Open menu Search

Do heavy IFV designs make sense on the modern battlefield?

3rd July 2026 - 10:14 GMT | by Christopher F Foss in London, UK

RSS

The Namer heavy IFV is deployed by the IDF in two versions, with this example sporting a remote weapon station armed with a 12.7mm MG plus another pintle-mounted gun, as well as Rafael’s Trophy APS. (Photo: Rafael)

Even with additional armour, many current-generation infantry fighting vehicles are highly vulnerable to enemy fire in the contemporary operating environment. Are heavier platforms based on tank designs for use in this role the answer?

Combat operations in Ukraine have shown that losses of infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) and armoured personnel carriers (APCs) were around double those of main battle tanks (MBTs), as the latter are better protected and have a higher level of survivability.

The potential losses in personnel are even worse by comparison. Russian MBTs normally have a crew of three consisting of commander, gunner and driver. For IFVs such as the older BMP-1 and BMP-2, which have been deployed in significant numbers by both sides, the scope for higher casualties is significant.

The BMP-1 IFV has a crew of three (commander and

Our news & analysis is now part of Defence Insight®

A Basic-level or higher Defence Insight subscription is now required to view this content.

LEARN MORE
Christopher F Foss

Author

Christopher F Foss


Christopher F Foss is an internationally recognised authority on armoured fighting vehicles, artillery and other weapon systems, …

Read full bio

Share to

Linkedin