Infantry support vehicles

>>34940537
infantry support vehicle doesnt exist
and a tank is something that can hold liquid

>>34940537
Comes down to the role I suppose.
A tank would be I'll suited for blowing a room in a house to smithereens without taking a large part of the house with it. An IFV can do that but can't match some of the threats a tank is built for

A CV90 is an IFV.

>>34940537
Bigger guns, more armor.

File: d150218zs1011.jpg (3MB, 3746x2498px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3746x2498px

A tank has a bore gun upwards of 100mm. (Usually 120mm nowadays).

An IFV usually has 25,30 or 35-40mm with differing ammuniton possible. It is supposed to assist and carry an infantry squad on the battlefield, tackling armored, infantry enemies. Tanks are for breaching in initial waves. An IFV is built thus to assist in firepower, manpower roles and has a speed, all-terrain requirement to keep up with breaching, initial waves of a tanks' advance.

IFV along with armed apcs are basically battlefield taxi.

>>34940645
Thanks alot :)

IFVs replaced infantry tanks, vehicles intended to keep pace with infantry using pre blitzkrieg tactics.

After WW2 the infantry need to keep pace with tanks so mechanised infantry units using APCs and IFVs emerged.

File: cv90.jpg (117KB, 1196x796px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1196x796px

>>34940537
There doesnt have to be a difference tho

File: aoUUM5x.jpg (85KB, 800x599px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 800x599px

>>34941562
I've seen the inside of an MGS, anon.

>>34940537
tank: big gun, thick armor, does tank things
IFV: smaller gun, thinner armor, carries infantry & supports them in battle

>>34943095
That thing is nothing like an MGS. Its just regular, manually loaded tank, with a lot of ammunition

>>34943095
>>34943798
And unlike the MGS, it has a 120mm L50

>>34943798
>>34943808
and like the MGS, the ammo takes up the whole fighting compartment, which i think was the point >>34943095
was trying to make

>>34940552

A tank is a tracked, heavily armed, armoured vehicle designed with front line combat in mind.

>>34940645

>gun

Nope. Autocannons are considered heavy weaponry too. Tanks used to have 30mm guns and be considered tanks. The weapon specifics don't matter other than it's considered a heavy weapon.

Now if you are arguing that an MBT is what defines a tank, then you might have a case if not for the fact theres a clear distinction between classes of tanks.

File: IMG_2035.jpg (143KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1200x900px

>>34940537
Tanks don't carry infantry, and since someone will try to say the Merkava does let me just cut that off by pointing out it requires removing the ammunition racks.

>>34943808
>>34943828
And being an adaption of an infantry carrier, both are larger than a purpose built vehicles like the M8.

File: CV90 - Combat Vehicle 90.jpg (414KB, 1572x1527px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 1572x1527px

>>34940537
Tank:
Heavy armor.
Fully traversable, fully enclosed turret.
High-velocity large caliber cannon.
Tracks.

If it doesn't have those 4 characteristics, its not a tank. The CV-90 lacks the armor and cannon. As such, its a IFV.

File: Finland-USSR_T-72M1_20.jpg (68KB, 716x464px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 716x464px

>>34940537
Definition from the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty:
>(C) The term "battle tank" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.

>Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16. 5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimetres calibre. In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

>>34940537
A "tank" is whatever a country's military decides is a tank. A poor country might use a 90 mm armed Scorpion as a tank for example.

>>34944571
mixed feelings about seeing that FDF never changes...

>>34944571
>heavy armor, a subjective term
>high velocity, a subjective term
>large caliber, a subjective term

So it's a tank then?

>>34944682
Merkava - IFV
Rooikat - Tank
BMP-3 - Tank

Exception doesn't prove rule, etc...

File: Sweden_Strv-103_hull_down.jpg (71KB, 500x328px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 500x328px

>>34944805
Merkava can transport troops but it is not primary designed to do so, so its still a tank.

As the BMP-3 is designed primarily to transport troops it falls under "armoured infantry fighting vehicle", which does not feature a maximum size.

>The term "armoured infantry fighting vehicle" means an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad, which normally provides the capability for the troops to deliver fire from inside the vehicle under armoured protection, and which is armed with an integral or organic cannon of at least 20 millimetres calibre and sometimes an antitank missile launcher. Armoured infantry fighting vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of armoured infantry or mechanised infantry or motorised infantry formations and units of ground forces.

Rooikat would fall under the Treaty definition of a tank depending on the exact interpretation of "entering into service" and if it was put into an armored formation.

Interestingly the Strv-103 would not be counted as a tank, despite being classified as one and used as one by its operator.

Technical definitions are difficult to pin down.

The idea that we need "infantry su pport vehicles" is an old WW2 concept that was shit then.
It's CERTAINLY shit in this modern day of tactical nukes, sensor fused munitions, and vast vast quantities of exposives

We need to abandon the whole concept of infantry.

File: LAND_CV90_Recce_BAE_lg.jpg (90KB, 720x1079px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 720x1079px

>>34945255
>modern day of tactical nukes
Tell me, when was the last time a tactical nuke was used on the battlefield?
Nukes didn't replace anything

>>34947278
We had thousands of them deployed not long ago

>>34947791
If by "not long" you mean "multiple decades".

