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.

graylion said:

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

Which modern AFV with comparable protection does?
Who uses 14 man sections anyways?

With modern ergonomics, HSE rules and blast protection a vehicle for 14 passengers would end up being a bus. The Boxer is pretty packed with 8 passengers.

I was being mildly facetious. I was looking at some of the smaller eight-wheelers, which presumably also have 8 passengers and wondered...

Do I remember reading something that the K-21 was not designed for big Westerners?

I love this conversation but there is need to pick out the various doctrines. 

IFVs are meant to go wherever tanks can, take the same hits and carry a small infantry squad expressly to fulfill the role of supporting the tanks. The ideal is that the troops fight mounts and are as effective mounted as dismounted (theoretically). Basically the Marder and Lynx are it. The Warrior slides in just with it's upgraded armour package but lacks the means for fighting mounted.   

MICVs are vehicles like the Bradley, BMPCV 90/30 and VIBC that can operate in support of their infantry and are more capable than APCs. They do operate in the same role as IFVs but are not doctrinally IFVs because of their lack of armour. 

In reality pretty much everybody makes do and really only the Germans ever took the IFV route seriously. They aren't wrong but it has a prohibitive cost in the size, complexity and price of the IFV. 

Thanks for clearing that up!

Red7272 said:

Red7272 

"IFVs are meant to go wherever tanks can, take the same hits and carry a small infantry squad expressly to fulfill the role of supporting the tanks. The ideal is that the troops fight mounts and are as effective mounted as dismounted (theoretically). Basically the Marder and Lynx are it. The Warrior slides in just with it's upgraded armour package but lacks the means for fighting mounted.  "

Neither in the Marder or Lynx can the infantry men carried inside fight. The Marder originally had firing ports and a remote controlled machine gun, but they were taken away in the upgrades. 

The Marder level of armor protection is not on the level of a tank, it cannot take a hit a tank can take.

The Lynx's level of protection is scalable.  At its base level it has about as much protection as many other IFV.  Additional levels of protection can be added.