Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Type 6

[Gallia-]

K21 is a slightly better M2.

It's also super fat.

[Tule]

The difference between APC and IFV is how you use it, obviously.

Some vehicles are better designed to be used certain ways.

The reason I'm asking is because I'm not a big fan of the logistical footprint of separate IFV's.
I have a limited number of military personnel and I don't want too many of them to spend their time fixing tracks and fuelling vehicles when they could be fighting on the battlefield.

So would it be feasible to use a sort of "Light IFV" or IFV/APC hybrid? Something that does have armor and weapons like an IFV, only not as heavy and with more space for troops. Something like a Patria AMV with a remote controlled MK 19.

[Gallia-]

The difference between APC and IFV is how you use it, obviously.

Some vehicles are better designed to be used certain ways.

The reason I'm asking is because I'm not a big fan of the logistical footprint of separate IFV's.
I have a limited number of military personnel and I don't want too many of them to spend their time fixing tracks and fuelling vehicles when they could be fighting on the battlefield.

So would it be feasible to use a sort of "Light IFV" or IFV/APC hybrid? Something that does have armor and weapons like an IFV, only not as heavy and with more space for troops. Something like a Patria AMV with a remote controlled MK 19.

You could just use the same automotive components.

[Crookfur]

IIRC the Conventional Force Europe Treaty makes the differentiantion on the size of gun carried.

Up to 20mm= APC and 20mm and up= IVF (technically Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicle).

of coruse techniclaly anything with a 40 or 30mm AGL would be an IFV but both sides seem to pretty much leave those as APCs.

treaty here (has some itnerestign stuff on how stuff is classified): http://cns.miis.edu/inventory/pdfs/aptcfe.pdf

[Mitheldalond]

The difference between APC and IFV is how you use it, obviously.

Some vehicles are better designed to be used certain ways.

The reason I'm asking is because I'm not a big fan of the logistical footprint of separate IFV's.
I have a limited number of military personnel and I don't want too many of them to spend their time fixing tracks and fuelling vehicles when they could be fighting on the battlefield.

So would it be feasible to use a sort of "Light IFV" or IFV/APC hybrid? Something that does have armor and weapons like an IFV, only not as heavy and with more space for troops. Something like a Patria AMV with a remote controlled MK 19.

So, something that can carry a bunch of troops but still has a decent amount of firepower?

Meet the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. Carries 17 troops and has a 30mm autocannon.

[Tule]

Found what I was looking for.

[Chedastan]

Behold! The light tank version of the Abrams, which I referred to as the M1 Abrams "Commando." Yeah I just made this just for the hell of it.

Now which one of these is better? Like which one is more plausible, light tankish, air-portable?

[Britinthia]

Found what I was looking for.

Wheels will limit your off-road ability and your ability to keep up with MBTs. Go with a tracked stryker for maximum awesome.

[Immoren]

Found what I was looking for.

Wheels will limit your off-road ability and your ability to keep up with MBTs. Go with a tracked stryker for maximum awesome.

You mean CV90 armadillo?

[Tule]

Found what I was looking for.

Wheels will limit your off-road ability and your ability to keep up with MBTs. Go with a tracked stryker for maximum awesome.

Haven't decided yet whether to go with tracks or wheels, the choice is not that obvious.

[Immoren]

Wheels will limit your off-road ability and your ability to keep up with MBTs. Go with a tracked stryker for maximum awesome.

Haven't decided yet whether to go with tracks or wheels, the choice is not that obvious.

Both. *nods*

[Krasny-Volny]

The difference between APC and IFV is how you use it, obviously.

Some vehicles are better designed to be used certain ways.

The reason I'm asking is because I'm not a big fan of the logistical footprint of separate IFV's.
I have a limited number of military personnel and I don't want too many of them to spend their time fixing tracks and fuelling vehicles when they could be fighting on the battlefield.

So would it be feasible to use a sort of "Light IFV" or IFV/APC hybrid? Something that does have armor and weapons like an IFV, only not as heavy and with more space for troops. Something like a Patria AMV with a remote controlled MK 19.

A lot of "IFVs" are just APCs with heavy armament. Think BMP-3 material.

[Lyras]

Much is doctrinal. An APC is a 'battle taxi', whereas (esp. in the west) IFVs are generally expected to advance alongside the dismounts, and continue to provide fire support, usually under the command of the squad/section commander (who is generally a dismount).

[Gallia-]

ACAVs in Vietnam did IFV before it was cool.

[Lyras]

ACAVs in Vietnam did IFV before it was cool.

This is true, and illustrates something of the confusion. Many an APC crew tend to use the vehicle in support of their dismounts anyway. Battle of Long Tan is a classic example.

