heavy armored personnel carriers.

Apr 2017
1,636
U.S.A.
Pros: Heavy armor, relatively cheap if using older tanks, part compatibility if still using same tank model.
Cons: Heavy weight, requires more maintenance than traditional APCs, requires moderate modification, putting a turret on it would make it look like a tank and draw enemy fire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azarius Balios
Jan 2013
1,207
Anywhere
Pros: Heavy armor, relatively cheap if using older tanks, part compatibility if still using same tank model.
Cons: Heavy weight, requires more maintenance than traditional APCs, requires moderate modification, putting a turret on it would make it look like a tank and draw enemy fire.
Man i was curious to know the maintenance. And yeah I don't think putting back a turret in a heavy apc would be a buzz kill. Since you just covert it into a apc.
 
Apr 2017
1,636
U.S.A.
Man i was curious to know the maintenance. And yeah I don't think putting back a turret in a heavy apc would be a buzz kill. Since you just covert it into a apc.
Tanks are generally bigger and more complicated than APCs, they require more work to maintain. As for specifically what kind/how much, i'm not sure.
Many APCs have small turrets, my point was that putting even a small turret on a converted tank would make it appear as a tank and attract fire.
 
Jan 2013
1,207
Anywhere
Tanks are generally bigger and more complicated than APCs, they require more work to maintain. As for specifically what kind/how much, i'm not sure.
Many APCs have small turrets, my point was that putting even a small turret on a converted tank would make it appear as a tank and attract fire.
True.
I read countries like Ukraine, Israel, & Jordan have heavy apc vehicles in their stock and have a lot of supplies and tools to maintain then. However! With the exception of Turkey. They had a heavy APC based on the american M24 tank which i thought is pretty interesting. But discontinued it probably preferring M113's & AIFV's.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,745
USA
The real pro is you take a legit tank, with its wonderful mobility and especially protection, and craft it into an armored personnel carrier that is actually worthy of being called armored.

I love what Israelis did. Completely unrealistic for operational maneuver, a tank/APC hybrid is super expensive to build and especially operate (referring to one that can protect even somewhat against modern AT weapons). But they did it anyway and made them work.

Ignore the logistic, which they can because limited numbers only being used in places like Gaza, Sinai, West Bank, and Golan, so not exactly a long drive from secure areas. And they do great. Enemy shows up with RPG-7, they do well (which few other modern APC can survive). Even a Kornet or Iranian TOW knockoff, they might survive that.

And that's what it comes down to. Respecting your infantry and engineers enough to not put them in a thin skinned APC or IFV that has very serious survivability limitations placed on it because the idea of building a few thousand Namer APCs for entire mechanized divisions to possess high operational mobility for global transport and use isn't realistic. So designers only armor against small arms and limited artillery fragmentation.

But if you're neck deep involved in some small war quagmire where enemy insurgents are getting good weapons (like Hezbollah), or a vicious high intensity fight of limited size close to secure lines of communication (73 War redux), when you want protection plus off road tactical mobility, they're damn good to have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azarius Balios
Jan 2013
1,207
Anywhere
The real pro is you take a legit tank, with its wonderful mobility and especially protection, and craft it into an armored personnel carrier that is actually worthy of being called armored.

I love what Israelis did. Completely unrealistic for operational maneuver, a tank/APC hybrid is super expensive to build and especially operate (referring to one that can protect even somewhat against modern AT weapons). But they did it anyway and made them work.

Ignore the logistic, which they can because limited numbers only being used in places like Gaza, Sinai, West Bank, and Golan, so not exactly a long drive from secure areas. And they do great. Enemy shows up with RPG-7, they do well (which few other modern APC can survive). Even a Kornet or Iranian TOW knockoff, they might survive that.

And that's what it comes down to. Respecting your infantry and engineers enough to not put them in a thin skinned APC or IFV that has very serious survivability limitations placed on it because the idea of building a few thousand Namer APCs for entire mechanized divisions to possess high operational mobility for global transport and use isn't realistic. So designers only armor against small arms and limited artillery fragmentation.

