Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
If it is joint, there is probably less probability of calls for upgraded Bradleys and AAVs. Don't know anything about European, BMP-3, or even Bradley designs other than cursory research...except they all are much, much lighter than 53 tons.

The German Puma and the 90's Marder 2 prototypes went beyond 40 (metric!) tons already. Eastern Europeans developed some MBT/APC crossbreeds and the Near East seems to like the heavier HAPC (APC on MBT chassis, no turret) idea.

The weight by itself isn't the problem in my opinion; the concept as a whole made no sense.



IFV development is a bit on autopilot; armies forget to think about the basic idea of an IFV. The original, WW2-derived idea of an IFV is long since obsolete, as is the Russian idea of a ICV that rides through nuke-devastated terrain.

We're left with moderately armed vehicles with a mixed vehicle combat and infantry transport role that close in with MBTs (100% fighting machines) in regard to sensors and other gadgetry.
In the end, both Western and Eastern heavy brigades and divisions have only IFVs as infantry transports. These infantry transport vehicles have few seats, so our divisions and brigades lack the infantry for more than providing security to MBTs.

We can improve the firepower element of the IFV (=rapid fire + ATGMs) very much and improve the dismount strength very much by separating them into a combat vehicle like BMP-T and a HAPC. Add some classic APCs for additional infantry and you might end up with a much better heavy formation both in versatile firepower and infantry strength.

The IFV compromise has become way too elaborate and is no good choice any more. The GCV all-eggs-in-one-gold-plated-basket approach was in(s)ane.