Com-Central.net

MarkHolloway · Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 7:47 pm Post subject: ICV

Saw something called an "ICV" today where they were setting up for the Armor Conference. I think that stands for "Infantry Combat Vehicle". It's a stretched version of the M1117 Armored Security Vehicle (ASV). I believe it carries 8 infantrymen.

Here's the view looking in the left side door. The 'poker table' is actually a stand for the cupola gunner.

Driver's area. Same as the M1117.

Hellfish6 · Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 10:18 pm Post subject: Re: ICV

So ICV is the new name for an APC?

buglerbilly · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 147

Nahhhhhh it's a play on words, that's all.

Generally, an APC is considered to be a non-turreted armoured personnel carrier, with pintle-mounted machineguns or AGL at best.

IFV and AFV are generally considered to be turreted armoured vehicles, most often thought of as Tracked BUT this is increasingly changing as a result of such Wheeled gems as AMV, STRYKER, LAV III & IV, VBCI, etc etc.

ICV is just another term to try and differentiate one type of ASV (another term) from the other.

At least this is my read on the matter...........I'll now shutup! Mr. Green

Regards,

BUG

Dontos · Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 2:45 am Post subject: Re: ICV

BUG

Not too bad. Cool

To add to the concept, I think one might best understand the terms in figuritive or literal. Neutral

Are the new crop of vehicles APC's? Confused

Armored...Yes
Personnel....this one is, it has capability to 'haul' personnel.
Carrier....Yes

Now, these new vehicles are also more capable to cross over for civilian law enforcement uses. It can be considered a 'conventional' vehicle, by the civilian perspective.

By military definitions (figuritive term) is it an APC? I don't think so. Its a lightly armored vehicle more to augment the role or mission of the Humvee, which was the replacement for the Jeep. Is that an APC.....No.

With that said, I'll shut up now, and see if I've totally confused anyone. I know I am confused... Wink

Don

MarkHolloway · Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 6:58 am Post subject: Re: ICV

"ICV" is what Textron calls it. Since the Army has not purchased any of these it doesn't have an "M" number like the M1117. The factory rep said there were 60 of these in service with the Iraqi army. He stated that the one in the photo was hot off the assembly line but the Iraqi labeling had been changed to English.

Maple_Leaf_Eh · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 517

Ditto. That is the story I remember from the rep I spoke to a CANSEC in Ottawa. The Iraqi contract was a long eight seater, not the smaller US runs which might have room for four or five.

Next problem, if the vehicle is small, where do the guys leave all that extra personal gear they are compelled by SOP to bring? Does it just get dumped on the floor or wedged under and behind the seats? I know the Canadian M113s graduated to big plywood bench boxes rather than suffer with loose kit and FMC's best hemorrhoid shaker benchs.

mike_Duplessis · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 236

"Next problem, if the vehicle is small, where do the guys leave all that extra personal gear..."

One supposes if we're talking Iraqi forces they may not have quite so much kit to cart. Someone earlier on this group said U.S. forces had learned their lesson in Somalia and now went out on patrol carrying everything necessary for a 'worst case scenario' (which means a LOT of kit). From photos Iraqi troops don't seem to go out that way, or to be quite so lavishly supplied to begin with. Less kit means more room in the vehicle. Besides, didn't the Iraq army have BMPs? This could'nt possibly be MORE cramped!

I recall on this board - again - someone awhile ago had said Iraq had purchased a turretless infantry carrier M1117. And dang if they weren't right!

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big