PGMs have replaced tactical nukes, they do the same job cheaper.

File: 1481390413976.jpg (431KB, 1600x1071px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1600x1071px

Without IFV's the pace of battle would be much slower. Infantry can't carry everything to blow up a bunker pinning them down, but an IFV or even a CRV can tackle it while shrugging off a few hits.

Cheaper and more available than tanks too.

File: 1481685029302.jpg (36KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x375px

Trends in modern armor development have blurred the line on what is what exactly. This goes for many branches of arms development in fact. It's just so fucking crazy now. It's like asking what gender someone is.

>>34947897
>PGMs have replaced tactical nukes, they do the same job cheaper.

I wasn't aware that we intended to use tactical nukes to bust bridges or PGMs to beat back a Soviet tank rush across the Fulda gap.

I would say contemporary tanks have armor that protects it from, theoretically, nearly any threat and powerful enough direct fire gun to, theoretically, penetrate or pose a threat to any vehicle.
IFVs have enough armor to protect from most direct fire, usually including autocannons and have weapons to provide fire support while also having troop transport capabilities.

In short, tanks want protection from everything and the ability to penetrate everything, ifvs want protection from most infantry and light armor weapons while being able to kill infantry and light armor while also being a taxi.

>>34940537
Anyone have OP pic in wallpaper size?

IFV's are not frontline vehicles designed to take hits from kinetic and chemical penetrators, tanks are. Tanks are usually proofed across frontal 60° aspect against their own weapon.

Infantry support vehicles in the past were infantry tanks, StuG and SU assault guns etc.
IFV and the close support vehicles built on the chassis of APCs and IFVs are designed to operate with infantry.

File: it aint me.jpg (20KB, 320x229px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 320x229px

>>34947791
whilst simultaneously fighting dozens of conventional wars

File: 1494820508649.gif (1MB, 480x336px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x336px

>>34949228

>>34940735
>Not "tanks a lot"

You failed anon.

>>34940645

so the sherman, panther, tiger, pershing and all ww2 "tanks" arent real since they dont have 100mm minumum guns?
I thought we call the modern heavy tanks just main battle tanks.

File: Stuart.jpg (2MB, 3072x2304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x2304px

>>34940645
*cough*

>>34949350
Isn't the main battle tank a result of advancing technology making it possible for designs to have the speed of light tanks and firepower/armor of heavy tanks, rendering the former classifications obsolete?

>>34949403
they are still heavy tanks just very fast heavy tanks. they weight 40-60 tonnes. modern light tanks weigh 20-40 tonnes.

the medium tank is basically a cheap ass heavy tank like the old russian line of t-64/72 and derivatives. but they are only different from heavy tanks in size and comfort and soft stats. the relative protection and firepower and mobility is roughly the same tier.

>>34944805
BMP-3 is an IFV

>>34945255
you sometimes want to capture control and defend things instead of incinerating them. in fact most of the time.

>>34949416
>T-64
>cheap
>heavy tank

If you only you knew....

Don't write about matters you have no idea about.

Simple rule, IFV designed to get the infantry into the fight and be able to support the advance, APC gets the grunts in and out with enough firepower to get out of trouble.

<CRV crewie

>>34944571
the cv90 is a platform you can configure to different roles. i'm not sure if you can make a breakthrough tank out of it but certainly a light tank.

>>34949423
having reading comprehension issues?

>>34943095
Is that a CT-Scan machine?

>>34949440
The entire post I quoted is pure nonsense.

CV-90 is an assault tank aka light tank aka infantry tank aka not a real tank

CV-90 is a terrible idea.

You are waiving a big gun while being a big target and attracting big attention while not having the armour protection to endure any meaningful AT attack.

>>34945255


>we need to abandon the whole concept of infantry

How would you go about an insurgency scenario like Chechenya or Afghanistan then?

>>34947897
>>34949069
I think mean fuel air bombs, maybe? Either way, nothing even comes close to tactical nuke shells, let alone mines or missiles.

>>34945255
Unless you plan to turn every city into a crater, there are places are always going to be places where vehicles need infantry support.

File: President külastas 1.jalaväebrigaadi.14.12.2016.jpg (1MB, 2016x1438px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2016x1438px

Pretty interesting thread, have a bump.

Pic related is the President of Estonia inspecting the 1st Infantry Brigade (and its CV-90s).

>>34944250
Thats the whole point of the CV90120 and the MGS, to use the same chassies and logistics chain as the regular CV90/Stryker

>>34944571
>Fully traversable turret is needed for a tank

Fuck off, Sven-Tank is here

File: Stridsvagn_103_S_Tank_main_battle_tank_Swedish_Army_Sweden_015.jpg (69KB, 907x510px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 907x510px

>>34949523

>>34949468
is series was an assault tank the cv90 is anything but

>>34949479
leave them to their goatfucking and weed business?

>>34949458
>the medium tank is basically a cheap ass heavy tank
it means that above 40 tonnes there is little difference in the hard stats of tanks of the same generation. the size of the tank determines the tonnage but it doesn't have an impact on armor and firepower.

that is why the term medium and heavy tank is meaningless and main battle tank is used to encompass them.

>>34949560
Enjoy not beeing able to fight any other war then WW3.

And even in WW3 you cant enter urban areas

>>34944773
Does it hurt?