Likewise a knocked out APC will also lose you infantry.
I guess my question is; do you use APCs at all in an assault alongside MBT and IFVs? If so, they are just as vulnerable as an IFV but are unarmed so you take less firepower into the battle.
Again, though, an APC that's concentrating on "pick a route to the objective that isn't skylining me or exposing me to more enemy fire than I can avoid" will be less exposed, and hit less often, than an IFV working on "find a good firing position to get some rounds down".
Because the converse of that firepower, is that in the direct-fire battle, if you can see and shoot at me... you're exposed to return fire.
Or be proper old-school and go back to Saxon?Or do they not take part in the assault? And if that's the case what's the marginal benefit of using Boxer to transport infantry vs something like Mastiff?
Or, should the Challenger successor seat a section of infantry in the back for a one-vehicle-fits-all battlefield solution?
A lot of this is assumed, or asserted, or declared: it's scarily hard to find any evidence (from combat, from realistic exercises, from proper wargaming) and what there is, often doesn't flatter the IFV (it does well if the enemy's not very good... quelle surprise)