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
Why do 2door sports cars and Vans exist separately? Why not make a sports car that can carry a lot of people?
Different goals require different designs, my friend.
Tanks are for moving protected firepower around a battlefield. It’s a big gun that goes where you need it and can resist quite a lot of attempts to stop it.
APCs are battle taxis, they move infantry faster than they can walk.
IFVs, which have largely replaced APCs, also move infantry faster than they can walk but have some heavier weaponry (usually a 20-30mm cannon and some ATGMs) so they can hang around and provide supporting fire.
Now, why not make an IFV that has tank armour and a tank gun? Because it would be heavy. Heavy means it can’t go as fast, and it takes more fuel so it can’t go as far or as often, and it’s probably going to break down more.
So unless your force is designed for defensive operations inside or close to your own borders where your logistics are at their strongest, the downsides of strapping all the extra armour and gun onto an IFV outweigh the benefits.
>Why can’t militaries combine them?
They did, and you get Infantry Fighting Vehicles, or IFVs.
Examples include Bradleys and BMPs
Let’s compare the U.S. M1 Abrams tank with the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, a type of APC.
The Abrams has a 105mm main gun, and it’s ammunition takes up a LOT of space. But since the M1 is a battle tank that is expected to throw a lot of ordnance at enemy tanks, it is optimized for storing *lots* of ammunition.
The Bradley, on the other hand, has a 25mm main gun, and since it is not really designed to directly engage enemy tanks, does not require a lot of storage space. It also has a 7.62mm machine gun and a limited number of TOW anti-tank missiles.
Bottom line is that the two functions require very different capabilities, and any design that tries to accommodate both ends up *compromising* both.
Is an APC not just a purpose built tank for carrying soldiers? Thats all it really is.
Think of “carrying soldiers” as a design constraint for the engineers. A tank that does not have that design constraint will obviously beat one that does.
The Bradley is a good compromise, but doesn’t have the main gun of an Abrams. Both serve specific purposes. You sacrifice mobility for penetration or opposite. To make both, would also make a very large target that is very expensive.
Answer: Tanks have really big gun and is made to take really big gun hit from other guys. So in battle, they want to do that. They are built for that, small crew size (like 2-4), heavy armor, big gun, lots of ammo.
APC’s want to move troops. SO in battle they do that. Wheels to move faster than tank, passenger spots ( like 6-15+) and smaller crew (think 2 or 3)
You can’t have both with compromising something, so you loose troop space and armor at the same time, and also loose main gun ammo (since that is huge)
If you have plenty of troops inside of your vehicle, you don’t want to take really big gun hit, cause if really big gun hit kills you, you loose more than 3-4 people.
Keep your tanks Being tanks and your apc’s being apc’s and everyone will be happy.
IFV’s are the compromise, usually not having as much armor as a tank, nor can carry as many passengers as an APC, and also can’t mount a big tank gun (most of the time i believe). so there’s that.
Came here to mention the Bradley too but more to tell people to watch the movie Pentagon Wars with Kelsey Grammer. It’s about the development of the Bradley and it’s fucking hilarious!
Weight and armor considerations, mostly. Combined with mission profiles.
Tanks main job is to assault enemy fortifications and break through, on top of providing direct fire support. Tank armor is therefore heavy as hell, meaning tanks need big engines to move all that weight. Big engines mean lots of fuel consumption, which itself weighs even more. Trying to pack all of that into a tank chassis along with a gun system, ammo, optics, loading equipment, etc. means you don’t have much room left over for empty space for carting troops around. And consider, the US Abrams, with all of its safety equipment, is already much larger than most Soviet/Russian tank designs.
IFVs and APCs have a different mission by design – get infantry in, maybe provide some limited support, and get them out. Therefore they prioritize cabin space for troops, smaller guns, less armor, etc.
You have some odd outliers like Israel’s Merkava tank, but mostly it comes down to the above for almost all nations.
Completely different roles. The APC is designed to provide its occupants with supporting fire against opposing infantry and very light armor. It is designed to get its occupants to the battle quickly and remove them from the battle quickly. The primary combatants are still the infantry in it.
A tank is designed to destroy opposing armor. They are not well suited to dealing with infantry and its occupants are not intended to take on other infantry themselves. They are also heavy, slow, and a pain in the ass to transport to the war zone.
Latest Answers