What is the difference between IFV and APC?
- Thread starter Oversee
- Start date
basic things, basic things...its like what is the difference between howitzer and cannon.
The concept of IFV was born during the cold-war when both blocks wanted a vehicle, that could figth in contaminated areas and allow the embarked squad to figth from the inside, supported with heavy automatic cannon in turret operated by the vehicle leader and in most can fire ATGMs. Soviet BMP was the ignator of the idea and vehicles with its concept should be called IFVs and lesser ones APCs.
They doesent carry same chasis, usually vehicles classed as APC are wheeled units, where as IFV usually needs to have tracked chasis to support the embarked hevier equipment.
But offcourse, as with all military designations, there is cross-overs and exceptions, but these things shouldn't be taken as dogmatic guidelines. Many armies have domestic requirments wich can make the concept somewhat different and many older APCs have been upgraded to offer IFV capacities with heavier turret armament and Firing ports. By common sense and logic, such vehicles naturally arent APCs any longer but IFVs.
There isent hardly any dificoulty in the issue. the division is rather clear, albeit the current trend leans to an extincion of APC type, that presents older generation of thinking in infantry support equipment.
The concept of IFV was born during the cold-war when both blocks wanted a vehicle, that could figth in contaminated areas and allow the embarked squad to figth from the inside, supported with heavy automatic cannon in turret operated by the vehicle leader and in most can fire ATGMs. Soviet BMP was the ignator of the idea and vehicles with its concept should be called IFVs and lesser ones APCs.
They doesent carry same chasis, usually vehicles classed as APC are wheeled units, where as IFV usually needs to have tracked chasis to support the embarked hevier equipment.
But offcourse, as with all military designations, there is cross-overs and exceptions, but these things shouldn't be taken as dogmatic guidelines. Many armies have domestic requirments wich can make the concept somewhat different and many older APCs have been upgraded to offer IFV capacities with heavier turret armament and Firing ports. By common sense and logic, such vehicles naturally arent APCs any longer but IFVs.
There isent hardly any dificoulty in the issue. the division is rather clear, albeit the current trend leans to an extincion of APC type, that presents older generation of thinking in infantry support equipment.
Generally, the IFV (which stands for Infantry Fighting Vehicle) was designed for the infantry to fight from and is more heavily armed (larger gun, potential anti-armor missiles, etc.) . An APC (which stands for Armored Personel Carrier) was designed to transport soldiers to the places they do battle in more safety (in an armored vehicle) whereupon they dismount and fight themselves.
Generally, an IFV itself is more heavily armed than an APC and usually carries less soldiers. Soldiers can (and do) dismount from IFVs to fight, but that is not always their primary purpose. Almost always, when a true APC reaches the battle area, the soldiers dismount.
Having said that, a lot of people use the terms interchangeably.
Is it because in the end, most people are thinking, "Well, you've got the armor there now. Why not make it fight too?"
Seems like a natural desire, heh.
Chengdu J-10
Junior Member
Really I thought that IFV fight along side MBT in the battlfield with troops inside the vehicle waiting to dismount at the right time, with the IFV providing cover fire against armoured vehicles, while the APC was just to delivery troops with protection from point A to B.
Pointblank
Senior Member
An IFV is generally more heavily armed than a APC, usually equipped with an autocannon and anti-tank missiles, compared to a APC, which is usually armed with a machine gun. This is due to the fact that a fire support mission has been added to the task of the IFV compared to the APC.
However, due to extra equipment and weapons present in an IFV, there is less space inside to carry troops; hence we go full circle, as demonstrated in the attached picture:
Attachments
-
index.php.jpg
I think the Canadian LAVs are a good example of what is being said here. It is a IFV because it carries significant firepower, but it has wheels which is common in modern APCs. The Australian army sent some of their LAVs to Iraq and two of them was hit by road side bomb and suicide car bomb but the chassis of both LAVs remained intact saving the crew.
yeas. Tracked IFVs actually beguns to be rather rare in these days, Our own AMV is anther example of the wheeled IFV.
But the term IFV was born for a rather detailed and spesific doctrine of infantry warfare, wich has later on proven to be somewhat unpractical, so the intial generation of IFVs haven't been used in their dedicated role, but more like upp-gunned and better protected APC and that has set new trends to vehicles that are by concept desinged as APC, but carries IFV type equipment.
But what would military designations be, if not complicated
But the term IFV was born for a rather detailed and spesific doctrine of infantry warfare, wich has later on proven to be somewhat unpractical, so the intial generation of IFVs haven't been used in their dedicated role, but more like upp-gunned and better protected APC and that has set new trends to vehicles that are by concept desinged as APC, but carries IFV type equipment.
But what would military designations be, if not complicated
Yes, the IFV concept has turned out to much less than what was intended. But as long as IFV's do not carry the same or nearly the same protection as MBTs, the two cannot truly operate under all the same conditions, as the vulnerability of the IFV's force the infantry to dismount well before the objective. IF, and that's a big IF, IFV's carried the same or nearly the same protection as MBTs, then the infantry May be able to dismount on or at least a good deal closer to the objective and spend that much less time under direct observation of the enemy. Mind you IFVs like this would be very heavy, very expensive, and a lot of mechanized infantryman would have to get in light infantry shape pretty fast to deal with those situations where armour, especially heavy armour, just can't go.
The other difference between IFVs and wheeled APCs is troop comfort. Heavier, tracked IFV's don't give a very smooth ride, the troops are bounced around a lot. Wheeled APCs give an even rougher ride. I remember riding in the back of a 8-wheeled Bison APC (early Canadian version of LAV-25 with troops seated facing each other) and we were being thrown around inside, and this was just on a gravel road. The earlier Grizzly (LAV-1) was 6-wheeled (although the troops were seated back-to-back IFV style, so weapons could be used from inside the vehicle) was even worse, especially since there was little leg and foot room.
The other difference between IFVs and wheeled APCs is troop comfort. Heavier, tracked IFV's don't give a very smooth ride, the troops are bounced around a lot. Wheeled APCs give an even rougher ride. I remember riding in the back of a 8-wheeled Bison APC (early Canadian version of LAV-25 with troops seated facing each other) and we were being thrown around inside, and this was just on a gravel road. The earlier Grizzly (LAV-1) was 6-wheeled (although the troops were seated back-to-back IFV style, so weapons could be used from inside the vehicle) was even worse, especially since there was little leg and foot room.