schnuersi said:

In the video it even says the APCs need to be backed up by tanks. In other words they are not supporting the tanks.

Well, duh.  It's an infantry assault.  The tanks are supporting the infantry.

schnuersi said:

The M113...can not operate close to tanks because its to slow, lacks protection and it doesn't really bring any mounted firepower. The only thing it brings is dismounts. And this rather slow I would add.

Depends upon which tanks you're talking about.  AFAIK, the M113 APC was just as fast as the M48 tank, and had equal, if not superior, cross-country mobility.

schnuersi said:

An M113 doesn't compare to a Marder or a Bradley.

Of course not.  The Marder and Bradley are later generations of armored infantry vehicles.

That is like saying the M1903 Springfield doesn't compare to the M1 Garand or FG42 rifles.

stancrist said:

Indeed, since an APC typically weighs significantly less, it can have better mobility.

Tactical mobility not technical. To have tactical mobility compared to a tank you adequate protection. A light weight APC lacks protection and thus its tactical mobility is significantly less compared to its technical mobility.
But of course there are some heavy APC that do that. So it is possible. Its just uncommon and a hAPC is not an IFV.

stancrist said:

That is false. No vehicle can perform the combat function of infantry. That's why we still have infantry.

Nope. It depends on the circumstances and environment. In combined arms manoeuver warfare vehicles not only can perform some combat functions of infantry they are needed to do so since infantry peforms poorly or isn't there.
There have been several attempts to dispense with dismounts entirely. With limited success until now. We will have to wait and see how the BMPT performs in UA.
This is also why mech infantry usually has significantly less infantrymen per unit than non mech infanty. They don't need them. Six men plus and IFV easily outperform a platoon of foot infantry in a lot of scenarios.
Most attempts with UGCV have the ultimate goal to replace infantry in most scenarios with the intermediate step of supplementing infantry.
 

stancrist said:

It's an infantry assault.

Which at this point in time was an anachronism.
Also i am not talking about infantry assaults but mechanised assaults and combined arms manoeuver warfare. A foot assault is the antithesis to that. This is exactly what I meant with the IFV concept is a result of armored warfare and doctrin. Infantry by itself was perfectly happy with the APC.

stancrist said:

Depends upon which tanks you're talking about. AFAIK, the M113 APC was just as fast as the M48 tank, and had equal, if not superior, cross-country mobility.

Maybe but in this case the M48 had piss poor mobility because the mobility of the M113 isn't impressive even by '60 standards. Also when the M113 was introduced the M60 allready was in service. So it would have had to keep up with it. Never the less the M113 can not work next to tanks because it lacks serious protection. It can be shot up even by HMGs. Which means it needs to be protected. It can not fight together with tanks. It can only follow at a safe distance. It also carries no weapon to supplement the tanks.

stancrist said:

Of course not. The Marder and Bradley are later generations of armored infantry vehicles.

If this is your only problem: The HS.30 was introduced in '60 and the SPz 11-2 in '59. Both are conciderable more powerfull than the M113 because they are better armored and carrys a AC. The dismounts also can use their weapons while mounted. While the execution of the HS.30 was very poor the concept worked and resulted in the Marder.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: Actually, it is you who is mistaken. The IFV was not derived from any tank. The IFV is an evolution of the APC.

I am not talking about what vehicles has wich linage. But about the concept.

I am talking about the concept.  

schnuersi said:

The IFV concept is not derived from the APC...

It absolutely was.  In concept, the IFV is just an APC with increased armor protection and greater firepower. 

The IFV is not a tank.  The IFV is an improved infantry transporter.

schnuersi said:

...but from the needs of the tank. Otherwise why create an IFV in the first place?

To get an improved infantry carrier.

stancrist said:

The IFV is an improved infantry transporter.

No its not. The IFV is a specialised vehicle to supplement the tank.
Why do you think mech inf is part of the armored corps and not the infantry? Because they are no infantry they are armor with some people that dismount to fight if required. The IFV took over most roles of the light tank. It has serious armament including FCS and all that is needed because its there to fight. Its not a carrier. Its a light tank with carrying capacity.

An improved APC would not have required a new name. The name APC is still used for improved vehicles which have little to do with the first ones that appeared.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: Indeed, since an APC typically weighs significantly less, it can have better mobility.

Tactical mobility not technical. To have tactical mobility compared to a tank you adequate protection. A light weight APC lacks protection and thus its tactical mobility is significantly less compared to its technical mobility.

Aside from the fact that I've never seen "tactical mobility" defined in such a way, I never said anything about a "light weight" APC.

I'm talking about OTBE.  An APC (because it lacks a turret) will weigh less than an IFV, when both have the same armor protection.

For instance, remove the turret from a Bradley IFV and turn it into an APC.  It will be lighter, faster, but the same armor protection.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: The IFV is an improved infantry transporter.

No its not. The IFV is a specialised vehicle to supplement the tank.

LOL.  "Not an infantry transporter."  LOL.

schnuersi said:

Why do you think mech inf is part of the armored corps and not the infantry? Because they are no infantry...

Mechanized infantry are not infantry?  ROFL.

Boxer CRV on left, ASLAV type 2 (Australian spec LAV25) on right.

Both cavalry reconnaissance vehicles, neither IFV. Our new IFV will be either Lynx with the same Lance turret as the CRV, or AS21 Redback.

I had always gone with this basic distinction:

IFV: Optimized for fighting other vehicles; superior gun and armor to the APC, optimized for vehicle on vehicle combat

APC: Optimized for transporting infantry; armor optimized for infantry protection and gun designed for infantry support

First, "optimized for fighting other vehicles" and "optimized for vehicle on vehicle combat" are redundant.

Second, the IFV is not optimized for fighting other vehicles.  Tanks are optimized for fighting other vehicles. 

APC:  Designed for transporting infantry; armor protection against small arms fire and artillery fragments; armament adequate for infantry support.

IFV:  Designed for transporting infantry; armor protection greater than that of the APC; armament more capable and flexible than that of the APC.