schnuersi said:

It lacks cross country mobility (by German standards which are very different from African ones)

I think locale is important in terms of mobility. Cross country mobility in Germany / Ukraine / Sweden etc may require tracks due to the mud and wide open countryside.

However other countries have much different climates. Cyprus, for example, is a mix of dense urban cities and hard sunblasted earth; wheeled IFV's might prove the better choice for them as a Turk defender due to the superior road mobility and reduced maintenence.

Taiwan is primarily a mix of hyper ubranization and steep forested mountains. Realistic counter invasion IFV chicom blasting is likely to be primarily focussed in the cities / approaches to the cities. 

For a QRF to defend a giant city like Taipai, wheeled IFV's may also be preferable / offer superior mobility. 

gatnerd said:

I think locale is important in terms of mobility

Yes, certainly.

gatnerd said:

However other countries have much different climates.

True. But I can not and do not argue for those. I have no expertise on the conditions in Africa or most of Asia.

gatnerd said:

For a QRF to defend a giant city like Taipai, wheeled IFV's may also be preferable / offer superior mobility.

Urban terrain is tricky.
In principle it is very favorable for wheeled vehicles. But that changes quickly when there is combat damage, deliberate sabotage or barricading. In these cases wheeled vehicles can become completly unsuitable quickly.
So for a QRF wheeled might be good, to buy time until the heavy elements arrive.

Cost also play a role. Smaller nations might not be able to support a usefull fleet of tracked vehicles. For these wheeled might be a better choice sice any AFV is better than none.

schnuersi said:

       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.

Of course.  But that's a different matter.  The point is that an APC can have the same armor protection as an IFV, but weigh less and have better tactical mobility.

schnuersi said:

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.

True.  However, IFVs -- like APCs -- are designed for the specific purpose of carrying infantry.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: Mechanized infantry are not infantry?

No they are not Panzergrenadiers are classes as armored forces.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with German army organization.  In the US Army, mechanized infantry are infantry.

YouTube

M2 BRADLEY IFV's & Infantry Assault Operations in Europe

Soldiers from 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kansas, participated in platoon live...

stancrist said:

Of course. But that's a different matter. The point is that an APC can have the same armor protection as an IFV, but weigh less and have better tactical mobility.

I really don't see the relevance. You also can build an APC with MBT levels of armor and mobility. Its all about the design and the resources invested. The weight difference of the pluck the turret out of an IFV and turn it into a APC isn't that great BTW. For the APC version of the Lynx Rheinmetall doesn't give a different weight. The Marder APC version proposed in the late '70 has 23 t empty weight. While the original Marder IFV has 27 t combat weight. The 4 t difference is the possible payload. So there is not weight advantage at all.
Regardless such vehicles would still not be IFV and still not be able to perform the same function.

stancrist said:

are designed for the specific purpose of carrying infantry.

If this is the case why is more system weight and allmost more internal volume used for armament and ammo of the vehicle?

What is that strange ORBAT? It makes no sense. The dismounts are not porperly asigned to the vehicles. Organising the dismounts different to the vehicles is not exactly smart to say the least.
If you look at ORBATs of a German Panzergrenadier unit there is not two distinct organistation. The dismounts are not even mentioned as such. A platoon consists of three or four IFV (depending on structure 3 platoon or 4 platoon organisation). The IFVs are shown in the ORBAT. The dismounts are concidered integral part of the vehicle. Each IFV comes with six. The dismounts and the IFV are a squad. They even have the same call sign. With the distinction of "auf" or "ab".
 

stancrist said:

In the US Army, mechanized infantry are infantry.

That explains a lot.
I get the suspicion the US Army does not really understand the concept of mech Inf and the IFV.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said:  Second, the IFV is not optimized for fighting other vehicles.

Of course it is. The IFV is optimised to fight all other vehicles except tanks.

No exceptions allowed.  

schnuersi said:

[The IFV] can do that if equiped with ATGMs...

An IFV equipped with ATGMs has a limited defensive capability against tanks.  The same is true of an APC equipped with ATGMs.

schnuersi said:

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

Nope. That is a better armed APC.

I agree.  An IFV is a better armed (and armored) APC.  

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said:  IFVs are designed for the specific purpose of carrying infantry.

If this is the case why is more system weight and allmost more internal volume used for armament and ammo of the vehicle?

It's a necessary design trade-off that results from equipping infantry carriers with bigger, more powerful weapons than a .50 HMG.

schnuersi said:

What is that strange ORBAT? It makes no sense. The dismounts are not porperly asigned to the vehicles.

Actually, it makes perfect sense.  It's an imperfect way to carry 9-man squads in IFVs with troop compartments which hold 7 men max.

The worst part is that you & schnuersi are both correct: it’s how it’s done, but it’s improper.

It’s okay, the AMPV will fix this in the GP version by carrying… 4 dismounts, a vehicle commander and a driver?

Losing a turret and basket and TOW reload stowage REDUCES capacity by 1/3?

WTAF, over.

DavidPawley said:

The worst part is that you & schnuersi are both correct: it’s how it’s done, but it’s improper.

It’s okay, the AMPV will fix this in the GP version by carrying… 4 dismounts, a vehicle commander and a driver?

Losing a turret and basket and TOW reload stowage REDUCES capacity by 1/3?

Nah, it isn't that bad.  Seating capacity of the GP version is actually little different from a BFV. 

The GP version of AMPV has a vehicle commander and driver, and seating for six passengers.

Removal of the turret and the gunner's seat makes the commander's station more spacious.

Below:  Bradley interior sans turret.

Below:  What is reportedly an unspecified variant of the AMPV.  Note that it has seating for eight passengers.