In the mechanized formations of today’s armies, hardly any other tactical vehicle is as important as the infantry fighting vehicle – alongside the main battle tank, of course, with which it has to keep pace on the battlefield. However, it was a long road before the infantry fighting vehicle achieved its current status.
The 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces (CFE Treaty) in Europe defines the infantry fighting vehicle as follows: “The term ‘infantry fighting vehicle (IFV)’ means an armored combat vehicle designed and equipped primarily for the transport of an infantry group, normally enabling soldiers to fire from the vehicle protected by the armor, and armed with an integral or organic cannon of at least 20 millimeters caliber and, occasionally, with an anti-tank missile launcher. The armoured infantry fighting vehicle serves as the main weapon system of armoured, mechanized or motorized infantry units and land forces units.”
The beginnings
The vehicle made such a chunky impression that the crew nicknamed it “The Pig”. We are talking about the Mark IX tank, which was designed by Lieutenant G. R. Rackham in mid-1917 and produced in a quantity of 34 by the tractor manufacturer Marshall, Sons & Co. However, only three of these were used until the end of First World War and the vehicle was never able to prove its suitability under wartime conditions. https://militaeraktuell.at/gm-defense-liefert-ltv-an-die-kanadische-armee/ The term “tank” is misleading, as the Mark IX tank was based on the Mark VIII tank, a British main battle tank. However, this Mark IX was intended to fulfill a different purpose, it was designed as an “Infantry Carrier”, which was indicated by the designation “IC” painted on the side. The 27-ton vehicle was intended to carry up to 30 infantrymen on the battlefield under armor protection (ten millimeters thick). It was the first infantry fighting vehicle developed specifically for this purpose. While since the French FT-17 (also a product of the First World War) some basic patterns in the development of main battle tanks have always been the same (main weapon in the centrally mounted turret, design as a fully tracked vehicle, rear engine), the history of infantry fighting vehicles was characterized by very diverse concepts. There were wheeled vehicles, full and half-track vehicles, vehicles with rear or front engines, vehicles with and without turrets and many other modifications. However, the task was always the protected transportation of infantry to and on the battlefield.
Armored personnel carrier versus infantry fighting vehicle
A distinction must also be made between the real “infantry fighting vehicle” – the “mechanized infantry combat vehicle” – and the “armoured transport vehicle” – the “armoured personnel carrier”. The transition between the two types is fluid. If the armored personnel carrier is intended to ensure the protected transport of infantrymen to the place of deployment, the armored personnel carrier’s task is that of a combat vehicle. It should not only transport the infantry, but also provide fire support. The infantry is deployed largely dismounted, i.e. on foot. According to the tactical doctrine prevalent in the 1970s, it was important for a real infantry fighting vehicle (in contrast to the armored transport vehicle) to be able to have the dismounted infantry fight with it under armor protection.
The armored infantry of the Bundeswehr had the option of engaging in combat from the rear fighting compartment of the Marder infantry fighting vehicle using Uzi submachine guns. There was also a rear mount with a machine gun that could be operated from the rear fighting compartment. The author of this article worked as a weapons mechanic in a mechanized infantry battalion in the mid-1980s, helping to upgrade the rear mounts as part of the second combat upgrade of the SPz Marder. With the third combat upgrade carried out in the 1990s, the ball mounts were also removed.
From the half chain to the full chain
Towards the end of the First World War and for several years afterwards, different views prevailed regarding the possible uses of main battle tanks: Should the main battle tank only be a support vehicle for the infantry or should it be used in massed form – supported by infantry or artillery, for example – for fast, space-consuming operations? In the latter case, all-terrain and armored vehicles would have to be developed for the supporting branches of the armed forces so that they could keep pace with the armored units. In fact, the development of infantry fighting vehicles and armored transport vehicles in the period between the world wars was never as important as the development of main battle tanks.
Armored personnel carriers on wheeled chassis were developed in some countries, but did not achieve any particular significance. More important were the half-track vehicles developed in the interwar period. The pioneer of this development was France, but the Citroën-Kégresse half-track vehicles were mainly used as artillery tractors. Only 50 of one armored variant, the Citroën-Kégresse AMR P28, were built. The French infantry was not motorized or was transported by truck. The British had it better, their infantrymen were almost all motorized, and there was also a small fully tracked vehicle in use, the Bren Carrier, which was fast and manoeuvrable, but had no real armoured superstructure. With over 113,000 units of all variants produced and an operational history well beyond the Second World War it is one of the most important armored personnel carriers of all. American-designed half-tracks were used in the “Motor Battalions” belonging to the British or Canadian armored divisions or independent armored brigades. https://militaeraktuell.at/leonardo-fincantieri-neuer-auftrag-viertes-opv/ However, only around eight percent of British or Canadian infantrymen belonged to the Motor Battalions. For the Americans, the half-track was the transport vehicle of the Armored Infantry, the mechanized infantry belonging to the armored divisions. In addition to the driver, the M3 Half-Track offered space for twelve people, was up to twelve millimetres thickly armored and its 150 hp engine gave the vehicle a road speed of over 70 km/h. The soldiers did not like the vehicle. The soldiers did not particularly like the vehicle, and the grim nickname “Purple Heart Box” referred to what they considered to be its inadequate protection. This was also not ideal in the German “Schützenpanzers” – the Sd.Kfz. 251 medium infantry fighting vehicle and Sd.Kfz. 250 light infantry fighting vehicle developed at the end of the 1930s. Both vehicles had an open rear fighting compartment and were somewhat underpowered with 100 hp. In contrast to the medium infantry fighting vehicle, which was the main equipment in the armored infantry companies, the Wehrmacht used the light infantry fighting vehicle in the armored reconnaissance companies of the armored reconnaissance divisions. Over 6,600 Sd.Kfz. 250s rolled off the production line, and 15,252 Sd.Kfz. 251s. As many of the vehicles were intended for a wide variety of special tasks, the production figures were barely sufficient to equip all the Wehrmacht’s armored infantry battalions. In the Wehrmacht, all infantry units of the Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions were referred to as Panzergrenadiers, regardless of whether they were actually equipped with infantry fighting vehicles. Armament production could not meet the demand for infantry fighting vehicles. In fact, only about a quarter of the Panzergrenadiers had Sd.Kfz. infantry fighting vehicles during the war.
