Jump to content


Best Infantry Carrier Vehicle


17 replies to this topic

Poll: Best IFV (23 member(s) have cast votes)

Which is the most capable Infantry Carrier Vehicle?

  1. M2A3 Bradley IFV (5 votes [21.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.74%

  2. M1126 Stryker ICV (4 votes [17.39%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.39%

  3. BMP-3M IFV (5 votes [21.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.74%

  4. BMD-4 Airborne IFV (1 votes [4.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.35%

  5. Puma IFV (4 votes [17.39%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.39%

  6. CV9040M IFV (1 votes [4.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.35%

  7. FV510 Warrior IFV (3 votes [13.04%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.04%

  8. LAV III ICV (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 CommanderJB

    Grand Admiral, Deimos Fleet, Red Banner

  • Fallen Brother
  • 3736 posts
  • Projects: Rise of the Reds beta testing & publicity officer; military technology consultancy; New World Order

Posted 07 August 2008 - 11:50

Yup, since this forum is pretty inactive, I thought I'd try and stir up some discussion on another contemporary topic, the Infantry Carrier Vehicle or ICV. I choose this term because it encompasses all forms of armoured infantry carriers, not just dedicated Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs) or more transport-specialised Infantry Mobility Vehicles; they both have their pros and cons, and it's be interesting to see what people think of them. So, without further ado, here are the contestants:

M2A3 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle - United States of America
Posted Image
Armament: 1x Bushmaster II 30mm autocannon, 1x 7.62mm coaxial machine gun, 1x twin launcher for TOW/Javelin missiles, 2x firing ports for M123 Firing Port Weapons (adapted M16 assault rifles)
Seating: 3 crew, 6 infantry
Probably the most well-known modern IFV, the Bradley sits comfortably in the middle range of firepower, mobility and armour. It has considerable battle experience, with somewhat mixed results in urban environments, mostly highlighting the need for greater RPG protection in city streets and leading to most modern models being equipped with reactive armour kits; it has fared much better in open battle, scoring more armoured vehicle kills than the M1 Abrams tanks, though it also proved unable to withstand being hit nearly as well. It in fact did well enough that the U.S. Army have developed the M3A3 Bradley Calvalry Fighting Vehicle better-optimised for tank hunting, with fewer infantry and no firing ports but better command and control systems for more effective combat operations. It is not amphibious but can reach a respectable top speed of 66km/h.

M1126 Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle - United States of America
Posted Image
Armament: 1x Konigsberg PROTECTOR Remote Weapons Station; can fit .50 calibre machine gun or 40mm grenade launcher (or smoke grenade launchers), 1x externally crewed M2 .50 calibre heavy machine gun, 1x externally crewed 7.62mm machine gun
Seating: 2 crew, 9 soldiers
The M1126 is somewhat of a gamble for the U.S. Army as it can't really be considered an IFV, being more of an 'infantry mobility vehicle' given its limited combat capabilities. With a suite of machine guns it can effectively combat dismounted infantry and is well-optimised for urban warfare, but little else; instead, it uses its speed as a wheeled vehicle, up to 100km/h, and unmatched networking capabilities to coordinate movements in groups and effectively avoid threats. It can also carry a better load of inantry than most other IFVs. Armour plating is minimal compared to a dedicated IFV, but will still protect the vehicle and its occupants from machine gun fire and shell splinters, and anti-RPG racks such as those seen in the image above provide some protection against anti-tank weapons.

