Mr. T (MrT4) said:

As for APC , IFV you can see ever smaller miltaries turning ever more wheeled APCs into wheeled IFV roles.

A wheeled vehicle can not fill the IFV role. Unless maybe the nation uses wheeled tanks.

The requirement to cooperate with tanks means the same tactical mobility is required. Unless the circumstances are very favorable this is simply not the case for a wheeled vehicles. This automatically puts all wheeled AFVs that carry dismounts regardless of armament into the APC category.
Some nations do press wheeled APCs in the IFV role, yes. This indeed usually is done for budget reasons. It doesn't change the fact that such a vehicle can not fullfill this role.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Both look like IFVs ,

And an SPG looks like a tank... it doesn't matter what it looks like. Its about what it can do.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

French VBCI is more of an IFV than APC.

No its not. It is wheeled with a high emphasis on operational and strategical mobility. It can not follow Leclercs cross country. Only STANAG K4 protected. Its unsuitable for duelling situations in a combined arms context. It does carry a lot of dismounts though. Its an APC with some combat capability.
Its in the same class as the Boxer and the Boxer is so not an IFV.

Basically most of the 8x8 we have seen in the last decades are a result of the conditions and circumstances of the last decades. Most important shrinking budgets. Second LIC and COIN. Wheeled vehicles have an advantage if its about IED and mine protection. Cross country mobility was not that important as it used to be befor and is now again. Armor protection against medium caliber automatic guns and serious modern AT was of little concern etc. In this context a wheeled AFV makes sense. After all police forces also use wheeled vehicles. The missions conducted where in a lot of cases much closer to police work than to typical military missions. As a result a lot of equipment changed and made militaries more police like. It is now obvious that this has been a dead end... and it has been highly controversial anyways. Only now there is equipment with a lifespan of decades that is optimised for yesterdays war.

RovingPedant said:

Zut alors!

If you want to suggest the VBCI is an IFV? Its not! Its a APC. Actually its the very definition of APC.
I pointed out why in more detail in a post above.
 

schnuersi said...

If you want to suggest the VBCI is an IFV?

It was either that or suggest that France is not a major country.

schnuersi said...

ts not! Its a APC. Actually its the very definition of APC.

I'm of the opinion that an IFV is a subset of APC. If an APC has significant combat capability it's an IFV. It might not be as good an IFV as others, but I don't see the point in classing the VBCI as not-an-IFV on the basis of a little difference in certain cross country mobility.

RovingPedant said:

but I don't see the point in classing the VBCI as not-an-IFV on the basis of a little difference in certain cross country mobility.

The point is the difference is not little but massive.
The mission of an IFV is to work in close cooperation with tanks. Tank and IFV supplement each other. If the IFV can not move as the tanks can it can not fullfill its primary function. It also compromises the capabilities of the tanks to fullfill their function and mission. This is the whole reason for the existence of the IFV. To have the same tactical mobility not only technical mobility, as provided by the drivetrain, is needed but also proper protection.
Actually the weapon and the number of dismounts a IFV carries is less important than its tactical mobility.
Yes the VBCI carries 9 dismounts and has a decent weapon with the 25 mm and will have a great one once its upgraded to 40 mm but this doesn't matter at all if the tanks are kilometers ahead when the dismounts are needed or AC fire for supression is needed.
A Marder, even though its more than 40 years old, is superiour to the VBCI in this regard. It has the tactical mobility to follow the Leopards anywhere. Its better to have only six dismounts and a 20 mm AC that is immediatley available than more men and better weapons that are god knows where.
There are good reasons why the Soviet and now Russian army uses wheeled APCs and tracked IFV in different units for different pruposes.

Its not a case of IFV good and APC bad. Both are different. The function is different. Of course an APC can be used in the IFV role... just like someone can be beaten with a rifle stock... but its not the main purpose and its poor in this function.

RovingPedant said:

I'm of the opinion that an IFV is a subset of APC.

