IFV v APC
- Thread starter Asstroboy
- Start date
What?
An APC's job is to cover "peripheral sectors" in a defense line? I don't know what you are talking about, with all due respect.
...
An assault role is where the APC and its armoured infantry is most suited. Why would you deploy an APC in a defense role?
In real battles - in the IDF for example - the M113 and even the M3 Halftrack provided fire support for the dismounted infantry before they dismount and continue to provide fire after the troops dismounted.
Often, the M113 and Halftracks advances alongside the dismounted troops.
In Vietnam, the M113 tracks of all the Allied services does the same for the dismounted troops.
Whether the fire they are providing is called "opportunity fire" or otherwise is mere semantics.
Last edited:
After contact is made all available weapons systems are brought to bear on the enemy, including crew served weapons found on APC`s. NATO tactics are no different from this and the engagement terrian will dictate on how you will use your vehicles. A APC can be useful for providing suppressive fire from over watch positions to support your infantry. IDF has not seen the benefits from needing a true IFV, their philosophy is to use tanks to engage anything that a 50 caliber cannot effectively take out, also they are pretty much set up for defensive type tactics.
Right, well add that one to the list too.
So from a parts and tools point of view, the Australian Army has in the last few years been operating FOUR different GPMG weapons in the MG3, MAG, L7 and .30 cal.It is something totally different to provide cover with the GPMG or .50cal of a APC or with the weapons range of a true IFV (20mm+, GPMG, possible ATGMs, coupled with optics, TIs, new stabilization,...).
In the end the firepower of an APC is really not able to do much more than self defence or some surpressive fire.
A real IFV brings much more to the table and is able to deliver it with much more accuracy over greater distances and with better low visibility fighting capabilities.
As Eckherl said when contact is made you use every weapons you have. And when there is a need for vehicles accompanying your infantry and you just have M113s you use M113s.
Those vehicles are pressed into roles they don't fit into or in which they don't perform equally to the vehicles developed for exactky this kind of operations.
Look at HUMVEES for example. During the OEF units used the open top version without any armor (Not even with doors) as a fast assault vehicles due to a shortage of armored HUMVEES as well as AMTRACs like IFVs.
Both worked but not as good as a more specialized vehicle would have done.
That's sorta what I was aiming at. The effective role of the APC is to stay behind, and - on opportunity - provide some limited backup firepower from it's retreated position (suppressive, peripheral cover). The APC is not suited to actively combat other infantry; that's what its infantry is for after all.
In more recent German doctrine, the APC is progressively switching to a "homebase" role - carrying the hubs for the infantry battlefield coordination systems (FAUST on Fuchs currently in JgBtl 292), or - with the Boxer - also carrying the 40mm AGL that backs the infantry as a company-level indirect fire asset for ranges between those of the organic GL and the battalion-level mortars.
Of course that is in light of the Bundeswehr having different - separate - vehicles (with the Wiesel) to provide direct fire support to infantry; their armament actually compares closely to that of a IFV.
An IFV has a completely different battlefield role.
Erm... how is firing a 20mm or a GPMG in support of your dismounted infantry two "TOTALLY DIFFERENT" things?
One is bigger, better... but totally different?
No, I don't think you and Waylander are "sorta" saying the same thing.
Earlier you insisted the APC was something to put on a defense line.
And no, in combat, the APC is not supposed to retreat to "peripheral cover" either - whatever that means.
No the APC is not supposed to stay behind either. If that's the case, why not the troops just take a bus to somewhere near the front? Why need an APC if that thing is not going into the fight?
That the APC is not well-suited no one is disputing. In fact, this is why the IFV was developed to REPLACE the APC. But before the IFV was available, or in armies that still field only APCs, they both do the same job. The IFV does it better.
No. The IFV has improved capabilites over the APC it replaces. But its job is nearly the same, take the infantry into the fight together with the MBTs. Dismount the infantry to assault enemy positions and provide fire support ALONGSIDE the dismounted troops.
...
When my older brother was serving as a vehicle commander with the SAF black berets, his M113 track had only one Browning 50cal HMG.
Now, we have mounted all manner of weapons onto our fleet of (700?) upgraded M113s including an OWS Bushmaster 25mm chain gun. Others have the 40/50 turret which is a 40mm AGL couple with a CIS 50 HMG with dual feed anti-armour SLAP and normal ammo.
