Talk:Infantry fighting vehicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

What is the benefit compare with tanks?[edit]

Why need Infantry to fight in a car? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.142.49.135 (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And you remove two pictures of notable vehicles why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AloDuranium (talkcontribs) 05:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

M3 Bradley CFV - Remove from article?[edit]

Just curious if I should remove the M3 CFV from the article? Technically, it's an M2 with more sensors, more reloads and carries two scouts (not infantrymen). Keep or remove? Edward Sandstig 23:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

IFV: Combination of Light Tank and APC?[edit]

I've read that IFV's are basically a combination of a Light tank/armored car and an APC. Would anyone object to my adding this to the article? Oberiko 16:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The concept of the IFV entails that it's somehow an improvement on an APC in that it is either a "FIV" allowing the infantry to use it weapons under armour or can support the infantry with armament more effective than a mere machine gun. Neither of these qualities is implicated by the fact that it would be a light tank or an armoured car. An armoured car indeed could have no armament at all; adding some small machine gun turret to an APC would hardly make it an IFV. The "combination of a light tank/armoured car and an APC" - metaphore tries to express and confuses two different aspects: that an APC can have either tracks or wheels; that an IFV is heavier armed than an APC — just like a tank or armoured car often is. Far from enlightening the reader this description can only lead to an incoherent understanding. So yes, I...;o).

--84.27.81.59 3 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)

I agree. I'd also add that although many IFVs have some of the characteristics of light tanks, the statement "IFV's are basically a combination of a Light tank/armored car and an APC" is too general and may conflate tanks and IFVs in other ways, in which they are very different. Even though the same or similar vehicle may in some cases be used in both roles (e.g. the carrier and reconnaissance versions of the U.S. Bradley), they are employed in different organizations, their crews are trained very differently, and they are equipped differently. Michael Z. 2005-07-4 17:12 Z

Please add SPz Puma[edit]

you should add the SPz PUMA, which will replace the German Marder in a couple of years. this makes the SPz PUMA the most modern IFV afaik. --Slinter 20:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC) No, don't. It's not in service yet. When it is in service it may be the most modern AFV in terms of build, but I don't know what it would have that recently upgraded Bradley's may have not have. 145.253.108.22 13:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Germany has a preseries run of 5 Pumas in active service as of January 2007. Kato2k6 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed Stryker and M3 Bradley CFV[edit]

I removed the Stryker from the article, since there currently isn't an IFV variant of the said vehicle. Also removed the M3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle. --Edward Sandstig 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone put it back, I removed it again. If someone wants to put up a real wheeled IFV from the USA they should use the LAV 25.--216.58.52.132 (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I added the LAV-25 and LAV III and rearranged the list alphabetically by name of the vehicle. If someone knows of a better way to order them feel free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.52.132 (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Flat tires[edit]

Moreover, many of the wheeled vehicles can extract themselves from the battlefield even on flat tires. A tracked IFV would require a heavy vehicle to tow it out of the same situation.

Tracked IFVs don't get flat tires (although they can drop a track). Anything which would wreck a tracked suspension could take out enough wheels and axles to render a wheeled AFV un-drivable, too. Michael Z. 2006-11-13 04:22 Z

Not strictly true. A mine which breaks a track will often only blow a wheel off a well designed 6x6 or 8x8 armoured vehicle. British Saladin Armoured cars were renowned for coming back to base with wheels missing during some of the more violent clashes that came with the end of empire. A M113 or FV432 would not have made it backin such circumstances.

Fair enough. I'm just saying that the statement in the article is oversimplified, implying a false, over-generalized conclusion. Many things which can flatten a tire wouldn't even affect a tracked vehicle. Perhaps there are some multi-axled exceptions, but it's wrong to imply that "wheeled vehicles can drive out of anything that would immobilize a track." Michael Z. 2006-11-24 17:10 Z
That entire section reads a bit childish to me. I will try and improve. 145.253.108.22 13:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

May I note, this seems like pie/cake argument to me.--130.225.245.21 (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wheeled vehicles are mechanically simpler, easier to maintain, and somewhat mobile on good roads. Tracked vehicles are mechanically complex, harder to maintain, and far more mobile off good roads. Various armed forces in various times and places have favored one over the other. Please do not use Wikipedia to "prove" that one or the other is "better" overall. <eleland/talkedits> 23:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Constructive edit or vandalism?[edit]

