Talk:Armoured personnel carrier

message: BRDMs are not armored personnel carriers. they are armored reconnaissance vehicles. --Numerousfalx 09:20, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRDM's aren't APCs 

message: I removed the following paragraph: Another result of urban warfare is the spreading of wheeled APCs, such as the American/Swiss Stryker, Italian Centauro or the German Fuchs. The Strykers are very versatile and they come with several configurations: APCs, CEV, 105mm gun, mortar, anti-tank gun, recon, communication etc.
The connection between urban warfare and wheeled APCs is a bit odd, and ignores 60 years of Soviet preference for wheeled APC (the BTR series).  Harald Hansen 06:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually wheeled vehicles are preferred for 'street use' in some countries as when deployed they are less likely to be referred-to as 'tanks' by the Press and news media. The UK used Alvis Saracens in Northern Ireland during The Troubles for this reason long after the Saracen had been replaced by the tracked FV432.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.49.232 (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban warfare consequences 

message: This article needs mention of APC's in the Vietnam War, especially the M-113.
:Not everything needs mention of the Vietnam war, which according to the article, and historical fact, didn't do very much in that conflict.  The current blurb regarding the M113 would be more suited to the page of the M113 itself, as it contributes little to the more general context of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.230.124 (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam 

message: This article doesn't cite any sources at all. If you guys would like some help finding some sources leave me a note on my talk page.--Redlock 02:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Whats the deffrence between an "Infantry fighting vehicle" and the "APC" ? Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 12:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Infantry Fighting Vehicles are for dismounting troops and providing fire support, an Armoured Personnel Carrier is just for moving troops 73.170.61.95 (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between APC and IFV? 

message: The article Infantry mobility vehicle is just about the latest technology in APCs (and titled with the latest buzzword in APCs).  It can practically be cut-and-paste as a new section for this article.  Please register your objections here, or I will go ahead and merge them. —Michael Z. 2007-09-18 01:05 Z
:Agreed. No need for a separate stub, about what is basically still an APC. Raoulduke47 18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree - IMVs are basically armoured trucks which can't be used to directly support infantry during firefights. Australian Army doctrine aparantly makes a very clear distinction between the roles IMVs and APCs fill so they shouldn't be conbined. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree. I think its a separate type of vehicle. APC's are tracked, flat-bottomed, and related to tanks. IMVs are V-hulled with wheels, and go through a completely different design process. Tmaull (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree. An IMV is more like an armoured car than an APC. If anything iit should be merged with armoured car. F-451 (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. The IMV article's first sentence says that IMVs are basically wheeled APCs, while the Bushmaster IMV article explains that the vehicle is classified as such because of its lighter armour compared to traditional APCs. The latter sounds a bit odd considering the Stryker has a greater level of protection than an M113? Is the term IMV used by any armed forces other than Australia and New Zealand? --Edward Sandstig (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree. The IMV seems to be nothing more than a modern sub-type of APC, without too much information about it having been provided to justify a different wikiarticle. It should have at least its own "section" in the main article, and ideally a valid and neutral source or reference for this denomination should be provided (as an example of "political classification" of armoured vehicles, please remember how light tanks in the 30's were classified by the US Army Cavalry).  Kind Regards, DPdH (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Disagree. An IMV is only lightly armoured against small arms. Its V-shaped bottom distinguishes it from APCs. And let's face it, it's basically a car.BringItOn TheAteam (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Infantry mobility vehicle 

message: edit changed the plaintext "Box on tracks" to a wikilink, leading to Gavin. Gavin is a disambig page which just lists a load of people named Gavin - any reason why this was added? Does "Gavin" have some meaning, and should the wikilink be changed to some appropriate?  Danny252 (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have heard Gavin used as an unofficial name for the M113.  81.109.179.175 (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Box On Wheels" links to [[Gavin]] - why? 

message: "Although the M113 was designed as an APC, it was among the first to be used in battle in the early 1960s when South Vietnam ARVN troops fought while mounted against infantry which sometimes lacked effective antitank weapons"
:not sure what you are driving at here. are you trying to say that the M113 was designed as an APC, but was employed as an IFV? perhaps too much detail given here of incremental M113 upgrades. The armour upgrade isn't that relevant to the overall idea of an APC, although it is an interesting detail for the article on the M113 itself
-perhaps a clarfication/discussion of APC versus IFV versus transport (truck) is what is needed here
--a "battle taxi" versus "something you fight" from?
Feldercarb (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward/ Unclear ?IFV vs APC 

message: The vehicle was called Kangaroo, after the codename of the workshop which did the conversion.
This is unlikely - they were named 'Kangaroo's because the Australian animal is a marsupial and carries it's young around in a pouch. If anything, I would bet the workshop was named AFTER the Kangaroo name was applied to the modified tank-hull APCs. The 'Kangaroo' name may even be pre-war, or possibly even from as early as WW I.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.32 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's highly unlikely since they were created by the Canadian Army, not the Australian Army, and Kangaroos are not found in Canada. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Kangaroo

message: I cannot find any (English) articles that deal specifically with APCs used in riot control, so perhaps a section in this article should address the issue?
In the German Wikipedia there is an article titled 'Sonderwagen' ('Special vehicle') which describe this particular phenomenon (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderwagen), so perhaps a seperate article might be in order?
All of course depends on whether one is a 'splitter' or a 'lumper', as to whether police and military armoured vehicles should be classified as one or two categories (and warranting seperate articles), but at least a mention in this article does seem (at least to me) to be in order.
Mojowiha (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Riot control APCs? 

message: Some forces practiced dangerous tank desant tactics before the widespread adoption of APCs.
I think the word "dangerous" in the picture's caption is unnecessary.
If you look up the article for desant tactics, you'll see, near the bottom, a picture of a marine crew utilizing the age-old practice on an Abrams.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.106.231 (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "dangerous tank desant tactics"