schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: The IFV is an improved infantry transporter.

No its not. The IFV is a specialised vehicle to supplement the tank.

LOL.  "Not an infantry transporter."  LOL.

schnuersi said:

Why do you think mech inf is part of the armored corps and not the infantry? Because they are no infantry...

Mechanized infantry are not infantry?  ROFL.

Boxer CRV on left, ASLAV type 2 (Australian spec LAV25) on right.

Both cavalry reconnaissance vehicles, neither IFV. Our new IFV will be either Lynx with the same Lance turret as the CRV, or AS21 Redback.

I had always gone with this basic distinction:

IFV: Optimized for fighting other vehicles; superior gun and armor to the APC, optimized for vehicle on vehicle combat

APC: Optimized for transporting infantry; armor optimized for infantry protection and gun designed for infantry support

First, "optimized for fighting other vehicles" and "optimized for vehicle on vehicle combat" are redundant.

Second, the IFV is not optimized for fighting other vehicles.  Tanks are optimized for fighting other vehicles. 

APC:  Designed for transporting infantry; armor protection against small arms fire and artillery fragments; armament adequate for infantry support.

IFV:  Designed for transporting infantry; armor protection greater than that of the APC; armament more capable and flexible than that of the APC.

RovingPedant said:

schnuersi said... So far no major nation has adopted wheeled IFVs.

Hi,

Just joined the forum, interesting discussions,

As far as "no major nation adopting wheeled IFV's", one needs to consider South Africa, in the Bush Wars against Angola (and the Cubans).

In terms of numbers of tanks/AFV's involved, the battles got pretty big.

And carried on for long periods.

And it used, and uses, a LOT of wheeled vehicles quite successfully.

From IFV's to SPG's.

One point is the terrain is not like Western Europe: not so much mud or swamps to go though.

There's a good RAND study directed towards Australia's latest decision to go wheeled or tracked for its new IFV's (it went tracked as you know).

http://chrome-extension://ieepebpjnkhaiioojkepfniodjmjjihl/data/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?

file=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rand.org%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Frand%2Fpubs%2Fresearch_reports%2FRR1800%2FRR1834%2FRAND_RR1834.pdf

I think there is not a SINGLE correct answer to the choice, I think it's best to have BOTH, and use the variant that suits the case at hand the best.

Sure, if you are in Ukraine in late winter/early spring, you need to deal with the mud.

And tracks are the best for that.

But how often does THAT arise with most armed forces of big countries?

Most times it's little bush wars, and COIN you're dealing with.

Where the right wheeled vehicle can be the better option.

Welcome to the forum.

In terms of can one design a wheeled vehicle to handle soft ground (mud, muskeg, swamp etc) as well, or better than a tracked vehicle, that RAND report I just posted the link to makes some interesting points:

- You want BIG tires to optimise performance (page 118) (I've read somewhere, maybe in this report, but perhaps elsewhere, that there's in effect a max size in tire you can select in terms of various factors like mounting it on the vehicle, and making it, and the tires the USMC are using are close to that max size)

- Due to the max size of tires you can effectively use on a wheeled IFV, you tend to max out at +/- 35 tons (absolute limit 40 tons)  if you want to get good mud mobility, so if you need lots of armour and size for troops, this tends to constrain your choices (page 141 and after)

Thanks.

I was just going to say "Hi", but then I saw this discussion, and it's something I'm quite interested in: mobility.

There's a Canadian researcher who has written a LOT (as in over a dozen peer-reviewed papers and at least two text books) on off-road mobility: J.Y. Wong.

And he's got some computer software that can model how a given tracked system behaves on various types of surfaces.

He's even got screen shots of it, and says how easy it is to use.

I'd love to try it, but so far it seems elusive to actually get a copy of it!

Lots of mentions of it but nothing that says where you can get access to it.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0954407018765504

This is one of his recent ones, but he's been at for DECADES.

stancrist said:

For instance, remove the turret from a Bradley IFV and turn it into an APC. It will be lighter, faster, but the same armor protection.

Yes but it will not be able to perform the function of an IFV anymore. It ceases to be one without the turret and weapons suite.
The weapons suite is integral to an IFV.

stancrist said:

LOL. "Not an infantry transporter." LOL.

Just because some guys can sit in the back doesn't make a vehicle a dedicated infantry transporter. There are lots of AFV that can carry additional passangers that are no infantry transporter.
The main function of the IFV is to fight with its own weapons. The dismounts are only deployed when they absolutely have to.

stancrist said:

Mechanized infantry are not infantry?

No they are not Panzergrenadiers are classes as armored forces. Part of the armored corps as are tank destroyers, armored recond and armor. Their main function is MOUNTED combat. With the ability to deploy dismounts for limited time and missions should the situation require it.
This makes them different in concept, doctrine and tactics to infantry regardless if motorised or not.
Its the same with Soviet/Russian doctrine. The BMP equiped units are an organic part of the armor regiments. The BTR and other APCs are unsed in the motor rifle regiments in other words infantry regiments.

The main function of the IFV is to fight with its own weapons. The dismounts are only deployed when they absolutely have to.

You don't seem to know how and why the BMP and the HS.30 and later Marder evolved. Their existence is directly linked to a mobility focussed understanding of manoeuver warfare and in depth operation. This is why IFV are fighting vehicles first and troop carrying is an add on.