251, which could transport a complete armored infantry group of ten men plus driver. Only the Panzer-Lehr-Division was a fully armored large unit – the only one in the Wehrmacht.
“The term ‘Schützenpanzer (SPz)‛ refers to an armored fighting vehicle designed and equipped primarily for the transport of an infantry squad, normally enabling the soldiers to fire out of the vehicle protected by the armor, and armed with an integrated or organic cannon of at least 20 millimeters caliber and occasionally with an anti-tank missile launcher.”
Definition eines Schützenpanzers im KSE-Vertrag.
Some of the design features of the German armored personnel carriers (SPW) were superior to their American counterparts (the sloped armor, for example). However, the concept was no longer pursued after the war; only Skoda in Czechoslovakia built a further development of the German SPW from 1958 to 1962, the OT-810, which, however, had a fighting compartment closed at the top.
In the Cold War
While American half-tracks of the M2, M3, M5 and M9 variants remained in service with many armies long after the end of the Second World War, the BTR-152, a transport tank on a 6×6 wheeled chassis, was developed in the Soviet Union. Despite its inadequate cross-country mobility, the BTR-152 remained in use with special equipment kits in the Red Army until the end of the 1980s and is still in service with some Third World countries today. The British FV603 Saracen, also a wheeled vehicle, is considerably more off-road capable. More important than wheeled vehicles and the increasingly rare half-track vehicles were fully tracked vehicles as protected means of transportation for the infantry. The USA led the way in development, producing the M75-APC from 1952 to 1954 and fielding it in the final phase of the Korean War. The vehicle had a closed fighting compartment, was fast and relatively well armored. However, its enormous production costs led to production being discontinued in favor of the much cheaper M59-APC. This vehicle was afloat and was exported to a number of countries. In the US Army, it was replaced by the very similarly configured M113, which is still in service there and in many other countries today. But even the countless combat upgrades and multiple variants of the M113 (it was introduced to the Bundeswehr as the MTW – “armored personnel carrier”) did not make it a true infantry fighting vehicle – apart from the further development YPR-735 used by the Netherlands, among others. https://militaeraktuell.at/lindnerhof-neue-panels-leichtgewichtige-guertel/ Some developments of the 1960s came very close to a combat vehicle that could follow armored troops into the field under fire and provide fire protection for dismounted infantry: the French AMX VTT, the Austrian 4K4 and also the infamous HS30 from Hispano-Suiza, whose introduction in the Bundeswehr led to a political scandal.
The “real” armored personnel carrier
The appearance of the Soviet BMP-1 caused concern among the NATO military. This first “real” infantry fighting vehicle gave the “motorized riflemen” of the Warsaw Pact armies increased firepower and mobility. However, by the time the vehicle was demonstrated at the military parade to mark the anniversary of the October Revolution in 1967, similar developments were already well advanced in the West. In 1971, the German Marder infantry fighting vehicle was introduced to the troops. It had a very similar design to the BMP, but was larger, twice as heavy at around 26 tons and twice as powerful with a 600 hp engine. The French AMX-10P, introduced in 1973, was smaller but otherwise very similar. The Soviets developed the BMP-2, in which the low-pressure cannon of the BMP-1 was replaced by an automatic cannon, as in Western infantry fighting vehicles. The commander’s position was also changed. The Yugoslavian M-1975 was closely based on the BMP. The Americans soon followed with the M2/M3 Bradley, which, after initial difficulties, developed into a formidable fighting machine, as can now be seen in the Ukraine. In 1988, the British FV510 Warrior joined the troops, in which particular emphasis was placed on armor protection. The basic concept of all these vehicles was similar: front engine, two-man turret with automatic cannon and coaxial machine gun plus possibly missiles and space at the rear for transporting a rifle squad. The concept of mounted combat using firing hatches or ball screens was soon abandoned as it became necessary to fit additional armor.
The Spanish-Austrian development ASCOD (known in Austria as “Ulan”, in Spain as “Pizarro”) represents a further development of this basic concept, as does the powerful CV 90 from Sweden. And in almost all modern armies, the often highly bred and expensive infantry fighting vehicles are used as the main combat vehicle of the mechanized infantry, supplemented by simpler and cheaper armoured transport vehicles. In the light infantry, wheeled armored personnel carriers take on this role. The Puma infantry fighting vehicle of the Bundeswehr is highly motorized with almost 1,100 hp and no longer follows the Marder model: in the Puma, the squad leader and gunner no longer sit in the turret, but in the hull.
The Israeli way
The Israeli military did not want to follow the concept of the infantry fighting vehicle at all. The top priority here was off-road mobility under fire, similar to that of a main battle tank. An Israeli infantryman was to have the same armor protection as an armored soldier. Consequently, the Israelis converted old Centurion main battle tanks into heavy armored transport vehicles (“Nagmachon”). This was followed by the “Achzarit”, which was converted from captured T-55 main battle tanks. The latest development is the “Namer”, based on the Merkava IV main battle tank, a true monster with a weight of 60 tons and an engine output of 1,200 HP. The armament, consisting of machine guns on remote-controlled weapon stations, is not particularly impressive, but that is not the focus here. The aforementioned Lieutenant G. R. Rackham would have welcomed the concept.
