Talk:Infantry fighting vehicle

message: The Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 could not have been the first!. 1) The PBV301 had gone into service with 20mm AC earlier. 2) Lang was not an IVF, just an up-armed APC because of its technical design, eg. a M3 halftrack will not be an IFV if you put a 20mm on it. 3) HS.30 was a faulty design it didn't even suitable as APC. Gabor vasarus (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically the first IFVs was the late 30s German armored halftrack, followed by the Swedish tgb m/42 KP in the 40s.--Blockhaj (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Spz HS.30 as first IFV? Not even IFV.

message: Why need Infantry to fight in a car?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.142.49.135 (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the benefit compare with tanks? 

message: Just curious if I should remove the M3 CFV from the article? Technically, it's an M2 with more sensors, more reloads and carries two scouts (not infantrymen). Keep or remove? Edward Sandstig 23:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  M3 Bradley CFV - Remove from article? 

message: you should add the SPz PUMA, which will replace the German Marder in a couple of years. this makes the SPz PUMA the most modern IFV afaik. --Slinter 20:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Germany has a preseries run of 5 Pumas in active service as of January 2007. Kato2k6 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add SPz Puma 

message: I removed the Stryker from the article, since there currently isn't an IFV variant of the said vehicle. Also removed the M3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle. --Edward Sandstig 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone put it back, I removed it again. If someone wants to put up a real wheeled IFV from the USA they should use the LAV 25.--216.58.52.132 (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the LAV-25 and LAV III and rearranged the list alphabetically by name of the vehicle. If someone knows of a better way to order them feel free.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.52.132 (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Stryker and M3 Bradley CFV 

message: Moreover, many of the wheeled vehicles can extract themselves from the battlefield even on flat tires.  A tracked IFV would require a heavy vehicle to tow it out of the same situation.
Tracked IFVs don't get flat tires (although they can drop a track).  Anything which would wreck a tracked suspension could take out enough wheels and axles to render a wheeled AFV un-drivable, too. —Michael Z. 2006-11-13 04:22 Z
Not strictly true. A mine which breaks a track will often only blow a wheel off a well designed 6x6 or 8x8 armoured vehicle. British Saladin Armoured cars were renowned for coming back to base with wheels missing during some of the more violent clashes that came with the end of empire. A M113 or FV432 would not have made it backin such circumstances.
: Fair enough.  I'm just saying that the statement in the article is oversimplified, implying a false, over-generalized conclusion.  Many things which can flatten a tire wouldn't even affect a tracked vehicle.  Perhaps there are some multi-axled exceptions, but it's wrong to imply that "wheeled vehicles can drive out of anything that would immobilize a track." —Michael Z. 2006-11-24 17:10 Z
::That entire section reads a bit childish to me. I will try and improve. 145.253.108.22 13:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wheeled vehicles are mechanically simpler, easier to maintain, and somewhat mobile on good roads. Tracked vehicles are mechanically complex, harder to maintain, and far more mobile off good roads. Various armed forces in various times and places have favored one over the other. Please do not use Wikipedia to "prove" that one or the other is "better" overall. <eleland/talkedits> 23:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flat tires 

message: The latest edit to this article () was made by a rather unconstructive IP. Could someone, please, check this? Thank you --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constructive edit or vandalism? 

message: There are no pictures of legged, or wheeled IFV's. Please change the pictures in article to include these types 
See Legged IFV  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.6.252 (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: Heavy infantry fighting vehicles
To cope with urban combat and mine warfare, including the use of large improvised explosive devices, there have been a number of heavy IFVs (HIFV) with the high protection level of a tank developed, based largely on experience of the Israel Defense Force (although the Canadian Kangaroo of World War II could be called the first). The Israeli Merkava tank is capable of carrying a few infantrymen or extra ammunition in the back;[1] the Achzarit is a T-55 tank modified to be heavily armored personnel carrier; and the Namer is a redesigned Merkava tank without a tank gun.
Another example is the Russian BTR-T, also based on the T-55. Also the BMP-T is being developed in Russia. It is a tank support vehicle, but can also be categorized as an infantry fighting vehicle. BTR-90 is another promising project of Russia. The Ukrainian BMT-72 and BTMP-84 are based on lengthened T-72 and T-84 main battle tanks, respectively, and retain the tanks' 125mm main guns.
This whole section is unsourced. Where does it say that Tank converted carriers are IFVs. If anything they are APCs since they are armed with only a machine gun for defence. Unless there is a source which declares them Infantry Fighting/combat vehicles this should be removed and placed on another armoured combat vehicle page.--91.32.115.163 (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: HIFV or HAPC

