I guess what I’m asking is what are the different functions of the two types of vehicles? Why can’t militaries combine them?
In: Other
Cost, weight, design. The factors that make a successful tank don’t necessarily line up with the factors that make a successful APC or IFV.
While there have been a handful of tank to APC conversions over the years (notably, the Israeli Namer), generally speaking an APC doesn’t need to be anything more than a lightly armored box on tracks or wheels, resistant against artillery fragments and machine gun fire. That’s because APCs are usually not expected to directly engage the enemy, they exist to safely transport infantry to the fight, hence the term “battle taxi” often applied to them.
Upping protection level increases cost and weight which gives penalties to fuel consumption, transportability, maintenance, etc. Additionally the rear engine design normal to most tank platforms is counter productive in APCs which tend to prefer front engine placement. Having the engine in the rear on an APC leads to funky exit arrangements for the soldiers inside.
All in all, it’s generally not considered worthwhile to make your APC out of a tank. As an example, the US Stryker was primarily adopted because of it’s ability to be rapidly moved via strategic airlift as well as drive faster on roads due to its wheel (vs. tracks), something an M1 Abrams based APC would not be able to do.
Tanks on the other hand are expected to directly engage the enemy, and as a result require a significant amount of armor and firepower to fight and survive. They’re gonna be heavy, they’re gonna be expensive, but you gotta pay the price to have that capability.
IFVs (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) are an interesting middle ground, but while they sit somewhere in between APCs and tanks they still lean far closer to APCs and thus still wouldn’t necessarily benefit from using a tank chassis.
Latest Answers