So are they APC or IFV?
Or are the 2 the same? With one being the improvement over the other?
Last edited:
+1,take a look at the m113a3/a4 seris of apcs/IFVs if you want to further the confusion.Wieght might be a better defenition.In fact the M113 series is now classified as an APc depending on degree of uparmoring and armament or an IFV but more heavily armed and armored,suprisingly enough the old battle taxi has alot of valuable life left in it including the capability of being transported and air delivered by C130s 2each by air drop or lapes giving the airborne US forces similar capabilitys to what the russ and chin have had for some time.The 82nd is a decade behind rus and chin airborne forces.As it stands the 82nd as air dropped has virtually NO mobility whereass the soviets and chin will run circles round the eighty deuce.
APC IS the armored bus. It dont need any weapon at all. Useally it still have one - just for opportunity fire. The line between APC and IFV is quite blurred - but i define them by roles. IFV is intendend to actively participate in front-line combat, keeping up with tanks or even taking central role in attack / defence. It IS intended to be exposed to direct enemy fire.
APC is only intended to carry troops up TO frontline. It didnt intended to be under direct enemy fire - by design. Sure, in desperate case APC might be send to frontline under direct enemy fire. But so is HUMVEE or even unarmored Chevrolet Avalanche.
APC is only intended to carry troops up TO frontline. It didnt intended to be under direct enemy fire - by design. Sure, in desperate case APC might be send to frontline under direct enemy fire. But so is HUMVEE or even unarmored Chevrolet Avalanche.
Ok on the one hand you have the APC.
The best description for it would be battletaxi.
You give the infantry a transport asset which provides them with protection during the transport to their dismount point.
Most APCs field either a GPMG or HMG with AGLs becoming more and more common.
These days also RWS appear on APCs.
This weapon is supposed to give the APC the ability for self protection as well as a limited fire support capability.
Especially the term "battletaxi" brings it to the point.
You bring your infantry to their dismount point. There you cover the squad with the onboard weapon.
You are defenitely not able to use an APC with such a weapon in a serious way in a fast mechanized battle. There it is also "just" a battletaxi even when it accompanies tanks.
Lets take the M113 as an example and a normal mixed company.
2 tank platoons, 1 infantry platoon and the normal stuff which is also attached.
Even when the M113s accompany the tanks, and so ios squeezed into another role, they are not able to participate effectively in a mounted mechanized battle.
They are still battletaxis carrying the infantry while waiting for the order to dismount them.
On the other hand you have a real IFV.
It can participate actively and effective during a mounted mechanized engagement.
And while things like RWS and AGLs added some advantages to the possible weapons of an APC, stabilized gun systems, modern FCS, TIs, ABM ammo, etc have done this even more for IFVs.
And the difference between getting fire support from a real IFV with GPMG, autocannon and ATGMs and from an APC is easy.
While the APC is limited to one weapon and usually one kind of ammo the IFV offers better penetration against armored targets (Up to tanks with the ATGMs) and against buildings, has a much better target aquisition (optics, TIs), a better range (Due to the weapons and optics), more ammo options (AP(FS)DS, HE, ABM,...), fire on the move and a better situational awareness without compromising the ability of using the GPMG for surpressive fire.
All this comes with a certain price and these days using APCs in the role of IFVs is more related to money shortage than to anything else.
I've worked with Fuchs APCs in the Bundeswehr, and trust me, i wouldn't want to be in one under fire. Any kind of fire. They really knew why they uparmored it (MSA) for Kosovo. The US RoE for the same vehicle is "on contact, TC fires burst from GPMG or smoke while vehicle breaks contact and withdraws" (the German RoE are somewhat different).
The APC is not used anywhere close to where it's endangered other than by suddenly popping up threats. The dismount points for light infantry are commonly between 2 and 3 km from the infantry target, for good reason. The APC covers the infantry group until the group moves out of its own protection envelope (i.e. max to outside the maximum weapon range of the enemy), or it withdraws to a pre-secured "safe zone". At this point, other vehicles or systems - if available - take over the fire support / protection role for the infantry. Simple as that.
The IFV, opposed to that, dismounts its infantry at a closer range to target, then accompanies the infantry into the fight and provides fire support for them. Also, don't forget that the primary role of the IFV in mixed mechanized groups is to accompany and protect MBTs. The infantry is primarily there to combat enemy infantry threatening your own MBTs, within a high-intensity combat environment.