message: The BTR-90 is not, and was never designed to be a heavy IFV and I have no idea why it is listed as such. In fact it isn't commonly classed as an IFV and a lot of Russian military websites class it as an APC/heavy APC. If someone would correct this it would be appreciated.
Also the BMPT is not called the BMP-T, this is a common error but it does make a difference. BMP stands for Boyevaya Mashina Pekhoty meaning fighting vehicle of infantry whilst BMPT stands for Boyevaya Mashina Podderzhki Tankov or fighting vehicle supporting tanks and is not related to the BMP family of IFVs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.12.214 (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BTR-90 & BMPT 

message: I would suggest ASLAV and for that matter USMC LAV25 should both be removed from the article as they are both recon vehicles by their respective user's doctrine.
ASLAV does not even carry dismount scouts (there is a personel carrier version of the ASLAV but it does not have the turret and chaingun, usualy it is armed with a pintle mount or a remote weaposn stations).
Less sue about the USMC LACV25 - it may carry dismoutn scouts, butI am confident it is not an IFV, but a recon vehicle by doctrinal role.
As such I'd say btph of these vehicles should be removed from the artivle.
Any yay or nay sayers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.232.233 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ASLAV not IFV?=

message: The person before me asked about the pictures being changed to represent "legged" (or wheeled) ICV's/IFV's.
A few things in the article bother me;
1. The M2 Bradley and BMP3 photos have both been replaced by a photo of the oldest official ICV/IFV. The BMP1. If we were to properly represent the modern infantry fighting vehicle, I suggest using the more modern vehicles.
2. The Puma picture seems a bit opinionated and non factual. It hasn't come out yet, or seen combat, yet it's said to be the BEST IFV?!? 
3. We don't need a lot of pictures of wheeled vehicles. Theyre not under represented, they're just aren't a lot of types of them. Half the photo gallery doesn't need to be filled up with photos of them.
4. And finally..... The m2 Bradley isn't pictured, but the DARDO IFV is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AloDuranium (talk • contribs) 05:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup in terms of "pictures" 

message: a lot of the pictures in this article are being changed al the time, and the title picture is represented by an unmodern vehicle, while the info seems opinionated and uncited. This article needs a cleanup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AloDuranium (talk • contribs) 07:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup 

message: http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=4M_Q6vWMshgC&pg=PA58&dq=%22Infantry+fighting+vehicle%22&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Infantry%20fighting%20vehicle%22&f=false
If you read the source given (above) the effect was actually attributed to CB fire, it was measuring the effects of that on IFV loss rates.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.133.87 (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted section on effectiveness against arrtillery 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Infantry fighting vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101104212757/http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/Articles/04winter/boston.pdf to http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/Articles/04winter/boston.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: What is the Maximum calibre for an ifv? 2A02:2455:BDD:9C00:81C7:9674:232B:EBF7 (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum calibre 

message: What is the Maximum calibre a ifv can have until it isn't a ifv anymore? For example the PL-01 is called a Main Battle tank but has a back hatch and has also over 20mm calibre, so isn't it basically a ifv? I don't understand so please help me 2A02:2455:BDD:9C00:81C7:9674:232B:EBF7 (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: IFV is a vehicular combat role, not specifically a configuration. Thus it doesnt matter what caliber the main armament has, as long as the vehicle can fulfill the role (that being: internally carrying and fighting alongside an infantry squad in combat, etc). The earliest IFVs, like the Schützenpanzerwagen 250 and Schützenpanzerwagen 251, simply used machine guns as their fixed armament. The PL-01 (which was a propaganda vehicle) is based on the CV90120 light tank. It is designed to be used as a light tank and/or an assault gun. The back hatch is simply a practical remnant from its CV90 IFV chassis, which has been kept to allow fast ammunition loading, emergency escape, etc. However the same concept also exist on the Merkava tanks, which can also be converted into emergency extration vehicles with two internal stretchers.--Blockhaj (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum calibre to still be called ifv