First read Hasik's article but a tidbit...
There’s a big difference between cross-country mobility over packed sand, and cross-country mobility through mud. Wheeled vehicles just haven’t shown that performance, and given the ground pressure inherent in any wheeled configuration, I’m not sure how they will. But is it possible that the Marines have found something amazing? As Commandant Amos told the Congress in April, the candidate vehicles "are commercial off-the-shelf… they’re already being made by several different manufacturers.” Normally, I’d call COTS (MOTS, really) an excellent approach—automotive technology isn’t advancing as rapidly as that of, say, robotics. But that means that we know the usual suspects: the AMV-360 from Patria, the Boxer from ARTEC, the VBCI from Nexter, the LAV-V from General Dynamics Canada, and perhaps the 6x6 RG-35 from BAE Systems (soon to be Denel). I haven’t run the rodeo myself, but I wouldn’t claim that any of these vehicles could keep up with a tank over soft ground.Yeah.
We're back to the age old question. Wheels vs. Tracks. Which has greater mobility. Which has greater utility. And if you need rough, swampy, sandy mobility can you make due with less than is offered by many tracked vehicles (including threat tanks AND infantry fighting vehicles/APCs).
But wait it gets better. Check out this article from Marine Gazette.
When another look was taken at the MPC program, in addition to the benefits mentioned in the paragraph above, it was found that wheeled vehicles have substantially closed the maneuverability gap that previously existed between tracked and wheeled vehicles. The MPC Technology Demonstrator uses “in-line” drive technology that enables all four wheels on each side to pull together in much the same way that a tracked vehicle’s does. Combined with a higher ground clearance and the central tire inflation system currently in use in the medium tactical vehicle replacement (MTVR), the wheeled variants have equal or better maneuverability than the M1A1 and are much more maneuverable than the AAV. This has been amply demonstrated in testing.Mobility issues.
We've seen enough Strykers stuck in the mud to know better. We see the US Army picking tracks for its Armored Multi Purpose Vehicle (AMPV). We see our allies like Germany with the Puma, the UK going for Ascod and Poland developing Anders even though they're operating AMVs.
Quite honestly I still wonder about the "de-tuned" EFV that retained all the bits except for the high water speed...that included MRAP quality protection against IEDs.
This whole issue is a mess and current leadership might have tied future leaders hands because of budget games. Even if thats the case I do hope that General Dunford is honest about the reasons why we're in the mess we are, his solutions (if he has any) and lay out a realistic way forward.