The APC is not used anywhere close to where it's endangered other than by suddenly popping up threats. The dismount points for light infantry are commonly between 2 and 3 km from the infantry target, for good reason. The APC covers the infantry group until the group moves out of its own protection envelope (i.e. max to outside the maximum weapon range of the enemy), or it withdraws to a pre-secured "safe zone". At this point, other vehicles or systems - if available - take over the fire support / protection role for the infantry. Simple as that.
The IFV, opposed to that, dismounts its infantry at a closer range to target, then accompanies the infantry into the fight and provides fire support for them. Also, don't forget that the primary role of the IFV in mixed mechanized groups is to accompany and protect MBTs. The infantry is primarily there to combat enemy infantry threatening your own MBTs, within a high-intensity combat environment.
Waylander
You are preaching to the converted as far as the IFV being better is concerned.
And I think you completely missed the point of what I am saying.
Let me try it another way:
The IFV is the natural evolution of the APC. They both do/did the same job but the IFV came along later and take the role further.
As to your point about "Battlefield Taxi", I have addressed that in my reply to Kato. You are mislead by the word "Taxi" as it sounds very un-combat. But you clearly don't understand what is a "Battlefield". It is the place where people get shot at and shoot back.
You are preaching to the converted as far as the IFV being better is concerned.
And I think you completely missed the point of what I am saying.
Let me try it another way:
The IFV is the natural evolution of the APC. They both do/did the same job but the IFV came along later and take the role further.
As to your point about "Battlefield Taxi", I have addressed that in my reply to Kato. You are mislead by the word "Taxi" as it sounds very un-combat. But you clearly don't understand what is a "Battlefield". It is the place where people get shot at and shoot back.
Last edited:
When you have time, look up some accounts of M113 in battle in Israel and Vietnam. And then tell me if they retreated to a safe distance "2 to 3km" from the front.
If troops were dropped off 3km from the front and then the APC bug off, why in the hell would we need an APC? Why not just take a truck or a bus?
I'm from the infantry and we get dropped off by trucks 3km from the front.
But the APC goes to the battlefield. And APC's in the old days were designed to fight alongside MBT - no different from IFV. Just that the MBT at that time were the M48 Patton and M60 series.
...
But like I'd been trying to say to Waylander and you, no one is comparing the APC and IFV and saying the APC is just as good or better.
The M113 sucked big time, which is why IFV was developed to overcome these shortcomings.
The APC is an old concept, and the IFV is its replacement.
But BEFORE the IFV was invented, the APC was all we had and it took people into the battlefield, not 2 to 3 km away.
And that's why it is called a "BATTLEFIELD TAXI". 2 to 3km away where people aren't shooting at each other is not called a "battlefield".
Last edited:
Armored personnel carriers do not need some type of crew served weapon, you could of used the excuse that they are at least good for anti aircraft defense. No where does it state that a APC is just used to carry their human cargo to the FEBA line and just drop them off, there use is defined into taking soldiers into battle and provide support. Yes we have evolved into vehicles that we can fight in while under armor, one of the great primary benefits of IFVs, with the change in air land battle tactics it was important to provide a vehicle that could contribute in a offensive posture with tanks and provide for example purposes overwatch and screening actions, you guys most likely will think that I have gone insane but expect to see more wheeled vehicles serving in this type of role and what will you call them.
To be honest, I believe distinctions like APC or IFV are pretty much redundant or getting to be redundant.
Both Iraq AND Afghanistan are leading developments away from "normal" demarkation between what one vehicle does versus what another vehicle does.
We now have or are about to have, are wheeled armoured vehicles with 30mm cannon and ATGM's in a RWS. Nobody previously would have called ANY wheeled armoured vehicle an IFV they were always seen as a cheaper, quicker-on-the-highway APC.
Perhaps one needs to consider the turret, remote or not, as being the defining factor for whether its an APC or an IFV.
Perhaps one shouldn't actually be bothered what one calls it!
To me such definitions smack of the 1960's and are rapidly becoming irrelevant as vehicle design advances and armour becomes far more capable.
My two cents worth............
Regards,
BUG
Both Iraq AND Afghanistan are leading developments away from "normal" demarkation between what one vehicle does versus what another vehicle does.
