Infantry fighting vehicle
[1] IFVs are designed to be more mobile than tanks and are equipped with a rapid-firing autocannon or a large conventional gun; they may include side ports for infantrymen to fire their personal weapons while on board.
[4] The IFV rapidly gained popularity with armies worldwide due to a demand for vehicles with higher firepower than APCs that were less expensive and easier to maintain than tanks.
[1] With the growing mechanization of infantry units worldwide, some armies also came to believe that the embarked personnel should fire their weapons from inside the protection of the APC and only fight on foot as a last resort.
[6] In 1958, however, the Federal Republic of Germany's newly organized Bundeswehr adopted the Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 (also known simply as the SPz 12-3), which resembled a conventional tracked APC but carried a turret-mounted 20 mm autocannon that enabled it to engage other armored vehicles.
[7][8] The Bundeswehr's doctrine called for mounted infantry to fight and maneuver alongside tank formations rather than simply being ferried to the edge of the battlefield before dismounting.
[6] Austria subsequently introduced an IFV variant of the Saurer 4K which carried a 20 mm autocannon, making it the first vehicle of this class to possess both firing ports and a turreted weapons-system.
[9] Following the trend towards converting preexisting APCs into IFVs, the Dutch, US, and Belgian armies experimented with a variety of modified M113s during the late 1960s; these were collectively identified as the AIFV (Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle).
[10] In addition to being amphibious and superior in cross-country mobility to its predecessors, the BMP-1 carried a 73mm smoothbore cannon, a co-axial PKT machine gun, and a launcher for 9M14 Malyutka anti-tank missiles.
[6] The BMP-1's use of a relatively large caliber main gun marked a departure from the Western trend of fitting IFVs with automatic cannon, which were more suitable for engaging low-flying aircraft, light armor, and dismounted personnel.
[12] Unlike European IFVs, the Ratel was not designed to allow mounted infantrymen to fight in concert with tanks but rather to operate independently across vast distances.
[12] South African officials chose a very simple, economical design because it helped reduce the significant logistical commitment necessary to keep heavier combat vehicles operational in undeveloped areas.
[7] US Army evaluation staff were sent to Europe to review the AMX-10P and the Marder, both of which were rejected due to high cost, insufficient armor, or lackluster amphibious capabilities.
[6] There were a few exceptions to the rule: for example, the Bundeswehr's decision to adopt the SPz 12-3 was largely due to the experiences of Wehrmacht panzergrenadiers who had been inappropriately ordered to undertake combat operations better suited for armor.
[8] This doctrinal trend was later subsumed into the armies of other Western nations, including the US, leading to the widespread conclusion that IFVs should be confined largely to assisting the forward momentum of tanks.
[8] The Soviet Army granted more flexibility in this regard to its IFV doctrine, allowing for the mechanized infantry to occupy terrain that compromised an enemy defense, carry out flanking movements, or lure armor into ill-advised counterattacks.
[8] Additionally, Soviet airborne doctrine made use of the BMD series of IFVs to operate in concert with paratroops rather than traditional mechanized or armored formations.
[8] An IFV capable of accompanying tanks for the purpose of suppressing anti-tank weapons and the hostile infantry which operated them was seen as necessary to avoid the devastation wreaked on purely armored Israeli formations.
[13] The United Nations Register for Conventional Arms (UNROCA) simply defines an IFV as any armored vehicle "designed to fight with soldiers on board" and "to accompany tanks".
[8] Their fully enclosed hulls offer protection from artillery fragments and residual environmental contaminants as well as limit exposure time to the mounted infantry during extended movements over open ground.
[7] The BMP-1 was vulnerable to heavy machine guns at close range on its flanks or rear, leading to a variety of more heavily armored marks appearing from 1979 onward.
[7] The Bradley possessed a lightweight aluminum alloy hull, which in most successive marks has been bolstered by the addition of explosive reactive and slat armor, spaced laminate belts, and steel track skirts.
[14] As asymmetric conflicts become more common, an increasing concern with regards to IFV protection has been adequate countermeasures against land mines and improvised explosive devices.
[11] IFVs may be equipped with: turrets carrying autocannons of various calibers, low or medium velocity tank guns, anti-tank guided missiles, or automatic grenade launchers.
[13] With a few exceptions, such as the BMP-1 and the BMP-3, designs such as the Marder and the BMP-2 have set the trend of arming IFVs with an autocannon suitable for use against lightly armored vehicles, low-flying aircraft, and dismounted infantry.
[15] Although the Ratels succeeded in destroying a large number of Angolan tanks and APCs, they were hampered by many of the same problems as the BMP-1: mediocre standoff ranges, inferior fire control, and a lack of stabilized main gun.
[6] The US Army added a launcher for TOW anti-tank missiles to its fleet of Bradleys, despite the fact that this greatly reduced the interior space available for seating the embarked infantry.
