My reply to @nicholadrummond on Central Tyre Infaltion Systems (CTIS) in the tracks v wheels debate in my tyres thread (bit.ly/2IYqkHE) got a bit out of hand size-wise and became a thread of its own for ease of posting! First and foremost, I dont doubt value of CTIS! 
2/ The data shows CTIS can increase drawbar pull forces in 8x8s by 43-132%, and towed motion resistances decrease by 11-18%. Speed also increases 20-36%. CTIS works. Whilst contact area has less benefit to tractive performance in harder surfaces, in soft terrain its critical.
3/ The problem remains that even with these increases, 8x8s are significanty compromised in mobility across soft terrain, limiting your manoeuvre, as well as the oft-used 'near-peer to tracks' claim continuing to fail to meet the reality of physics.
4/ This chart shows how an 8x8 at varying tyre pressures performs on differing soils compared to a tracked equivalent. The y-axis gives % of the drawbar pull of a tracked equivalent - it never gets beyond 86%, and thats in the most advantageous comparative conditions.
5/ More significant and irresepctive of tracks v wheels is that in high moisture content (HMC) clay, the wheeled vehicle passes below 0, meaning it is immobilised. Even in MMC (medium clay) you are very close to 0 at higher pressures.
6/ Eastern Europe is a relatively firm environment compared to other areas, but also has high silt levels reflecting high instances of rivers, lakes, swamps and similar soft and mobility hampering terrain. (ESDAC data)
7/ Further, the peak shearing pressures of wheels are far greater than tracks - every vehicle that passes does much more damage to the ground and makes going harder for followers. Push a company of 8x8 through a damp field and its rapidly a nightmare, then impassable.
9/ So in any terrain tracks will have better tractive performance, but particularly wet and soft. That gap means it can go places the 8x8 cant, can be loaded more heavily, be smaller in size or otherwise have capability gap leveraged without becoming comparatively less mobile.
10/ Looking at bigger picture, opponents can model your terrain accessability and more easily outmaneuvre you or plan their own fires and maneuvre for your movements than if you were more mobile. Systems like NATO Reference Mobility Model (NRMM) can output handy charts readily.
11/ So choosing 8x8 over tracks (from purely tactical perspective) means you choose at least 1 of: reduced & more predictable avenues of manoeuvre, reduced payloads/equipment fits and higher instances of bogging/mobility issues.
12/ Thats the nature of the 8x8 tradeoff, you choose to sacrifice teh above to gain more strategic wins around speed and ease of strategic and operational deployment, crew comfort, ease of support and all that. But at the tactical level the 8x8s mobility is always inferior.
13/ Does CTIS have a big impact? Absolutely, every wheeled AFV should have it. Does it remove the obstacles of 8x8 mobility? No. Does it make a contemporary 8x8 near-peer to a tracked equivalent? Also no. /fin
