stancrist said:

Why would the IFV crew and the infantry team see themselves in competition with each other? Their functions are different and complementary, not competitive.

I agree. Never the less I have heard and read it.
IMHO its from the fact that the dismounts and the vehicle crew are not fully accepted by one another. They do not seem semself as part of one larger organism. Its us an them. Wich as far as I can tell comes from things like different training facilities and routes and lack of esprit de corpse. Or better false esprit de corps. The dismounts think of themself as infantry doing things the infantry way. The IFV crew thinks of themself as (light) armor doing things the armor way.
The strange organisation with platoons spreading the dismount squads over vehicles and the vehicles though of as their own squad seems to be a manifestation of this.

stancrist said:

Such a loss of infantry support seems to me to be a leadership failure, not an organizational issue.

And what should the leader of a tank compay or batallion do? Dismount get out the wip and force the dismounted infantry men back into their transports?
Its mostly about incompatability of doctrin and "the way we do things". Infantry is notoriously bad at in depth manoeuver warfare. They don't train it, they don't think that way. You can not really blame them for not being good at it. They are good at other things.
Hence Panzergrenadiers. Who are specialised for this type of warfare just like tanks are. They are pretty bad at a lot if not most traditional infantry tasks though.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: Such a loss of infantry support seems to me to be a leadership failure, not an organizational issue.

And what should the leader of a tank compay or batallion do? Dismount get out the wip and force the dismounted infantry men back into their transports?

Hahahahaha.  Too funny.  Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

But to answer your question, the overall commander of a combined arms force should make it clear to the infantry battalion and company commanders that their units will bypass the enemy as required and keep up with the tanks.

schnuersi said:

Its mostly about incompatability of doctrin and "the way we do things". Infantry is notoriously bad at in depth manoeuver warfare. They don't train it, they don't think that way.

Perhaps you're right.  It occurs to me that may be why the Army created Armored Brigade Combat Teams, with tank and infantry companies in the same battalion.

stancrist said:

But to answer your question, the overall commander of a combined arms force should make it clear to the infantry battalion and company commanders that their units will bypass the enemy as required and keep up with the tanks.

Certainly. But since when does anything in combat (or a training excercise) work as planned.

stancrist said:

It occurs to me that may be why the Army created Armored Brigade Combat Teams, with tank and infantry companies in the same battalion.

Personally I think that mixed combined arms batallions for a manoeuver force are a good idea. In practice the battalions of a brigade would be mixed and matched anyways to create combined arms battlegroups. Why not make this a permanent thing.
In the past the German Army also had such mixed batallions but these have been dissolved after the End of the Cold War.

As far as I can tell one source of the problem could be how the training is organised. From the information I have it seems that the IFV crews and dismounts are trained in different schools. Not inside their partent unit. It also seems like cross training is limited. This is different with in the German Army in general. With the Panzergrenadiers every one got the same basic training. They also all get basic training on the vehicle an its opperation. After that the main function for the near future of a soldier is determined. Usually by ability and talent. There can be and usually are changes over time. This is why in several of the videos that have been posted here the soldiers say things like: "currently i am assigned the function of gunner". It seems that this lower level integration is one of the keys.

The Polish Borsuk sure looks handsome , i imagine much of the shape is dictated by amphibious requrement . Here side by side with Bradely , i always taought Borsuk is a small IFV but it looks like Bradley sized, probably its small only in comparison to KF41 and  AS-21

Boxy bow to add floatation  volume to the front end.

Kinda surprising Japan chose Patria AMV XP over its domestic rival.  Whatever one might think about AMV it has shown itself as most sucesfull export 8x8 , i wonder how much japanese tech will end up in the AM XP , while they manufacture them in Japan.

On December 9, 2022

The Japan Ministry of Defense has announced today that Patria AMVXP 8x8 has been selected for the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force as their next Wheeled Armored Personnel Carrier 8x8 vehicle under the WAPC programme. The selection includes manufacturing licence of the vehicles in Japan, with a solid contribution to the local economy and technology development securing the supply and service in Japan. The Patria AMVXP 8x8 vehicles will be replacing the Type-96 8x8 Armored Personnel Carrier vehicles which are currently in service by Japan Ground Self-Defense Force.

With the USMC switching to 15 man squads, is there anything wheeled out there that can carry that with bench seats?  How about that and shock mitigating seats? Or is the only option more vehicles in a platoon

UAEs Patria is stretched to include a BMP turret while maintaining the same number of dismounts as a non stretched version, I wonder if you ditch the turret for extra seats and swap to a non penetrating rws if it will hold a whole squad

GPV Capitan or FNNS Pars developed with GPV ,but haven't Marines just started procurment of  Iveco Super AV

Did not know about those, thank you

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Iveco Super AV

13 seats max though? How are they doing this?

Just going to leave this here...

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CmHxv0Jrzj0/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link