A few thoughts on the discussion of the blurring delineation of APCs and IFVs in recent years. #AFVaDay /1 
Many remotely operated turrets that have zero, or near zero, deck penetration are widely available. Using unmanned turrets bring a range of benefits to designers and users from integration to operation. /2
Moving the turret crew out of the turret and into the hull improves survivability - the turret can be lower profile, and if it is hit the damage can be isolated to that component and may not propagate down into the vehicle interior where personnel are located. /3
As the turret may not penetrate into the vehicle interior, integration is vastly simpler than adding a conventional turret that requires significant internal swept area and for heavy hull structure mods to allow the addition of a turret ring & aperture - money and time saved /4
From a vehicle dynamics perspective a lower profile turret with less weight in it (no crew or associated components) reduces impact on centre of gravity, reducing negative impact on mobility and off road performance. /5
These unmanned turrets can mount traditional IFV main armaments, >25mm cannons (typically 30-50mm) alongside 7.62 coax and often some form of ATGM, but are not impacting the passenger capacity of the vehicle as radically as a conventional turret would. /6
Normally, adding a turret to a typical medium weight APC reduces the dismount capacity from 8-10 to ~6 (in both cases excl assumed crew of 2-3). /7
Capacity tradeoff has been a continual issue, users want >8man squads to fit, but as most IFV fit 6 they have to operate reduced size squads or split across multiple vehicles, the latter having significant impacts on C2 in immediate moments after dismount in combat. /8
The issue of fitting a whole squad has plagued attempts by the US to replace Bradley, GCV required an IFV that could hold a full 9-man squad, resulting in prototypes larger than an M1 tank and weighing >80t. /9
Unmanned turret still requires someone to operate however can be set up to have vastly less impact than a full turret basket. Reduction in passengers can be negligible and result is broadly to maintain APC capacity but with the addition of IFV armament. /10
So with the broad delineation of APC and IFV being their capacity and armament, the ability to maintain the former and gain the latter is resulting in a blurring of IFV and APC. /11
In extremis, these medium calibre unmanned turrets can even be fitted to light vehicles, such as the Taifun-K4386 above. With a dismount capacity of 8 and a 30mm cannon, is this technically an IFV now? /12
The other point is protection. Traditionally APCs are battle taxis - designed to survive in the fire zone but only to deliver troops and fall back. IFVs by comparison should fight in that zone, supporting the troops after they disembark. /13
The drive for increased protection mean everything is now significantly armoured. US for example is replacing M113 with AMPV, a turretless Bradley meaning ABCT IFV and APC are the same vehicle with peer protection, the only difference is armament. /15
WIth a zero penetration modern turret, the AMPV APC could readily be a made better IFV than the Bradley, possibly offering greater capacity with a better modern turret. /14
With most users and designers anticipating unmanned turrets for future AFV alongside heavy protection levels, the notion of APC and IFV being distinct roles continues to diminish and the two blur into just AFV. /15
Given the pace and capability of current and next-gen land warfare, is there even a place on the modern battlefield for a lightly armoured and/or unarmed APC-like AFV? /end
