Are IFVs actually the modern successors to the antiquated and discontinued role of infantry tank? They seem to be meant to do everything infantry tanks did but in addition to being purpose built for transporting infantry simultaneously.They're generally relatively lightly armored, but some of them have levels of armor protection and firepower that would allow them to face most MBTs.
>>62920157Infantry tanks still exist though. M10 Booker and Leopard 1 who themselves support the IFVs.
>>62920242Booker is not technically a tank.Leopard 1 is the Western version of a T series.
>>62920242Who defines leopard 1s as infantry tanks?
>>62920287>Booker is not technically a tank.It looks acts and smells like one. The army giving it a different label doesn't mean shit.
>>62920917It's an assault gun in practice.
>>62920917It means they are sent to ibct, Infantry formation too poor to have any armor at all.
>>62920157IFVs or "light/medium tanks" will replace the MBT the same way modern destroyers/frigates have replaced battleships. Fast, stealthy, barely armored but packing a huge punch and can engage BVR via drones and networked comms. The meta will be he who detects and shoots first, wins.
>>62921191current IFVs range from no armor to just as much armor as the heaviest MBTs
>>62920287The Booker is and is only a tank. If you don't think it's a tank then the definition doesn't matter anymore.
