ICV vs IFV

[Telumar]

Looking at the equipment database, i got one question:

There are APCs (Armoured Personnel Carriers - like the M113, usually equipped with a MG), ICVs (Inf.Combat Vehicles - like the Marder I, equipped with 20mm Cannon, MG, Milan) and IFVs (Inf.Fighting Vehicles, like the M2 Bradley, 25 mm M242 Bushmaster-MK and 7,62 mm MG and TOW). Each of them can carry ~6 men with them.

But why to distinguish between ICV and IFV? - it means the same and they seem to be similar equipped and capable (at least in concept - i'm no expert).

Maybe someone can tell something..

Edit:3 hours passed..no reply. Come on, Just one Grognard to unveil the fog on the horizon of cognition...

[JMS]

Looking at the equipment database, i got one question:

There are APCs (Armoured Personnel Carriers - like the M113, usually equipped with a MG), ICVs (Inf.Combat Vehicles - like the Marder I, equipped with 20mm Cannon, MG, Milan) and IFVs (Inf.Fighting Vehicles, like the M2 Bradley, 25 mm M242 Bushmaster-MK and 7,62 mm MG and TOW). Each of them can carry ~6 men with them.

But why to distinguish between ICV and IFV? - it means the same and they seem to be similar equipped and capable (at least in concept - i'm no expert).

Maybe someone can tell something..

Edit:3 hours passed..no reply. Come on, Just one Grognard to unveil the fog on the horizon of cognition...

Well, they are the same to me. APC is a battle taxi, carries troops and they do the fighting, IFV fights with the troops.

[Schmindrick]

Here is part of the story: (in reference to Bradley 's) :shock:

There's a reason why they are called "carriers" and not "fighting vehicles." It is an infantry centric organization that uses it's infantry to finish the job. To counter medium and heavy armor, the BDE can use Javelins, TOWs, 105mm assault gun (when fielded), 120mm mortars, 155mm artillery, FASCAM (Volcano or ADAMS/RAAMS), and CAS. It can use UAVs from the company to the brigade level to help identify targets as well as tap into national assets for intel. GPS guided 155mm munitions are now being fielded and precision guided 120mm mortar rounds are just around the corner from being fielded, both of which will greatly enhance the effectiveness of the BDE's numerous indirect fire assets. The development and fielding of the HTAM to replace the current TOWIIB as the standard ATGM will provide a huge increase in effectiveness of the AT Company a few years in the future. If it is filling the role of the follow-on force after a forced-entry, the weight of an AEF will be fully behind the Stryker force to help service targets that are identified. If your threat is an armored force, then you use the formations, movement techniques, and tactics appropriate for that threat environment.

[Schmindrick]

Here's part of the story: (in reference to Stryker)

There's a reason why they are called "carriers" and not "fighting vehicles." It is an infantry centric organization that uses it's infantry to finish the job. To counter medium and heavy armor, the BDE can use Javelins, TOWs, 105mm assault gun (when fielded), 120mm mortars, 155mm artillery, FASCAM (Volcano or ADAMS/RAAMS), and CAS. It can use UAVs from the company to the brigade level to help identify targets as well as tap into national assets for intel. GPS guided 155mm munitions are now being fielded and precision guided 120mm mortar rounds are just around the corner from being fielded, both of which will greatly enhance the effectiveness of the BDE's numerous indirect fire assets. The development and fielding of the HTAM to replace the current TOWIIB as the standard ATGM will provide a huge increase in effectiveness of the AT Company a few years in the future. If it is filling the role of the follow-on force after a forced-entry, the weight of an AEF will be fully behind the Stryker force to help service targets that are identified. If your threat is an armored force, then you use the formations, movement techniques, and tactics appropriate for that threat environment.

:shock:

[Telumar]

Schmindrick, thanks for the reply. But I feel not very enlightened..;)
An APC, as JMS wrote is a "battle taxi". That was clear for me before. Still don't know why toaw makes a difference between ICV and IFV...have i missed something? Is it a silly question?

[jeff norton]

Schmindrick, thanks for the reply. But I feel not very enlightened..;)
An APC, as JMS wrote is a "battle taxi". That was clear for me before. Still don't know why toaw makes a difference between ICV and IFV...have i missed something? Is it a silly question?
An APC is like a 'battle taxi', like previously stated. It gets you there, a little more protected than riding on a truck (tarp walls are lousy bullet/fragment deflectors).

An IFV is more an offensive weapon. It (usually) has a light cannnon to supress the enemy, engage enemy equipment (like vehicles up to tanks), and general fire support to 'keep their heads down' as its infantry 'cargo' advances. It also has a MG (as an alternate to the cannon - doing much the same thing), a ATGM system (better for fighting tanks than its pop-gun), and other gear to assit the infantry SLUF (self loading/unloading freight - my brother was a CAV scout- they called the foot scouts that....). Costs a whole heck of a lot more than an APC.

Where as one is an improved truck (tracks (often), light armor protection, a MG, and, little else), the other is a weapons platform to assist the infantry to do its work 'under protection'.
The terms are bandied about, often interchangeable, but really not the same thing. They both do the same purpose of transporting infantry, but the IFV is better suited for supporting its passengers with its weapons systems.

Hope that helps.

J (ex MP - never rode in an armored box, unless you count an HUMVEE)

[Telumar]

Thanks Jeff, so if i understand you right that there is no real difference between IFV and ICV?



J (ex MP - never rode in an armored box, unless you count an HUMVEE)

Guess it's more comfortable than riding in a Bradley...:D

[jeff norton]

Thanks Jeff, so if i understand you right that there is no real difference between IFV and ICV?




Guess it's more comfortable than riding in a Bradley...:D

I dunno - MP's carry a lot of crap (food, water, fuel, ammo, etc) - you can only store so much *inside*. After a while, the vehicles look like the Beverly Hillbillies....

The seats were little more than 1" foam covered in heavy canvas on a metal plate. It gets thin quick.

I'd take the Bradley - at least it has better armor, heavier weapons, and can put up a better fight than just an M60 and a couple of M16's...:laugh:

[L`zard]

Possibly only throwing more mud into the gears, especially as I haven't looked up the stats 'in game', but consider the following:


The M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle [IFV] is a fully tracked, lightly armored vehicle that offers significant improvements over the M113 series of armored personnel carriers. The M2 posses greater power, greater acceleration, and an advanced suspension for a significant increase in cross-country speed. Like the M113, the primary purpose of the M2 is to carry infantryman on the battlefield, and transport and support them with fire if necessary. The M2 Bradley carries a crew of three (Commander, Gunner & Driver) and a six-man Infantry section into combat.
The M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle [CFV] is exactly the same chassis as the M2 IFV with some minor internal differences. The M3 is a cavalry/scout vehicle, instead of carrying 6 dismounts in the payload compartment, the M3 carries a pair of scouts, additional radios, ammunition, and TOW and Dragon or Javelin missile rounds. In fact, the only noticeable differences between the M2 and the M3 are that the external firing ports for the squad M16s are absent on the M3.

Any possibility that CFV was meant for one of the load-out types?