We now have or are about to have, are wheeled armoured vehicles with 30mm cannon and ATGM's in a RWS. Nobody previously would have called ANY wheeled armoured vehicle an IFV they were always seen as a cheaper, quicker-on-the-highway APC.
Perhaps one needs to consider the turret, remote or not, as being the defining factor for whether its an APC or an IFV.
Perhaps one shouldn't actually be bothered what one calls it!
To me such definitions smack of the 1960's and are rapidly becoming irrelevant as vehicle design advances and armour becomes far more capable.
My two cents worth............
Regards,
BUG
BUG is right. The distinction between infantry and armour is also being reduced. The US Army groups all mechanised infantry and tank units into single battalions.
You have mounted and dismounted combatants and the dismounted can fight from mounted and the mounted can dismount. Its part of the Australian Army’s basic cavalry CONOPs that if more can be achieved out of the vehicle the driver and commander will dismount. Usually the gunner will stay aboard to protect the vehicle. The three man crew of an ASLAV-25 is issued with at least one F88 GLA (M203) 40mm. In the past AFV crews were rarely issued with more than pistols.
Further even the Israelis are moving towards more firepower for their APCs. The demands of urban warfare have shown that MG and even HMG armament is not enough for APCs. Because of line of sight constraints in urban battles means each vehicle may be the only vehicle able to bring a weapon to bear on the target. While they will only equip each unit’s anti-tank troops with new APCs with 30mm guns and ATGMs (like a traditional IFV) the other APCs will have AGLs and explosives firing weapons. One thing about urban battle line of sight constraints is the targets are close so you don’t need a long range weapon like a 30mm gun.
You have mounted and dismounted combatants and the dismounted can fight from mounted and the mounted can dismount. Its part of the Australian Army’s basic cavalry CONOPs that if more can be achieved out of the vehicle the driver and commander will dismount. Usually the gunner will stay aboard to protect the vehicle. The three man crew of an ASLAV-25 is issued with at least one F88 GLA (M203) 40mm. In the past AFV crews were rarely issued with more than pistols.
Further even the Israelis are moving towards more firepower for their APCs. The demands of urban warfare have shown that MG and even HMG armament is not enough for APCs. Because of line of sight constraints in urban battles means each vehicle may be the only vehicle able to bring a weapon to bear on the target. While they will only equip each unit’s anti-tank troops with new APCs with 30mm guns and ATGMs (like a traditional IFV) the other APCs will have AGLs and explosives firing weapons. One thing about urban battle line of sight constraints is the targets are close so you don’t need a long range weapon like a 30mm gun.
In the early days (1980s) before proliferation of AGLs, many IDF tanks had a 60mm mortar mounted on the tank turret. This is for the tank commander to use.
This was commonly seen on IDF tanks in the Lebanese invasion.
In the confines of Beirut, the mortar covered places the main gun cannot.
...
Another interesting fact about IDF tanks is that the commander will usually have access to a 50cal.
This is not the case for many other armies. The German Leopard series usually came armed only with a MG3 GPMG for the TC.
This was commonly seen on IDF tanks in the Lebanese invasion.
In the confines of Beirut, the mortar covered places the main gun cannot.
...
Another interesting fact about IDF tanks is that the commander will usually have access to a 50cal.
This is not the case for many other armies. The German Leopard series usually came armed only with a MG3 GPMG for the TC.
There was an article I read about 25mm in MOUT urban combat.
The author insists an MBT's main gun is more effective in demolishing hiding places in MOUT and called the Bradley's armament a pea shooter.
I don't fully agree with him but there is this famous video of a Bradley firing its 25mm into the second storey of a house in Fallujah.
Very fierce series of small explosions but it was not impossible that whomever was hiding inside survived. (Eventually, they fired a TOW missile into the house. But only in US army you can expend one TOW to kill one sniper.)
Actually, both the tank cannon and the 30mm gun aren't the most suitable.
While the tank gun is great, its elevation is too limited for high-rise targets.
And the 25 or 30mm can punch neat holes into armour and concrete but still needs a very near hit to effectively kill a human.
In the instance described in the Fallujah video, the AGL would be the most useful thing to have. After an AGL has lobbed several shells into a house, I would feel secure to send the section in as whomever inside, even if not injured, would be severely concussed or deaf.