurgent guerilla tactics and no clearly defined frontline. In that sense, the UKR-RUS war differs from many of the Middle East conflicts.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Let's face it, APCs/AMPVs will be used exactly where IFVs are, which is around the frontlines.
      no one is sending out their ambulance M113 to assault the enemy
      while the company HQ of a mech company does have an APC, it will likely never see combat unless things go sideways and they are provided with an M2 brad specifically for instances when they might see combat but is more likely to be used as a replacement vehicle if a rifle platoon loses theirs

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >no one is sending out their ambulance M113 to assault the enemy
        You shouldn't classify the usage of an entire category of vehicles based on one outdated example. Patria AMVs and Eitan AFVs are absolutely frontline assault material when supported by tanks and IFVs. (assuming you need to transport soldiers via land)

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >You shouldn't classify the usage of an entire category of vehicles based on one outdated example
          AMPV usage will be identical to M113, its for specialist purposes not direct combat
          the armor is to protect against infiltrators or straddling artillery, but not direct combat

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Using Humvees like IFVs also goes against their design purpose, yet there they are when the situation calls for it.
            The illusion of "proper use" often goes by the wayside in real circumstances, and commanding officers will look at the vehicles' characteristics creatively. M1283 on the frontlines? I doubt many would question that.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >The illusion of "proper use" often goes by the wayside in real circumstances,
              Any improper use is user error to begin with

              >and commanding officers will look at the vehicles' characteristics creative
              No one is looking at the single AMPV in the entire company and think that its better in the front lines rather than being used to safely ferry the company commander

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Any improper use is user error to begin with
                If it works and to a great effect, are you going to complain about it?
                >No one is looking at the single AMPV in the entire company and think that its better in the front lines rather than being used to safely ferry the company commander
                An overly specific example to support your point? Great arguing there, buddy.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >An overly specific example to support your point
                >real world example bad
                APCs have been replaced by IFVs in mech units, with existing APCs being for specialist purposes

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You can choose to do it like that, especially as the primary approach, but in the end there's not a whole lot of difference between using APC in similar situations. Many IFVs are just modular APC platforms with turret configurations anyway.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >but in the end there's not a whole lot of difference between using APC in similar situations
                APCs were pushed out of the combat role because IFVs are more suited to the role
                If APCs were ever meant to see heavy combat, the units would be rotated out for ones equipped with IFVs

                The difference between the vehicle leaving combat and troops proceeding as a rifle unit, and the vehicle staying with the group is massive

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There's nothing wrong with APCs staying in the fight. 12.7mm can still be used to fight the enemy infantry (quite effectively), especially with modern optics and you'll have more ammo than 30mm and you can bring antitank missiles or a fellow MBT/MPF against mechanized targets (are you really assaulting large enemy mechanized formations though? usually it's against entrenched enemy infantry).
                Having a 30mm is nice and all, but it has its own limitations.

                Whatever you choose for your army's military doctrine is not going to magically invalidate the adjacent options.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >There's nothing wrong with APCs staying in the fight
                if there was nothing wrong, they never would have built IFVs to begin with
                APCs were never intended to stay with their dismounts, and attempts to do so got them needlessly endangered, which is why the IFV was made to begin with

                >12.7mm can still be used to fight the enemy infantry
                the .50 is only good for local defense and, maybe if you are desperate, suppressing the enemy while dismounting

                but even that is largely just a last resort, because the only people who even have APCs are the people who shouldnt be shot at all, only reason your mortar team is getting assaulted with machine guns is if you made a mistake

                >Having a 30mm is nice and all, but it has its own limitations.
                having a 30mm is better than a machine gun for the purposes of actually seeing fighting

                >Whatever you choose for your army's military doctrine is not going to magically invalidate the adjacent options.
                in order to prevent misuse of equipment, most armies do not even issue APCs to mech infantry
                they only get a handful which are already attached to specialist units

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Well, it's not like trying to convince you is make a difference, so I give up... I already made my key arguments.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    One good reliable theory is that this war isn't anything. It's just pieces of dirt in hell. So we israelites can just keep eating and having a good time with our horse shoes

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Every single armored vehicle should be fitted with an AA turret in either 7.62/5.56 or programmed detonation 30/35mm etc.
    The radar component should be standardized throughout your whole force while the weapon should be scaled depending on if it's an APC, a IFV, or some utility vehicle.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You don't need to turn every single vehicle into a hybrid when you can just mix specialized vehicles together.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You will never get the volume tequired with specialized vehicles. Do you not realize the scale of the drone threat???

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    no you just have to give the gavin wings i mean legs

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    worth noting that the humvee was also never intended for frontline combat initially, but then in GWOT we uparmored them

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      and they were never used in frontline combat
      the fact that they were uparmored means they were used that way to midwits when it was still only ever used as a transport and convoy escort

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    APCs and IFVs are the same thing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Factually untrue from both a design standpoint and a doctrinal standpoint. The primary purpose of an APC is to carry troops to the front then withdraw to a safer area of the combat zone. They can be used for fire support and mobile cover as needed, but generally speaking they dump their troops then reverse to a designated area.

      IFVs on the other hand are meant to carry their troops right up to the point of contact and then fight alongside them from then on.

      You can see this in the Army manuals for M113s and Bradley's. During a mounted ATK with an M113 a platoon or squad will be engaged and make the flanking movement while the M113 is used as a base fire with the .50 cal from a protected position. A Bradley can either be the base of fire or maneuvering element in an ATK.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    project in urban warfare where you need to cross a street with one to shadow in a walk 40 feet of death

    or to recover someone

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    to me, APCs kind of imply that the infantry is the primary combat unit and that armored fighting vehicles are a secondary combat unit meant to support the infantry.

    while IFVs kind of imply that armored fighting vehicles are the primary combat unit and that infantry are a secondary combat unit meant to support AFVs.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Both are true. That is the "combined" part of combined arms.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Both are true. That is the "combined" part of combined arms.

      you'd think that in a peer fight for modern warfare, you'd always used AFVs as the primary mode of combat (a.k.a. mechanized/armored warfare).
      for what purpose would fighting primarily with infantry units be more beneficial than mech/armor units?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >for what purpose would fighting primarily with infantry units

        Like in any terrain that isn't an open field or desert, you stupid frick?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        motorized infantry are almost as effective as mech infantry when used for defensive fighting for holding cities, with the benefit of being much cheaper than mech infantry.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Good point. People don't understand the idea of strategic mobility or realize that the military does in fact take cost effectiveness into consideration when analyzing combat capabilities.

          For example, you can mobilize the entire 82nd Airborne in like 30 days and drop them directly into the combat zone from a staging base. Whereas the 1st Armored division would take significantly longer to mobilize because you have to wait for all their equipment and vehicles to be airlifted or sailed over. Planes can only carry so many tanks (not to mention support vehicles like fuelers and wreckers) at a time and they do so at significant cost. Shipping it by sea would be cheaper and allow more vehicles at once, but it would take a lot a longer to get them there.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          motorized infantry have been trading in their BTRs for BMPs, and M113s were replaced by M2 brads on a 1:1 basis, so when cost is not an issue they get replaced by IFVs the moment its possible

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