BMP-3M Infantry Fighting Vehicle - Russian Federation
Posted Image
Armament: 100mm cannon; also fires 9M117M1 Arkan ATGMs, max. range 5.5km, coaxial 30mm autocannon, 1x coaxial 7.62mm PKT machine gun, 2x internally-crewed 7.62mm PKT machine guns (bow-mounted, 1 per side)
Seating: 3 crew, 7 passengers
The latest iteration of the line which started the IFV concept, the BMP-3M is a wholesale upgrade to the armament systems of the original BMP-3. With extended ammunition sets and autoloader, the more capable Arkan ATGMs over the original Bastion model and new gunner's and commander's sights, including thermal imaging systems, the 3M upgrade increases lethality over three times in some cases over the base model (at least if you believe the manufacturer's brochures, anyway). The BMP-3M is also fully compatible with the Arena Active Protection System; shown in the image above, this comprises a millimetre-wave radar and a series of silos arrayed around the turret; this will detect incoming fast-moving projectiles such as ATGMs and launch small explosive fragmentation charges to destroy them. Its predecessor, Drozd, deployed in Afghanistan in the 1970's proved to work well against Taliban RPGs, scoring 70% or better defeat ratios against missiles approaching from the forward arc (the only arc this system could actually cover; the Arena gives all-round protection). Arena is fitted on BMP-3K command vehicles and some BMP-3Ms at a regimental or better level. Also the BMP-3M boasts by far the heaviest firepower loadout here; its 100mm gun is tailored for annihilating any vehicular foe save an MBT, which it accomplishes with its Arkan ATGMs, which can be fired on the move against targets on the move and range out to 5.5km, providing a unique system among IFVs (and are supposed to disable an MBT in two shots, but again that's from the brochure and is somewhat up for debate). The coaxial 30mm chaingun can be used against other IFV-type vehicles or aerial threats, and two remote-operated machine guns in the bow round out the arsenal with additional anti-infantry firepower. It can also carries an equal or greater number of passengers when compared to other similar IFVs and is fully amphibious, and at 72km/h its top speed is higher than all its contemporaries save the British Warrior. Armour consists primarily of welded steel giving protection against machine gun fire, but not too much else; however in addition to Arena BMP-3Ms can be fitted with ERA kits, though this doesn't happen too often. Stock BMP-3s also beat both the Bradley and the Warrior in competitive mobility, weapon accuracy, firepower and cruise performance tests by the United Arab Emirates in 1991.

BMD-4 Airborne Infantry Fighting Vehicle - Russian Federation
Posted Image
Armament: 100mm cannon; fires 9M113 Konkurs ATGMs, max. range 4km, 30mm coaxial autocannon, coaxial PKT machine gun
Seating: 3 crew, 4 passengers
Developed specifically for the VDV, Russia's airborne forces, the BMD-4 packages the firepower of the BMP-3 into a much smaller, lighter package to enable it to be air-droppable. The BMD-4 is designed to be delivered out of an Il-76M transport aircraft, and in theory (though I don't believe it's ever been done in practice) can be dropped with crew and troops inside, giving it a huge mobility advantage when compared to all other vehicles here, but the tradeoff is a very small troop complement and weak armor. Still, its heavy weapons layout and fully amphibious capabilities enable it to provide extremely effective fire support and mobility to infantry for a rapid-attack strike force inserted into enemy territory, the primary needs of the VDV.

Puma Infantry Fighting Vehicle - Germany
Posted Image
Armament: 30mm autocannon, coaxial 5.56mm MG4 light machine gun, EuroSpike Spike-LR ATGMs (max. range 4km) (n.b. unsure as to configuration of Spike launcher; probably two ready to fire, possibly 1, not currently fitted but will be upgraded) (Also note that all above armaments are located in remotely-operated main turret), 76mm remote-operated 6-shot grenade launcher covering rear exit door
Seating: 3 crew, 6 passengers
The most modern IFV on this list, the Puma is a brand-new creation by Rheinmetall Landsysteme and Krauss-Maffei Wegman, packaging the cutting edge of current fighting vehicle technology into a highly traditional design. The 30mm cannon, coaxial MG and missile launchers are located in a fully remote turret, simplifying the crew layout, and the Puma also has a revolutionary kit-based armour design; the armour is modular and can be attached in two levels of protection, A, and C (B was scrapped when it was found C did everything it could and more), with C being the highest. The armour is composite and considerably more durable than most IFV protection, providing immunity to all heavy MG fire across all sides and better on the front (class C kits upgrade all sides to the same protection as the front, that is, all sides are able to resist direct 30mm AP round hits). It is also said to defeat simple hollow charge warheads. Pumas are designed to be transportable by A-400M cargo aircraft, though the armour kits must be carried separately, and can be fitted with ERA or other armour kits in future if the need arises. They are equipped with multiple remote cameras and other sensors, giving them excellent sensor and networking capabilities. Pumas also possess the highest power to weight ratio of any IFV in service today, reflected in their 70km/h top speed and considerable torque.

