Six per platoon is fine, just depends on how you break it down operationally (and it offers the flexibility of 2x3 or 3x2), span of direct control isn't worse unless the PL is trying to micromanage every individual vehicle rather than teams full time rather than on special occasions, in which case you slap their peepee and correct it.

As far as the IFV / APC approaches go, the first question you have to answer is whether or not you intend the dismounts to always work in close coordination with the parent vehicle (in which case you can get away with reduced squad size), or if you expect them to be capable of stand-alone light infantry operations, since traditionally the IFV sacrifices dismounts for the main armament, and the APC prioritizes dismounts.  

With the maturation of remote weapons stations, these no longer have to be mutually exclusive. You can have a single AFV with an autocannon / ATGM combo in a protected non-penetrating turret while still being sized for a larger squad, yet we don't see that (for now) because the typical squad of today evolved to be smaller than ideal due to vehicle size constraints, a scar of the IFV concept back when the armament took up a lot of internal volume, and so naturally newer vehicles are still sized for those squads despite being absolutely enormous.  Tyranny of the rocket equation applies re: volume to be protected and protection desired, and even moreso when we approach the reasonable weight extremes for wheeled vehicles.







I believe wheels and tracks both have their place, but if I had to choose one setup the most flexible and robust approach that is resilient to changes in leadership, doctrine, tactics and so on through the decades would be an HAPC with autocannon RWS sized sized for a full sized light infantry squad optimized for stand-alone operation.  This setup is the most flexible as it adapts to evolving doctrines and trends in tactics that fall in and out of fashion - it can be employed like you would an IFV, or APC, depending on the mission, threat, terrain, etc.

The closest that gets it right IMO is Israel with their Eitan / Namer combo and splinter protected autocannon / spike turret, but I'd go with a more traditional seating arrangement to increase the number of dismounts to 11-13, and 40 CT cannon over 30mm.
 

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Interchangable mission modules in boxer were always a bit questionable ,no one followed the example

Its not about switching them from one vehicle to the other. Its mostly about designing one and they fit onto all.
Also it allows to replace outdated moduels or ones not needed anymore for something new or needed with little effort.

But those modules also add parasite mass and bulk not present in conventional configurations.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

But those modules also add parasite mass and bulk not present in conventional configurations.

According to whom?
What they do is they standardise dimensions, tolerances and conections.

Kinda way you could do it on conventional designs 

Unless this is just thin sheet metal there is bunch of parasite mass to Boxer configuration

Only part were this modularity made sense is in the production department, but since Boxer is just about the most goldplated offering on the market we are not seeing any savinsg in it .Same goes for shared tracks wheels platform , not seeing savings while introducing a series off compromises just  to make it sort of work out.

Where exactly?
All these structural parts are needed anyways. If its only for sealing of its sheet metal. There is no parasite mass.

How the *bleep* does the boxer not have space for a 14 man section?

Not really 1:1 , when you are dealing with unibody like most APCs volume needed can always be smaller as suspension and driveline can be integrated within lesser height than for any module carrying platform not to mention weight from overlapping armor of module to base. Kinda like cars with unibody vs ladder chassis.

In Boxer they claim parasitic mass is just 300-400kg or less than 1% but that is somewhat hard to believe or better its questionable how they quantify it , by counting just overlaping structures or actually volumetric growth oven unibody vehicle

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

In Boxer they claim parasitic mass is just 300-400kg or less than 1% but that is somewhat hard to believe or better its questionable how they quantify it , by counting just overlaping structures or actually volumetric growth oven unibody vehicle

Since you claim its not correct and make accusations the burden of proof is on you. So proof your claim.

Everybody else seems fine with the numbers.