The latest edit to this article ([1]) was made by a rather unconstructive IP. Could someone, please, check this? Thank you --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

There are no pictures of legged, or wheeled IFV's. Please change the pictures in article to include these types [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.6.252 (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

HIFV or HAPC[edit]

Heavy infantry fighting vehicles

To cope with urban combat and mine warfare, including the use of large improvised explosive devices, there have been a number of heavy IFVs (HIFV) with the high protection level of a tank developed, based largely on experience of the Israel Defense Force (although the Canadian Kangaroo of World War II could be called the first). The Israeli Merkava tank is capable of carrying a few infantrymen or extra ammunition in the back;[1] the Achzarit is a T-55 tank modified to be heavily armored personnel carrier; and the Namer is a redesigned Merkava tank without a tank gun.

Another example is the Russian BTR-T, also based on the T-55. Also the BMP-T is being developed in Russia. It is a tank support vehicle, but can also be categorized as an infantry fighting vehicle. BTR-90 is another promising project of Russia. The Ukrainian BMT-72 and BTMP-84 are based on lengthened T-72 and T-84 main battle tanks, respectively, and retain the tanks' 125mm main guns.

This whole section is unsourced. Where does it say that Tank converted carriers are IFVs. If anything they are APCs since they are armed with only a machine gun for defence. Unless there is a source which declares them Infantry Fighting/combat vehicles this should be removed and placed on another armoured combat vehicle page.--91.32.115.163 (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.52.132 (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

BTR-90 & BMPT[edit]

The BTR-90 is not, and was never designed to be a heavy IFV and I have no idea why it is listed as such. In fact it isn't commonly classed as an IFV and a lot of Russian military websites class it as an APC/heavy APC. If someone would correct this it would be appreciated.

Also the BMPT is not called the BMP-T, this is a common error but it does make a difference. BMP stands for Boyevaya Mashina Pekhoty meaning fighting vehicle of infantry whilst BMPT stands for Boyevaya Mashina Podderzhki Tankov or fighting vehicle supporting tanks and is not related to the BMP family of IFVs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.12.214 (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

ASLAV not IFV?=[edit]

I would suggest ASLAV and for that matter USMC LAV25 should both be removed from the article as they are both recon vehicles by their respective user's doctrine. ASLAV does not even carry dismount scouts (there is a personel carrier version of the ASLAV but it does not have the turret and chaingun, usualy it is armed with a pintle mount or a remote weaposn stations).

Less sue about the USMC LACV25 - it may carry dismoutn scouts, butI am confident it is not an IFV, but a recon vehicle by doctrinal role. As such I'd say btph of these vehicles should be removed from the artivle. Any yay or nay sayers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.232.233 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Article cleanup in terms of "pictures"[edit]

The person before me asked about the pictures being changed to represent "legged" (or wheeled) ICV's/IFV's.

A few things in the article bother me;

1. The M2 Bradley and BMP3 photos have both been replaced by a photo of the oldest official ICV/IFV. The BMP1. If we were to properly represent the modern infantry fighting vehicle, I suggest using the more modern vehicles.

2. The Puma picture seems a bit opinionated and non factual. It hasn't come out yet, or seen combat, yet it's said to be the BEST IFV?!?

3. We don't need a lot of pictures of wheeled vehicles. Theyre not under represented, they're just aren't a lot of types of them. Half the photo gallery doesn't need to be filled up with photos of them.

4. And finally..... The m2 Bradley isn't pictured, but the DARDO IFV is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AloDuranium (talkcontribs) 05:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Article cleanup[edit]

a lot of the pictures in this article are being changed al the time, and the title picture is represented by an unmodern vehicle, while the info seems opinionated and uncited. This article needs a cleanup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AloDuranium (talkcontribs) 07:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted section on effectiveness against arrtillery[edit]

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=4M_Q6vWMshgC&pg=PA58&dq=%22Infantry+fighting+vehicle%22&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Infantry%20fighting%20vehicle%22&f=false

If you read the source given (above) the effect was actually attributed to CB fire, it was measuring the effects of that on IFV loss rates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.133.87 (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Infantry fighting vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)