Do heavy IFV designs make sense on the modern battlefield?
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)
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.
More from Land Warfare
-
Uncrewed ground vehicles put to the test as NATO eyes autonomous shift
The European Land Robot Trials are influenced by NATO researchers seeking to create uncrewed ground vehicle standards for allied Western forces working in multinational task forces.
-
DroneShield signs agreements and US contract in the face of surging demand
DroneShield has been at the forefront of CUAS capability despite being founded only 12 years ago. The company’s early move into the counter-drone arena has put it on the crest of the rapidly expanding technology field.
-
June land forces roundup: Eurosatory shapes month amid Canada’s HIMARS buy and US JLTV progress
This month’s land forces highlights were dominated by the eventful Eurosatory exhibition, particularly in the area of tanks, while separately the JLTV programme took another twist and Canada opted for HIMARS.