Combat Vehicle (CV)9040M Infantry Fighting Vehicle - Sweden
Posted Image
Armament: 40mm Bofors autocannon, 7.62mm coaxial machine gun
Seating: 3 crew, 7 passengers
The CV9040 is a wide-ranging family of vehicles produced by Hagglunds of Sweden; they utilise the powerful Bofors 40mm cannon, which is a larger calibre than all of the other autocannons used here (though obviously it is outstripped by the 100mm guns used on the Russian BMP-3M and BMD-4, these can only fire once every few seconds using a traditional loading process; the Bofors gun is entirely automatic). This delivers a range of ammunition types at considerable distance, and is optimised for 'softer' targets such as light armoured vehicles or aircraft (the CV9040 has a dedicated air defence variant with merely a radar added, so its tracking capabilities are entirely good enough for this purpose). The CV9040M gains the benefit of a fully-stabilised gun system, allowing excellent accuracy, though the gun can no longer be elevated to quite the degree of the base CV9040. However, the CV9040 doesn't mount ATGMs, so the 40mm gun is besides the mandatory coaxial MG effectively its only armament. With 7 passengers the CV9040 is a capable transport, and while it is strictly non amphibious it can attain a very good top speed of 70km/h.

FV510 Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle - United Kingdom
Posted Image
Armament: 30mm RARDEN autocannon, 7.62mm coaxial chain gun, 7.62mm externally crewed machine gun
Seating: 3 crew, 7 passengers
The FV510 is an older but battle-tested IFV design that is operated by the UK as the Army's primary IFV. Its 30mm RARDEN cannon is equivalent to most IFV weaponry, and the 7.62mm chaingun is an unsual put powerful weapon designed from the outset to be coaxially-mounted, thus providing exceptional anti-infantry firepower. The Warrior also has something of a reputation for durability, having successfully faced mines, RPGs, small arms and missiles in Bosnia, and can also be fitted with cage anti-RPG armour or ERA kits for additional protection. The FV510 is not amphibious, but faster than all of its tracked contemporaries at 75 km/h.

LAV III Piranha Infantry Carrier Vehicle - Canada
Posted Image
Armament: 25mm chaingun, 7.62mm coaxial machine gun, 7.62mm externally crewed machine gun
Seating: 3 crew, 7 passengers
One of the most modifiable light armoured vehicles out there, the LAV III series is highly mobile like the Stryker but with a much heavier weapons layout. The 25mm Bushmaster chaingun is an efficient and proven weapon, and combined with the 2 MGs provides the capcity to deal with the majority of light vehicle and infantry threats. As a wheeled vehicle the LAV III can travel up to 100km/h, and also has amphibious capability, though I believe it must be readied first for three or so minutes. Armour on the LAV III is decent, providing protection from most MG rounds and shrapnel, but can't stand up to heavier weaponry; this can be remedied to a small extent by anti-RPG cages, though unfortunately they can increase the LAV III's unfortunate tendency to roll, produced by its high centre of gravity, and thus also a high silhouette.

Fire away - I'll detail more later, but for now I have to go, so get voting folks!

Edited by CommanderJB, 09 August 2008 - 03:11.

Quote

"Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law — not the rule of force — governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again." - Wesley Clark

Posted Image
Posted Image

#2 NergiZed

    ^^^ Pronouced like the battery brand ^^^

  • Member
  • 2992 posts
  • Projects: Shockwave and Rise of the Reds

Posted 07 August 2008 - 13:34

I chose the the Puma simply because it was German and that the Leopard 2 is my fav Modern MBT.

#3 Waris

    Endless Sip

  • Gold Member
  • 7458 posts
  • Projects: The End of Days, DTU Donutin Council Co-Chairman

Posted 07 August 2008 - 14:03

BMP-3M because it is made by the masters of ICV/IFV. Also is that a Shtora/Arena APS installed on top of the turret? (I dunno which is which)

#4 Eddy01741

    E-Studios Uber Computer Geek

  • Member
  • 2223 posts

Posted 07 August 2008 - 16:06

ICV? Shouldn't this be either APC or IFV? Well, since all the choices are IFVs the one most proven in battle is the Bradley, so I'm obliged to vote for it.

Other ones I think are good (or in the case of the stryker, have potential) are the stryker, BMP-3, and puma. They all have a wide range of armament.
Posted Image

#5 CommanderJB

    Grand Admiral, Deimos Fleet, Red Banner

  • Fallen Brother
  • 3736 posts
  • Projects: Rise of the Reds beta testing & publicity officer; military technology consultancy; New World Order

Posted 07 August 2008 - 22:57

View PostEddy01741, on 8 Aug 2008, 2:06, said:

ICV? Shouldn't this be either APC or IFV? Well, since all the choices are IFVs the one most proven in battle is the Bradley, so I'm obliged to vote for it.

Other ones I think are good (or in the case of the stryker, have potential) are the stryker, BMP-3, and puma. They all have a wide range of armament.


