Was not suggesting a BRDM over any modern 8x8 , its just that it seems ever heavier 8x8 have no free lunch in regards to mobility

As for APC , IFV  you can see ever smaller miltaries turning ever more wheeled APCs into wheeled IFV roles. the role of APC in practice now seems to be handed down to armored trucks like french Griffon.

Both look like IFVs , i imagine if vehicle packs a turret with anything more than .50bmg its trying to be an IFV doesn't matter itf its actually a turret or just a heavy OWS  ,French VBCI is more of an IFV than APC.

Boxer on the left, what is on the right?

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

As far as i can tell wheels vs tracks were decisions were mostly about costs if not outright acquisition cost then ,lifespan costs

I think logistics and maintanence may be a factor.

In recent discussions of sending Ukraine M270 MLRS or HIMARS, it came up that the wheeled HIMARS has about 1/2-1/10th the maintence needs of the tracked M270. Not sure if thats anecdotal or factual but it stuck out to me. 

For an expeditionary force, having something thats more durable / resistant to breaking down could be as important as offroad capability. 

...

Somewhat related, how capable are these 8 wheeled vehicles if a few of the wheels (say 2 on one side) have been destroyed? Can they still keep rolling?

That could be an advantage compared to a track, which seems like if it becomes damaged disables the entire track until its repaired or replace.

schnuersi said...

So far no major nation has adopted wheeled IFVs.

Zut alors!

graylion said:

Boxer on the left, what is on the right?

An ASLAV the vehicle that is replaced by the Boxer CRV.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

As for APC , IFV you can see ever smaller miltaries turning ever more wheeled APCs into wheeled IFV roles.

A wheeled vehicle can not fill the IFV role. Unless maybe the nation uses wheeled tanks.

The requirement to cooperate with tanks means the same tactical mobility is required. Unless the circumstances are very favorable this is simply not the case for a wheeled vehicles. This automatically puts all wheeled AFVs that carry dismounts regardless of armament into the APC category.
Some nations do press wheeled APCs in the IFV role, yes. This indeed usually is done for budget reasons. It doesn't change the fact that such a vehicle can not fullfill this role.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Both look like IFVs ,

And an SPG looks like a tank... it doesn't matter what it looks like. Its about what it can do.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

French VBCI is more of an IFV than APC.

No its not. It is wheeled with a high emphasis on operational and strategical mobility. It can not follow Leclercs cross country. Only STANAG K4 protected. Its unsuitable for duelling situations in a combined arms context. It does carry a lot of dismounts though. Its an APC with some combat capability.
Its in the same class as the Boxer and the Boxer is so not an IFV.

Basically most of the 8x8 we have seen in the last decades are a result of the conditions and circumstances of the last decades. Most important shrinking budgets. Second LIC and COIN. Wheeled vehicles have an advantage if its about IED and mine protection. Cross country mobility was not that important as it used to be befor and is now again. Armor protection against medium caliber automatic guns and serious modern AT was of little concern etc. In this context a wheeled AFV makes sense. After all police forces also use wheeled vehicles. The missions conducted where in a lot of cases much closer to police work than to typical military missions. As a result a lot of equipment changed and made militaries more police like. It is now obvious that this has been a dead end... and it has been highly controversial anyways. Only now there is equipment with a lifespan of decades that is optimised for yesterdays war.

RovingPedant said:

Zut alors!

If you want to suggest the VBCI is an IFV? Its not! Its a APC. Actually its the very definition of APC.
I pointed out why in more detail in a post above.
 

schnuersi said...

If you want to suggest the VBCI is an IFV?

It was either that or suggest that France is not a major country.

schnuersi said...

ts not! Its a APC. Actually its the very definition of APC.

I'm of the opinion that an IFV is a subset of APC. If an APC has significant combat capability it's an IFV. It might not be as good an IFV as others, but I don't see the point in classing the VBCI as not-an-IFV on the basis of a little difference in certain cross country mobility.

RovingPedant said:

but I don't see the point in classing the VBCI as not-an-IFV on the basis of a little difference in certain cross country mobility.

The point is the difference is not little but massive.
The mission of an IFV is to work in close cooperation with tanks. Tank and IFV supplement each other. If the IFV can not move as the tanks can it can not fullfill its primary function. It also compromises the capabilities of the tanks to fullfill their function and mission. This is the whole reason for the existence of the IFV. To have the same tactical mobility not only technical mobility, as provided by the drivetrain, is needed but also proper protection.
Actually the weapon and the number of dismounts a IFV carries is less important than its tactical mobility.
Yes the VBCI carries 9 dismounts and has a decent weapon with the 25 mm and will have a great one once its upgraded to 40 mm but this doesn't matter at all if the tanks are kilometers ahead when the dismounts are needed or AC fire for supression is needed.
A Marder, even though its more than 40 years old, is superiour to the VBCI in this regard. It has the tactical mobility to follow the Leopards anywhere. Its better to have only six dismounts and a 20 mm AC that is immediatley available than more men and better weapons that are god knows where.
There are good reasons why the Soviet and now Russian army uses wheeled APCs and tracked IFV in different units for different pruposes.

Its not a case of IFV good and APC bad. Both are different. The function is different. Of course an APC can be used in the IFV role... just like someone can be beaten with a rifle stock... but its not the main purpose and its poor in this function.

RovingPedant said:

I'm of the opinion that an IFV is a subset of APC.

A common mistake. The IFV is a subset of the tank.

schnuersi said...

A common mistake. The IFV is a subset of the tank.

Since the APC is also a subset of the tank, that seems correct.

As far as I am aware the IFV is an APC with offensive firepower. The ability to keep up with the gun tanks across all terrains in all conditions at all times is a nice to have but not mandatory. 

On a related note, how would you define the British Warrior?