here are a few reasons motorized infantry are superior.
Motorized infantry are in the cover of an armored vehicle untildeployed to fight drastically limiting their exposure.
Vehicles transporting infantry can be outfitted with heavy machine guns and anti-tank missiles.
Mounted guns can be significantly larger than what a person couldcarry.
Smaller machine guns can be used that could be carried by a person,but by mounting them accuracy can be improved and the shooter can bebetter shielded.
Vehicles can have more powerful sensor arrays that can provide more and better information than previously possible.
Technology is advancing to the point where this is starting to be less relevant.
history.stackexchange.com/users/1573/Ryathal
Interesting question.
Believe me
I'm no military expert but the strategic value of motorized infantry
is two fold: (1) Speed.
As you mentioned before, this is probably the greatest advantage.
(2)
Towing capacity.
Obviously trucks, motorbikes and the like optimized for military usage have a much greater towing capacity.
They are able to deploy heavier equipment, weapons or provisions into the field allowing infantry to spend more man hours on the ground.
Otherwise foot soldiers would rely primarily on...well foot.
Marches.
Some trucks may have pintle mounted weapons like light machine guns or grenade launchers.
The problem is that many motorized trucks that are not cavalry (i.e. tanks, APCs, IFVs) are not armored enough to provide a real tactical advantage in terms of infantry engagements.
But the greatest power lies in rapidly deploying forces to areas of need allowing quicker and more precise responses to enemy advances.
In other words speed and carrying power are probably the biggest advantages.
Take a look at these: M3
Halftrack German Armored Recon.
Vehicles Soviet armored car
history.stackexchange.com/users/724/franklin
I would add few other notices over great advatange of speed: morale effect: derives from mobility, simply the soldiers in a motorizedinfantry feel less trapped in situations since if there is astrategic retreat, their mobility is higher, so they have higherchance not to get chased by enemy.
fatigure advatange: this is not closely related to speed, but worths to mention they don't have to walk tens of miles/kilometers
, they won't be that tired after a movement order.
They can carry more and heavier supplies.
And some drawbacks:
They are dependent on fuel.
Obvious.
They are more dependent on weather.
Just remember muddy ugly war terrain where the motorized infantry have to struggle with stucked armoured cars.
They are more dependent on good supply of spare parts of cars, and repair support.
Those cars won't work forever without maintainance.
They are more costy.
Obvious.
You can release several dozens of people with a simple gun and some clothes and supply items on the cost of one car without crew.
Did I miss something?
history.stackexchange.com/users/1895/CsBalazsHungary
I want to add one more note.
In Soviet Army (and Russian Ground Forces) commander of the AFV (BMP-1, BMP-2, etc.)
commands infantry platoon attached to this vehicle too.
Obviously, cooperation between infantry and AFV would be better.
history.stackexchange.com/users/1632/spyder
I rode an armored personnel carrier in combat in Vietnam and Cambodia.
From my personal experience I would agree with what others have said, only emphasizing the advantage of much greater supplies of food, water, and particularly ammunition.
I am a lifetime member of the "plenty more where that came from" school of thought.
Another plus not mentioned was that when you stood atop a personnel carrier, your head was twice as far off the ground, making it easier to relate the ground around you to the images in the military photo map in your hand.
These days, GPS does a better job assisting the ground pounder with the art of land navigation.
history.stackexchange.com/users/2064/user2064
My time to add something.
Don't forget about the logistic.
For example, motorized infantry has definitely bigger chances to provide good medical service to wounded soldiers, or take them out of the battlefield even during the fights.
history.stackexchange.com/users/1857/Darek Wędrychowski
My understanding is that motorized infantry have greater combat value than "standard" infantry (foot soldiers armed with rifles, or perhaps machine guns), over and above their greater mobility.  Do the vehicles give motorized infantry better protection? Do the vehicles carry firepower over and above what their soldiers are carrying? Or do the soldiers carry heavier weapons because they are being transported?
What advantages have motorized infantry enjoyed over standard infantry besides speed?
history.stackexchange.com
<military>
history.stackexchange.com/questions/7891
history.stackexchange.com/users/120/Tom Au
Mounting guns means more weaponry can be carried and improves accuracy. Forces can also be deployed rapidly giving a quicker a more precise response. It is generally considered that the main advantage of motorised infantry is the ability to carry heavier equipment and weaponry. However, other advantages include the ability to use more precise technology and deliver medical support to personel. Additionally, motorised infantry are likely to be less exposed, which will influence their morale.
It is generally considered that the main advantage of motorised infantry is the ability to carry heavier equipment and weaponry. Vehicles are generally more high-tech and are able to be more precise in their movements and attacks. Motorised infantry are much more able to provide medical support to the wounded in the field. Motorised infantry will have a different psychological experience as they will feel less exposed in combat.