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
It comes down to this tending to be inefficient. It is a thing that can happen, the Merkava can remove ammunition pallets and carry infantry instead, for example. But ultimately if you’re designing something to exist on the frontline, you don’t want it larger than necessary. Those infantry are not useful inside of a tank, but you’re significantly increasing the amount of armor, hull, treads, etc. a Tank APC is going to be more fuel hungry, an easier target, and cost a lot more to make. The fuel is a crucial element as well, tanks guzzle enough of it as is, and this is a logistics lynchpin which can be exploited by the enemy (A lesson that Russia is learning painfully, since many of their auxiliary vehicles use the same engine and hull as a tank, making fuel a significant problem for them on the frontline). There are still APCs and IFVs of course, with IFVs being more heavily armed. Realistically IFVs are the balance you’re probably really looking for, and they tend towards armaments that compliments infantry more. They exist, and are in wide use, but they typically don’t want to go toe to toe with a modern tank because the modern tank is a specialist at being a tank, and an IFV by definition cannot be, since it has other functions it must specialize in.
To generalize (very generalized, it would take all day to go through the specifics)
Tanks- Kill armored vehicles, have the armor and protection systems to survive hits.
IFV- Kill lightly armored vehicles, can disable tanks, have the armor and protection systems to protect their infantry, but they can’t survive hits from tanks.
APC- Kills infantry, can inconvenience an IFV, usually useless against tanks, lighter, faster, armored enough to not be easily disabled by small arms fire. Not meant to get into a fight, drops off infantry and leaves, unless resistance is expected to be very light.
Latest Answers