This may be the weakest of the of the top "10" series. The basic fault is trying to include APC (Armored Personnel Carries) as IFV's. There is a basic difference in the two vehicles and their functions. Yes, IFV's are a subset of APC's but not the other way around.

Trying to include the HMMWV and the British "Gun Carrier" in this is just plain dumb in my opinion. Neither was designed to be or effectively used as as either an APC or IFV.

The rating system of the vehicles could be vastly improved if FIREPOWER/FEARFACTOR was included in the ranking as it was for some weapon systems. Also, VERSATILITY would have been an excellent ranking category to give a final evaluation of this type of vehicle.

All that being said -- I find I would have come to the same conclusion as the #1 Vehicle, if we are talking about APC's -- the M113 family! It would have a low Firepower rating as an APC/IFV, but it would have an off the scale Versatility Factor.

This show flaw is the faulty basic premise and definition of an IFV.

I agree with a lot of the "Top Ten" shows comparing apples and oranges.

I read a lot about the beef that the HMMWV and its lack of protective armor, and all the scrambling to "beef it up."

Somewhere along the line, the whole concept of the HMMWV has been lost. It originally was designed to be a larger, heartier replacement for the good old Jeep.

As a Toolmaker, years ago I worked to build the dies that stamped out many of the parts for the Hummer, in particular the floor panels. After production began, a rep. from AM General (Who built it before GM) brought one to the shop and let us test drive and play with it. There was a large, undeveloped area behind the shop and we were able to get it a little dirty. What amazed me was the distance between me as driver and the front seat passenger. I couldn't even reach over and touch him.

I know the thickness of the steel that formed the floor pans. Another shop had to have welded or added some armor or extra plating underneath, as the basic part we developed could never be classified as armor.

The HMMWV shouldn't even be included or compared as an APC or IFV. IMHO, it belongs in neither class.

I also agree that a few of the vehicles on this list do not qualify as an Infantry Fighting Vehicle. The M-113, HMMWV, M-3 Halftrack, Bren Gun Carrier, Sd.Kfz.251, and even the Stryker ,to a point, are APCs.

There are a multitude of actual IFVs out there for you all to put on your list. Do some actual research and do not misinform the people who are not knowledgable.

-I don't think "weak" adequately describes the choices. Of the 10 listed, I think only the BMP series and the Warrior match the working definitions of IFV vs. APC. If the Stryker was included where are the Soviet BRT 60/70/80 series vehicles or the UK Saracen?
-There were AFV variants of the basic M-113 but I don't know if they were adopted/used by anyone.
-As for the M-2/M-3 Bradley, I don't know quite how to classify it but if we're going to call it an AFV why not add the Merkava to the list?