Like I said in the opening post, ICV is more of an all-encompassing term to allow for maximim options; the Stryker in particular is actually better termed as an 'infantry mobility vehicle' due to is virtually non-existent capacity to fight threats other than dismounted infantry and minimal armour, and possibly the LAV, though that's more mid-way in-between the two extremes and sits in the 'APC' category. And well, battle proven, hmm. It hasn't fared particularly well when it's been hit in combat IIRC, but then the same could probably be said for most of the vehicles here given the power of modern anti-tank weapons.

View PostWaris, on 8 Aug 2008, 0:03, said:

BMP-3M because it is made by the masters of ICV/IFV. Also is that a Shtora/Arena APS installed on top of the turret? (I dunno which is which)


It is indeed Arena, which is fitted to all BMP-3M command vehicles, and some normal ones at (I think) a regimental or better level. It's not all that common, but it's definitely in active service in non-negligible numbers, and its predecessor Drozd had a very respectable 60% kill rate against RPGs, so I think this is one of the BMP-3Ms best features. That and the fact that it can defeat most light tanks.

Edited by CommanderJB, 08 August 2008 - 03:07.

Quote

"Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law — not the rule of force — governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again." - Wesley Clark

Posted Image
Posted Image

#6 Eddy01741

    E-Studios Uber Computer Geek

  • Member
  • 2223 posts

Posted 08 August 2008 - 00:24

Yeah I agree that the LAV is kinda a cross between an APC (M113) and an IFV (Bradley). As for the stryker, it depends on the varient, I mean, IIRC, one of the varients is mounted with a 105mm tank cannon (the same one mounted on the M1 (just M1, the M1A1 and M1A2 have the Rheinmetall M256 120mm gun). And the Stryker can mount 9 troops IIRC, which is a lot more than most of the others listed here.

Quick Edit: http://science.howst...om/stryker3.htm

All the varients of the stryker.

Edited by Eddy01741, 08 August 2008 - 00:25.

Posted Image

#7 Soul

    Divine Chaos

  • Project Team
  • 6796 posts
  • Projects: Sigma Invasion

Posted 08 August 2008 - 00:35

I would vote for the LAV III for being Canadian and all, but I'll vote for the Bradley since it's been battle proven.

Edited by Soul, 08 August 2008 - 00:35.

Posted ImagePosted Image

 Insomniac!, on 16 Sep 2008, 20:12, said:

Soul you scare the hell out of me, more so than Lizzie.

I've been given a Bob coin from Mr. Bob, a life time supply of cookies from Blonde-Unknown, some Internet Chocolate from the Full Throttle mod team, and some Assorted Weapons from Høbbesy.

#8 Cuppa

    Semi-Pro

  • Member
  • 227 posts

Posted 08 August 2008 - 03:39

Since an ICV is pretty much an APC, I would have voted for the M113, but it wasn't on there. So I went for the Bradley.
Posted Image

#9 AZZKIKR

    I am sarcastic and evil

  • Project Leader
  • 2215 posts
  • Projects: beta tester of world at war cnc and situation zero concept art

Posted 08 August 2008 - 06:58

reminds me of my old topic, with the ever nationalistic-american hating russian who insists a lot of things.

BMP-3M is capable of firing various shells, gining it an advatage to the Bradley who's TOWs could be affected by EODs etc.

However, the bradley is combat-proven in the gulf wars, but the position of the exposed TOW means it gets screwed easily.

Puma looks cool
Posted Image
Posted Image
RIP CommanderJB

#10 TehKiller

    Silent Assassin

  • Member
  • 2696 posts

Posted 08 August 2008 - 09:18

BMP-3M. Its strong and quite cheap compared to some other IFVs.

Also does the Scimitar count as an IFV/ICV?
Posted Image

#11 CommanderJB

    Grand Admiral, Deimos Fleet, Red Banner

  • Fallen Brother
  • 3736 posts
  • Projects: Rise of the Reds beta testing & publicity officer; military technology consultancy; New World Order

Posted 08 August 2008 - 11:03

View PostCuppa, on 8 Aug 2008, 13:39, said:

Since an ICV is pretty much an APC, I would have voted for the M113, but it wasn't on there. So I went for the Bradley.


You would? Umm... why, if you don't mind my asking?

Also, can I just put in my two cents on the Bradley (not just directed to you, Cuppa); there is absolutely nothing the Bradley can do that the Puma can't do better. It's much better protected with a comparable (nearly identical in fact) weapons layout, a lower profile, carries as many troops, and is faster to boot. It's simply a more modern vehicle with better technology and protection. I know it isn't 'battle proven', but I'd point out that the Bradley's battle experience has been hardly all glory; they've lost 55 in combat so far. I just don't see any reason not to assume that the Puma is simply a better vehicle to be honest.