[Krasny-Volny]

ACAVs in Vietnam did IFV before it was cool.

This is true, and illustrates something of the confusion. Many an APC crew tend to use the vehicle in support of their dismounts anyway. Battle of Long Tan is a classic example.

The Aussies put 76mm cannon on their M113s during that war. According to accounts by Vietnam vets the rounds carried in the turret were nearly always HE or canister - in case they encountered "human wave" tactics a la Korea - but HESH dealt nicely with anything short of an MBT. On at least one occasion it was used to clear an insurgent bunker.

[Tule]

Would these be of any use on the modern battlefield? What about a recoilless rifle mounted on a quad bike for off road capability?

[Novorden]

(Image)

Would these be of any use on the modern battlefield? What about a recoilless rifle mounted on a quad bike for off road capability?

somewhat related

CRV7-PG guided 70mm rocket.

In 2006 Bristol started testing a new version of the CRV7, the CRV7-PG. The weapon was introduced at Eurosatory 2006.[16] Bristol's current owners, Magellan Aerospace, offered it for sale starting in 2007.
The PG version, for "precision guided", adds a seeker developed by Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace to the front of any version of an otherwise unmodified CRV7. The seeker uses a simple inertial guidance system through the midcourse, and homes during the terminal approach using a laser designator. Other versions offer anti-radiation seeking, or GPS guidance. Combining the laser seeker with the FAT warhead produces a capable long-range anti-tank missile that is faster and much less expensive than traditional platforms like the AGM-114 Hellfire.
A version of the CRV7-PG was also developed for special forces use, fired from a single tube mounted on a 6 x 6. In use, the weapon would be driven into the field and fired from behind cover, aiming at a designated location from a forward team

[Mitheldalond]

Behold! The light tank version of the Abrams, which I referred to as the M1 Abrams "Commando." Yeah I just made this just for the hell of it.

Now which one of these is better? Like which one is more plausible, light tankish, air-portable?

(Image)

(Image)

....They're so cute

ACAVs in Vietnam did IFV before it was cool.

This is true, and illustrates something of the confusion. Many an APC crew tend to use the vehicle in support of their dismounts anyway. Battle of Long Tan is a classic example.

Which is part of the reason that I don't use APCs. If the APCs are going to hang around anyway, might as well just give them a bigger gun and make them IFVs.

I also use 6-man squads, so it works out nicely.

[Lyras]

This is true, and illustrates something of the confusion. Many an APC crew tend to use the vehicle in support of their dismounts anyway. Battle of Long Tan is a classic example.

Which is part of the reason that I don't use APCs. If the APCs are going to hang around anyway, might as well just give them a bigger gun and make them IFVs.

I also use 6-man squads, so it works out nicely.

A six-strong squad with an IFV is an 8 or 9-strong squad.
Which is what I use

A 10-strong squad in an APC is a 10 strong squad in a platoon that includes an APC section of 3 APCs. Slightly different arrangement. Generally.

[Rich and Corporations]

Or you could use both IFVs, APCs, and tanks (light, medium or heavy) in a combined arms arrangement.

[Lyras]

Or you could use both IFVs, APCs, and tanks (light, medium or heavy) in a combined arms arrangement.

This is rare below battalion level, but you do need to do this for your total force to be properly effective, in my humble opinion.

[Svendborg-]

This is about the extent of it. Replace TOW with .50 caliber machine gun or benches for a variety of purposes.

[The Kievan People]

IFV's confuse me.

Their reported purpose is to transport infantry into a combat zone and provide them with fire support after they dismount, makes sense.

But at what point does an APC become an IFV? Is there a tangible difference or is it all a matter of interpretation? Would a .50 BMG or an automatic 40 mm grenade launcher mounted on top of an APC make it an IFV? Are IFV's necessary to support tanks or are APC's adequate?

The idea of IFVs was that infantry would be able to fight mounted.

Since subsequent experience showed firing ports to be sort of worthless, and by extension mounted combat, the difference between APCs and IFVs comes down to armament. APCs generally don't have anything larger than a HMG or GMG. In a combined arms context an important difference is that dismounting from an IFV is essentially optional, the IFV contributes plenty of firepower even with the infantry mounted, dismounting from an APC is basically mandatory if the infantry are going to contribute at all. Potentially this means an IFV + Tank force can maintain a higher tempo by 'rolling over' minor obstacles that can be dealt with by vehicular fire alone. IFVs can also (in principle, since AFAIK it is not usually done) dismount their passenger then fight independently as another maneuver unit.

[Pharthan]

Been working on a Main Battle Tank.
Hull is done, pretty much. Turret is obviously not.

Main Battle Tank
Weight: 65 Tons
Length: 26 ft
Width: 12 ft
Crew: 3
Height: 8?ft