A common mistake. The IFV is a subset of the tank.

schnuersi said...

A common mistake. The IFV is a subset of the tank.

Since the APC is also a subset of the tank, that seems correct.

As far as I am aware the IFV is an APC with offensive firepower. The ability to keep up with the gun tanks across all terrains in all conditions at all times is a nice to have but not mandatory. 

On a related note, how would you define the British Warrior?

schnuersi said:

We don't know if the Marines disagree. We know the decisionmakers do.

LOL.  When the Marines' decision makers disagree, "the Marines" disagree.

schnuersi said:

The conclusion: "they bought it, so it must be the best" can not be drawn.

I made no such conclusion.  I merely noted that -- despite the current focus on peer war -- the Marines are opting for wheels, not tracks.

RovingPedant said:

As far as I am aware the IFV is an APC with offensive firepower.

No, the level of firepower is not the defining atribute of the IFV.
A BTR-80 is an APC but a BRT-82, the same vehicle only armed with a 30 mm instead of a 14,5, is an IFV? Turns a M-ATV into an IFV if the .50 cal is replaced by a 30 mm AC?

RovingPedant said:

The ability to keep up with the gun tanks across all terrains in all conditions at all times is a nice to have but not mandatory.

But it is. This is what defines the IFV and seperates it from the APC. This is why its a distinctive class of AFV.
Maybe it becomes clearer if you look at how and especially why the IFV came into existence. The requirement was not defined by infantry. Who where absolutely happy with APCs. It was the armored corps that needed something different. In a nutshell. An IFV is a vehicle that can perform the combat function of infantry. But with the same mobility as tanks. Which means most combat is conducted mounted. Either by selecting the proper armament, allowing the dismounts to fight while mounted or both. Dismounted combat is only done when there is no other option. When its really necessary. For short periods of time. This way tanks get a companion vehicle with similar mobility that can perfom combat functions they can or only can poorly. The IFV only makes sense if viewed in the combined arms context together with tanks. IFVs are all about mobility and firepower. Troop carrying is tertiary to this.
If this is not a requirement you don't really need an IFV and are better suited with a well armed APC. For an APC troop carrying is primary, somtimes secondary to mobility but its never tertiary or worse.

RovingPedant said:

On a related note, how would you define the British Warrior?

Its a IFV. Allthough I think its armament is on the lighter or better less optimal side as is its protection. But it can certainly accompany Challengers into battle and carries a main armament that is a usefull supplement.

stancrist said:

despite the current focus on peer war -- the Marines are opting for wheels, not tracks.

Yes but nobody said wheeled vehicles have no place in a peer war. Only that cross country mobility is more important than it used to be and that this is best provided by tracked vehicles in most cases.

stancrist said:

When the Marines' decision makers disagree, "the Marines" disagree.

Well, is it clear that the wheeled ACV can move over all grounds at the same speed as the AAV then? Because to me that seems rather unlikely.

schnuersi said:

The mission of the vehicles is different. Allmost entirely.

An IFV is a armored fighting vehicle that is supposed to work in close cooperation with tanks. Its supposed to be on the frontline and fight. It needs to go where tanks go.

Work in close cooperation with tanks.  Go where tanks go.  Carries infantry.

That's what the APC was designed to do.  Sure seems like the same mission.

YouTube

Armor Attack - M60 & M113

1960s U.S. Army demonstration of armor attack with armored personnel carriers and main battle tanks. M60 tanks and M113 armored personnel carriers in action.

stancrist said:

Work in close cooperation with tanks. Go where tanks go. Carries infantry. That's what the APC was designed to do. Sure seems like the same mission.

No its not.

In the video it even says the APCs need to be backed up by tanks. In other words they are not supporting the tanks. They are slowing them down.
Since an APC needs to deploy its troops and prefereably stay out of harms way because it lacks protection. It can't duel.
The M113 is a prime example. It 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.
An M113 doesn't compare to a Marder or a Bradley.