Edit: Oh, and

View PostTehKiller, on 8 Aug 2008, 19:18, said:

Also does the Scimitar count as an IFV/ICV?

No, not really; the FV107 is an armoured reconnaissance vehicle with no real provision for passengers. It's quite similar to the Alvis Stormer 30, though the latter is a newer, faster prototype. The FV103 Spartan, on the other hand, is a dedicated APC, but as it doesn't have any weapons to speak of unless specially modified, carries only 5 people and has none of the mobility advantage of the wheeled ICVs I don't think it's really going to make a list of the best.

Edited by CommanderJB, 08 August 2008 - 11:29.

Quote

"Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law — not the rule of force — governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again." - Wesley Clark

Posted Image
Posted Image

#12 Eddy01741

    E-Studios Uber Computer Geek

  • Member
  • 2223 posts

Posted 08 August 2008 - 17:16

IIRC, I remeber reading that the bradley destroyed more enemy vehicles than the abrams in the first gulf war conflict. LIke I said, I would have voted for probably the BMP-3 or the Puma (german tech ftw), but those two havn't been proven to be at least decent in battle. At least we know that the Bradley is a capable IFV and it's reliable and stuff.
Posted Image

#13 Admiral FCS

    ?????

  • Member Test
  • 1526 posts

Posted 08 August 2008 - 19:18

Puma since it's the only one that have a smoke grenade launcher to cover your infantry's ass when they are going out. And it's cool.

#14 Eddy01741

    E-Studios Uber Computer Geek

  • Member
  • 2223 posts

Posted 08 August 2008 - 21:58

Yeah, hte puma does look cool, looks more modern than the others. Plus the tracks+wheels remind me of the Leopard 2 (which of course is also made by germany and is my personal fav tank).
Posted Image

#15 Cuppa

    Semi-Pro

  • Member
  • 227 posts

Posted 09 August 2008 - 17:15

View PostCommanderJB, on 8 Aug 2008, 6:03, said:

View PostCuppa, on 8 Aug 2008, 13:39, said:

Since an ICV is pretty much an APC, I would have voted for the M113, but it wasn't on there. So I went for the Bradley.


You would? Umm... why, if you don't mind my asking?

I read that the M113 is faster than the Bradley, can be transported much more easily, can have more armour than a Stryker of nearly the same price, insane amounts of versatility, also I'm pretty sure the M113 is much cheaper than any of the ICVs on the list (around 800,000$USD) It also has been in service for half a century and sows no signs of retiring anytime soon.
Posted Image

#16 CommanderJB

    Grand Admiral, Deimos Fleet, Red Banner

  • Fallen Brother
  • 3736 posts
  • Projects: Rise of the Reds beta testing & publicity officer; military technology consultancy; New World Order

Posted 10 August 2008 - 03:25

Hmm.. apparently it's as fast (which actually surprises me given that it entered service in 1960 as opposed to the Bradley's 1980s introduction. But it's also effectively un-armoured when compared with the M2A3, will be far more uncomfortable inside, and of course can't do a darned thing when faced with an enemy vehicle thanks to the fact it's armed with an exterior MG and not much else. Although it can carry rather more passengers. I just tend to think that if I were being carried across a battlefield I'd rather be carried in an M2A3 rather than an M113 (that and the fact that the M113's designers were apparently inspired by footwear packaging).

Quote

"Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law — not the rule of force — governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again." - Wesley Clark

Posted Image
Posted Image

#17 Eddy01741

    E-Studios Uber Computer Geek

  • Member
  • 2223 posts

Posted 10 August 2008 - 04:08

M113= cheap way to transport a decent number of troops across the battlefield, protection against small arms is included, can fight back against lesser infantry resistance.

M2A3=Can carry a somewhat small number of troops across the battlefield, but can take a beating and fight off some lesser tanks (like T-72s and older).

The M113 is just an APC (it can basically just transport troops), M2A3 can transport troops and provide fire support against infantry and even armor.
Posted Image

#18 The Wandering Jew

    Veteran

  • Member
  • 464 posts
  • Projects: No current project, just to ask inane questions :p

Posted 11 August 2008 - 04:11

Hey guys. I took quite a long time.

I voted the BMP-3M due to its firepower. 100mm gun? That was the same size as that of T-62, 22-40mm smaller than the MBTs produced by world armies.

Any field commander who prefer rapid troop deployment will surely like this.
Posted Image
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users