Is the Infantry Fighting Vehicle a flawed concept that should be dumped in favor of the cheaper but less capable Armored Personnel Carrier that is more suitable to deploying infantry out of enemy line of sight to fight on foot?
Is the IFV a needless and overly expensive alternative to APCs?
The recent reorganisations of the procurement budget cancelled the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) upgrade. Instead Warrior will be replaced by the wheeled Boxer armoured personnel carrier (APC). Some have greeted this as the end of the British Army’s armoured warfare capability, such as it is. Upon reflection I believe that the Army has ducked a bullet; the IFV concept is fundamentally flawed, delivering expensive but unnecessary capability at the cost of more useful ones. Deleting Warrior is as necessary doctrinally as financially.
The author addresses attack and defense problems with the British Warrior IFV and says that new technology can address the enemy problems that delivering and supporting infantry right up to the enemy defensive positions. He says the APC is what the British army needs.
We'll ignore the unnecessary "u" that the British seem committed to after all these years.
But I digress.
But early Russian BMP-1s are hardly the standard to judge IFVs, right? Yes, it was designed for a contaminated battlefield (nuclear, biological, and chemical). And the idea that troops on the inside of a bouncing IFV could see--let alone accurately shoot--turned out to be ridiculous. But we learned from that. I remember being surprised in the National Guard to crawl into a Bradley and discover they no longer had firing ports on them.
Bradley Fighting/Cavalry Vehicles seemed to work well in Iraq during two wars for the United States Army. Would APCs have
worked as well? I have to believe that even newer M-113s would not have worked as well as Bradleys with their heavier armor, chain guns, and anti-tank missiles. Or as well as British Warrior IFVs, which lack an anti-tank missile I should note.
If tanks can be destroyed (they can), so can IFVs. I admit that I worry (in Infantry magazine) about the IFV moving closely with the tanks where the infantry can be killed with the vehicle. APCs seem dangerous to crew and passengers if exposed to direct fire. Until the IFV drops its slab and the infantry dismounts, enemy anti-tank weapons can kill a lot of troops. So I'm not unsympathetic to his concerns.
And he makes points that seem good to me. Perhaps lighter armor on APCs that avoid being in line of sight from enemy anti-tank weapons are fine. They'd have just enough armor to guard against shell fragments and small arms. I'm no combat veteran, however. I'd like to read more on this issue.
Still, British needs are different than American needs. Until Russia invaded Ukraine this year and revived interest in land warfare in Europe, Britain was committed to a global navy-based defense policy. If Britain faces the choice of enough APCs or insufficient IFVs--even if IFVs are superior--the better choice is the APC.
NOTE: War coverage continues here.
