Talk:Armoured personnel carrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Armoured personnel carrier article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] BRDM's aren't APCs

BRDMs are not armored personnel carriers. they are armored reconnaissance vehicles. --Numerousfalx 09:20, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) I agree, they're scout cars, not APCs. We should get an M113 in here. Night Gyr 20:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Similarly BMP are technically known and mechanised infantry combat vehicles (MICVs). The distinguishing features are heavier armanent, often firing ports for infantyr and often a smaller dismaount squad size 6-8. I'm remvoviong the reference to teh BMP on this basis.

[edit] Urban warfare consequences

I removed the following paragraph: Another result of urban warfare is the spreading of wheeled APCs, such as the American/Swiss Stryker, Italian Centauro or the German Fuchs. The Strykers are very versatile and they come with several configurations: APCs, CEV, 105mm gun, mortar, anti-tank gun, recon, communication etc.

The connection between urban warfare and wheeled APCs is a bit odd, and ignores 60 years of Soviet preference for wheeled APC (the BTR series). Harald Hansen 06:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam

This article needs mention of APC's in the Vietnam War, especially the M-113.

[edit] Citations

This article doesn't cite any sources at all. If you guys would like some help finding some sources leave me a note on my talk page.--Redlock 02:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (1)

Whats the deffrence between an "Infantry fighting vehicle" and the "APC" ? Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 12:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Infantry mobility vehicle

The article Infantry mobility vehicle is just about the latest technology in APCs (and titled with the latest buzzword in APCs). It can practically be cut-and-paste as a new section for this article. Please register your objections here, or I will go ahead and merge them. —Michael Z. 2007-09-18 01:05 Z

Agreed. No need for a separate stub, about what is basically still an APC. Raoulduke47 18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Disagree - IMVs are basically armoured trucks which can't be used to directly support infantry during firefights. Australian Army doctrine aparantly makes a very clear distinction between the roles IMVs and APCs fill so they shouldn't be conbined. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. I think its a separate type of vehicle. APC's are tracked, flat-bottomed, and related to tanks. IMVs are V-hulled with wheels, and go through a completely different design process. Tmaull (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. An IMV is more like an armoured car than an APC. If anything iit should be merged with armoured car. F-451 (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The IMV article's first sentence says that IMVs are basically wheeled APCs, while the Bushmaster IMV article explains that the vehicle is classified as such because of its lighter armour compared to traditional APCs. The latter sounds a bit odd considering the Stryker has a greater level of protection than an M113? Is the term IMV used by any armed forces other than Australia and New Zealand? --Edward Sandstig (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK then, let's go through these objections:

  • "it is more of an armoured car": The first phrase of the Infantry mobility vehicle says "An infantry mobility vehicle (IMV) is a wheeled armored personnel carrier (APC)", so an IMV is defintely NOT an armoured car. Its main purpose is carrying troops, not recconnaissance missions, which is the main function of armoured cars.
  • "it is basically an armoured truck": So are many other APCs like the Russian BTR-152. Nothing new there.
  • "APC's are tracked, flat-bottomed, and related to tanks": There is no consensus on this. AFAIK, APCs come in all shapes and sizes, they can be either wheeled or tracked. No reliable source states that all light wheeled APCs should be considered IMVs. A quick google search for "infantry mobility vehicle" [1] shows that almost all results concern the Bushmaster IMV, and not any other model. The current IMV article includes a wide range of different wheeled APCs from different countries in this category, but this is pure OR.
  • "The Australian military says they're different" I have the greatest respect for the Australian army, and the Bushmaster is without a doubt a highly effective vehicle, having more than proved its worth in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the advent of a new type of light wheeled APC in one army does not constitute a revolution in military doctrine per se. It is only logical that the Australian army should use a light wheeled APC like the Bushmaster in a different way than a tracked APC like the M113 or a wheeled IFV like the ASLAV. The Bushmaster still IS an APC, despite the erroneous claims that have been made above, there's nothing fundamentally new about its design or its use. "Infantry mobility vehicle" is just a non-notable neologism, applied to a non-notable sub-type of APC. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)