IFV or APC?

I only like the Stryker because it was in MGS4

Yes it can be set up to do either.

>Need to put rolling stops on the tires or else it shiggy diggys all over the place
It's just barely an APC, user.

Really more of a tank destroyer. I was the XO of a Stryker anti- armor troop (before they added the mgs to the troop) and we looked at the old ww2 tank destroyer doctrine for guidance.

Now the ICVs are more of an APC. They do not have the survivability of a Brad, but their weakness is a bit overstated. We had one with no slat armor get hit with an rpg (probably an old 7) and it didnt penetrate at all

I lean towards APCs, IFVs try to fit too many roles to be great at any of them. They may be better in small scale tactical engagements but in a grand battle they won't have the troop carrying capacity to allow large flanking movements.
See youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

>neither
Just buy dozens of guntrucks & technicals carrying dozens of troops for less than the cost of one single IFV or APC.
>mfw toyota hilux/tacoma

This is also a good answer. Probably one of the best lessons of the wars in Syria

Attached: 1478811449137.jpg (960x610, 182K)

Neither, light infantry gang biatch.
Enjoy getting blown up

Will he get 72 waifus in heaven?

>IFV or APC?
False dichotomy, they are two terms for the same thing. Functionally speaking, there is no difference. Both serve as battle taxis. Both provide overwatch for dismounts with mounted heavy weapons.

>tfw brits call chocks "rolling stops"

Attached: 4c5.jpg (300x300, 16K)

ICUP

IWTCUP

I'd say there's a difference. If anything an IFV is a type of APC designed for more firepower at the cost of troop capacity. With something like a Bradley only carrying half the troops of a M113

Attached: Animu_Wargame.jpg (800x1135, 683K)

why hurt the cute girls?

Ew you see me pee?

slight variations within the same category - there's thousands of design factors you can look at to see if the combined APC/IFV category is actually bifurcated - wheel vs track, armor levels, suspensions, drive systems, troop capacity - IFVs being better armed is the one and only factor that consistently supports dividing the two. The others are all over the place.

Based and Faygo-pilled juggalo

In that case you were lucky that the sandnigger clone of an RPG failed.
Without SLAT, the Striker is far worse in the armor department then the Bradley and even that is not enough to take a PG-7V without penetration...

>IFV or APC
ACV - Armored Combat Vehicle

The paint job on that technical is cool. Who needs camouflage?

Commies

APC forever

IFV fights with it's dismount, an APC is just a battle taxi, it's supposed to drop infantry and fuck off.
To be able to fight, it needs more armor and heavier weapons. Armor + heavy weapons = weight. Weight = tracks. Wheels = light and mobile.
Calling an overloaded APC an IFV is just dumb, you get the bad of both - low mobility, high maintenance and not enough armor.
The fact that some armies try to push one into the role of the other (and unsurprisingly failing at it) is a different conversation.

Not arguing. Our retard commander had the slat armor removed so he could drive through town without hitting people's cars.

The vehicle in your picture carries TOW missiles not soldiers.

you might be able to buy an old/defect one and then have it repaired and cic speced so you can drive it.

youll need to do a lot of asking around and it might cost a lot to do it legaly

*civ

Interesting. How did that apply on the modern battlefield? We're you looking more at the principle of use or actual use of tank destroyers of ww2?

South Africa uses the same idea - the AMCIT for the Badger can take both a 30mm and ATGM's. Some testing was done using the vehicles in that configuration, but it was decided it was best to stick to the old strategy of having dedicated ATGM vehicles. I dont know about the US but for the SANDF your "tank hunters" will sit in bravo section (our battlefields get divided into sections, or phases, alpha= front line, charlie = support, like artillery, delta = logistics - because there arent frontlines in bush warfare, regardless as to how conventional the two sides may be).

In bravo section they will nominally be attached to a battalion, basically they will be attached in the ORBAT on a piece of paper, but functionally they will be largely independent and will get moved around as force-commander sees fit.

Attached: Badger-nears-production.jpg (752x423, 73K)

It is a false dichotomy. Theoretically you are correct, but in practice? Go ahead and drop some infantry in a fight and then tell their CO that their only armor and [heavy weapon] are leaving the fight.

It almost never happens. ICV or ACV are the more correct terms as they more accurately reflect reality. ICV's being vehicles that are not MBTs and primarily transport infantry in combat. ACV's being vehicles that are not MBTs and do not primarily transport infantry in combat.

Attached: 1370758422436.jpg (1600x1062, 318K)

What are we fighting for

>The fact that some armies try to push one into the role of the other (and unsurprisingly failing at it) is a different conversation.
Forgot to address this. Its because they are trying to get a high-low balance. Big 'ol fatties like the Bradley or Ajax or Puma are great and all but they are expensive, so you cant get allot of them, they are slow so they can get left behind and they are attached to mechanized infantry so if you are motorized, you are fucked. Hence high-low: a combination of high end fatties for your mechanized formations and a low end of fast, cheap, light-bois for motorized infantry.

They have a crew of 4. Driver, Commander, Gunner and loader, but we were always over strength because the infantry battalions would all unload their undesirables on us because we were attached to the Cav squadron. I think our mtoe was 54 but we had close to 70

And the infantry carrier versions, which would be an IFV or APC, carry 9 soldiers in addition to the vehicle crew.