IDEX 2019: PARS III 8x8 Wheeled Armoured Combat Vehicle (WACV)

Christopher F Foss talks about FNSS' PARS III 8x8 Wheeled Armoured Combat Vehicle (WACV) on display at IDEX 2019

[@jonny2954]

Not widely known , but the PARS series of vehicles is based on a line of vehicles developed by the company General Purpose Vehicles LLC in New Haven , Michigan, US. Back then that company offered 4x4, 6x6, 8x8 and even 10x10 versions of the vehicle. FNSS adopted the 6x6 and 8x8 versions, now my question, is there a chance they will adopt the 10x10 version too? Because that thing looks fucking awesome: www.army-guide.com/eng/product2669.html

[@tHeWasTeDYouTh]

nice, completely flew over my head

[@ronniewhite4392]

The 8x8's are like the Swiss army knife everyone wants.

[@nuruddin1991]

PARS II a.k.a in Malaysian version named DEFTECH AV8

[@brucevilla]

Thanks for Uploading.

[@MFKR696]

It wasn't long ago that the world was making fun of Canada for its Armored regiments fielding LAVs primarily. Now everyone wants their own LAV variant. On the modern, 360 degree battlefield, MBTs are all but obsolete, especially in MOUT. They're too slow, they drink too much fuel, and they are far too "high-profile" for most offensive operations. You may not be able to destroy an Abrams, but you sure as hell can pin it down or de-track it and keep it busy long enough for you to move your forces somewhere else. For modern-day LAVs with ablative/applique armor, it's much harder to score a "mobility kill" than it is on a tank. They're also much faster and harder to detect in the field if used properly. There's a reason why Canada's Mechanized Recce units are held in such high esteem. In the field, they are the ones who dictate the tempo, not the enemy, and our LAVs are part of what enable us to hit so far above our weight.

[@jonny2954]

Question of doctrine. You can't compare a light expeditionary force to a heavily mechanised one. While the heavy mechanised force will require much higher logistical effort it will also be able to strike exponentionally harder. Countries with large land area, but weak infrastructure and comparably small militaries, such as South Africa, Australia and Canada, are optimizing their forces on strategic deployment over long distances on roads. Countries with smaller land area and better (railroad-) infrastructure have different requirements. They have the ability to move even heavy mechanised forces quickly, eliminating their strategic mobility disadvantage. It remains the 1:1 comparison of combat performance, where the mechanised force has the upper hand of course.

[@Lou84mm]

@@jonny2954 - Don't disagree with you but both of you have forgotten the impact of Air fire power (Airforce) and it's ability to disrupt/ destroy infrastructure. Wars are not just fought by ground units. A major coal of any conflict is to gain Air superiority, but if this hypothetical scenario is based just on land warfare - I agree.

[@SeaJay_Oceans]

Totally Love it - remove all the weapon systems and make an RV civilian model - with or without the armor.. the amphibious RV: The Best RV for going Anywhere !

[@mamisaffak3524]

Turkish