But if you're neck deep involved in some small war quagmire where enemy insurgents are getting good weapons (like Hezbollah), or a vicious high intensity fight of limited size close to secure lines of communication (73 War redux), when you want protection plus off road tactical mobility, they're damn good to have.
Totally agree as I liked how the Israelis did it. At first they used T-55 tank hulls. Then they used centurions and finally the merkava. it is proven that heavy apc's are truly good in protection where current apc's like the stryker and boxer can become easy targets.
However! the Germans have created a Heavy IFV called the Lynx and Puma which can have increase protection, and the the Russians have the T-15 heavy ifv's based on the Armata tank. But it is just the united states that is too cheap to create such good vehicles. I mean do you how many M60 and old M1 Abrams tanks are out there within the United States....A Lot.
Check out the tank graveyard in California.
The U.S. Army's Huge Tank Stockpile in the California Desert
Army to Congress: Thanks, but no tanks

I mean talk about injustice in the freakin' world. I mean some u.s generals who went to Israel & Jordan. Saw Heavy APCs over there and then come back home and knows that's there's a tank "f***ing" graveyard in California and yet still have M113's, LAV-25's, Strykers, Bradleys and Bison APC's still in service. That right there is an insult to all the soldiers and marines who needed really good APC's and yet don't take it. there should be a law that requires that use these abandoned tanks and reconfigure and convert them into transport carriers like what the Israelis, Jordanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Turks, Indians, and even the Chinese has done. well then again America won't even ask for help from the Jordon or Israel to create them in cooperation.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Apr 2017
1,636
U.S.A.
Totally agree as I liked how the Israelis did it. At first they used T-55 tank hulls. Then they used centurions and finally the merkava. it is proven that heavy apc's are truly good in protection where current apc's like the stryker and boxer can become easy targets.
However! the Germans have created a Heavy IFV called the Lynx and Puma which can have increase protection, and the the Russians have the T-15 heavy ifv's based on the Armata tank. But it is just the united states that is too cheap to create such good vehicles. I mean do you how many M60 and old M1 Abrams tanks are out there within the United States....A Lot.
Check out the tank graveyard in California.
The U.S. Army's Huge Tank Stockpile in the California Desert
Army to Congress: Thanks, but no tanks

I mean talk about injustice in the freakin' world. I mean some u.s generals who went to Israel & Jordan. Saw Heavy APCs over there and then come back home and knows that's there's a tank "f***ing" graveyard in California and yet still have M113's, LAV-25's, Strykers, Bradleys and Bison APC's still in service. That right there is an insult to all the soldiers and marines who needed really good APC's and yet don't take it. there should be a law that requires that use these abandoned tanks and reconfigure and convert them into transport carriers like what the Israelis, Jordanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Turks, Indians, and even the Chinese has done. well then again America won't even ask for help from the Jordon or Israel to create them in cooperation.
Part of it is probably weight. The army has to be able to transport hundreds of vehicles at a moments notice if a war breaks out somewhere. Doing that with 50 ton vehicles is harder than 30 ton vehicles; especially for air transports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azarius Balios
Jan 2013
1,207
Anywhere
Part of it is probably weight. The army has to be able to transport hundreds of vehicles at a moments notice if a war breaks out somewhere. Doing that with 50 ton vehicles is harder than 30 ton vehicles; especially for air transports.
True that weight is a factor for such large armored fighting vehicles. And the cost of maintaining them is high. But!...the united states is a rich superpower. So finding ways to make it easier for the DoD. They pretty much had that chance back in the 80's when there are M60's and M103's that would've been converted. But I guess its just me.
But I do know the army was thinking way too much and couldn't decide much in the 70's & 80's as they were creating the aifv, Bradley, lav-300's and the like.
 
Apr 2017
1,636
U.S.A.
True that weight is a factor for such large armored fighting vehicles. And the cost of maintaining them is high. But!...the united states is a rich superpower. So finding ways to make it easier for the DoD. They pretty much had that chance back in the 80's when there are M60's and M103's that would've been converted. But I guess its just me.
But I do know the army was thinking way too much and couldn't decide much in the 70's & 80's as they were creating the aifv, Bradley, lav-300's and the like.
I agree, in the 80's using the hundreds of m60's being retired and turning them into apc's would have been great. The weight issue could be partially overcome by stationing them in hot spots like Germany and south korea. Then have the bradleys (or m113) as part of a medium rapid deployment force. At the time turning a tank into an APC was a strange concept (still is today).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azarius Balios