Tracked vehicles are cheaper to build.
You can't say that.
Different vehicles in different roles REQUIRE different levels of mobility.
A tank for instance needs to be able to operate on any terrain so tracks offer the best compromise in mobility and cost. A transport vehicle that operates on good roads tracks would never be considered because wheels are cheaper than any track layer and offer all the mobility needed.
In maintainence alone a track is much harder to keep running than a wheeled vehicle, at to that the wear and tear on roads and increased fuel bill because it spends more time in lower gears than a wheeled vehicle and tracks are several times more expensive than wheels.
The whole point of the BTR series armoured vehicles was a troop transport that was still armoured and amphibious, but it had to be cheap so it was 8 wheeled.
They even made it high maintainence by putting in two engines that were each too underpowered to run the vehicle because it was cheaper than developing a new engine.
The BTR-80 had a more powerful engine available so they used that which simplified the design.
Did you notice there's nobody in the US making tires. All in China now. So if the US went into a lengthy multi-year war with China.....how would they have tires?
Most computer hardware is not made in the US either... even if it is designed by US companies it is made in Taiwan or China or Malaysia or South Korea. China isn't the only country in the world making tires.
A Half Track can easily handle many tons of weight for an armored car. Anything with tires on it can't handle weight of armor and ballistic glass, off road.
A Halftrack has tires.
Some of the heaviest vehicles in the world are actually wheeled.
US Up-Armor Humvee was originally designed for Columbian drug lords. The US Army saw it and liked it so much they wanted some for themselves. The problem is....they can only handle the weight on roads. The minute you try to offroad with it the frame twists into a pretzel. You buy many many many parts....even have to replace frames. So.....half track is cheaper.
Any vehicle designed as a car and then having tons of armour added without strengthening the structure properly will fail... unless the vehicle was over built in the first place.
The real answer is to redesign the vehicle from scratch to allow for enormous weight increases... than means stronger frame and structure and transmission and engine improvements to allow for much more weight.
The original concept of a half track was to develop a vehicle that was as simple to drive as a truck, but with the cross country mobility of a tank. The problem was that it also had the maintainence and running costs of a tank.
The point is that a fully tracked vehicle can have a steering wheel and automatic transmission and be as easy to drive as a truck but with much better mobility.
There is no reason to bother with half tracks now.
As I said, fully loaded with armor a halftrack could easily pass an Up-Armor on the highway....plus outperform off the road.
And cost 5-10 times more in maintainence and operating costs.
Italian armored car is pretty CNN queen. It can't tow anything a military would need. It can't haul anything a military would need. It's a tiny armored coffin..any explosion and your skull will hit the side glass and your head will crack open. You can't be wearing full gear/helmet and even get into the drivers seat of the Italian armored coffin.
These vehicles will not replace APCs... their purpose is not to perform missions of BTRs, their mission is better compared to BRDMs and even light unarmoured light vehicles like UAZ-469s. In many ways the Iveco is just an armoured SUV and that is what was required of it.
In this case however they haven't got the licence production rights to all the components... otherwise it is exactly what they wanted.
This vehicle is not for frontline military use, it is for police and paramilitary units to deploy and operate in. A recon unit might use it... remember the BDRM-2 was bulletproof and that was all but it was expected to operate all over the battlefield.
The new Kornet-M system is based on this sort of light armoured vehicle.
It is not safe from IEDs but then neither are tanks.
Engine Block heater, battery heater for a diesel.....doesn't need computerised tech. These plug in block heaters existed for decades before computerised cars. No diesel engine needs a computer. Without ships full of money the US wouldn't be able to use their over complicated computerised diesels. Hordes of contracted mechanics....
Well the Tigr has a computer to manage the engine and other systems on board the vehicle. Does it need them? Of course not. But it doesn't need a steering wheel either... they could go back to the old fashion levers.
It will work better with a steering wheel and the engine will operate better with fuel flows monitored and temperatures checked.
Go get the armored Italian coffin car and try to tow a Howitzer...offroad.
They were not going to use it to tow weapons... they have plenty of MTLBs that can tow guns of all kinds plus carry crews and a load of ammo inside too.
This Italian vehicle with all its foreign parts is selling well internationally and seems to be popular. It is not a tank nor is it an artillery tractor.
are my english skills betryeing me but what exactly s it now, they "refuse" to obey a goverment order and contract or they "can't" build it becouse of legal issues?
They are refusing to build it because they don't have the licence to build all the necessary components. They can build those components but will be subject to international legal action if they do. If the government makes them build them then they can blame the government and the government can sort it out.
The thing is that Kamaz has a lot of business in the west for its trucks and other vehicles and I rather doubt they want to risk that by making what is basically an Italian vehicle.