You really need a team of specialized vehicles to fulfill specialized roles.

 

1.   An armored bulldozer.  You use this to punch through buildings to create a road paralleling the road you would otherwise use, which is where the mines will be.  This vehicle would be designed for survivability and only have a small (1 or 2 man) crew or possibly even be robotic.  Boat shape hull, possibly with the treads on out riggers (to give space for explosions to vent through), and LOTS OF ARMOR.  No active defensive armor systems or weapons, there will probably be to much junk falling on the hull for them to survive (if it cannot take a direct hit from a 200 lb masonry block dropping at least 10 feet without damage, it is probably not worth mounting).

 

2.   Armored gun 'trucks' to escort the bulldozer.  Based on an IFV or tank chassis with a crew of 7 (commander, driver, gunner + 4. aux gunner).  Turret with 30mm - 40mm autocannon and missile launcher for thermobarics.  4 CROWS Lite mounts with GPMG for auxiliary gunners (2 on each side with a 180 degree field of fire, plus the ability to fire over the roof of the vehicle down to an elevation of 30 degrees that will be tasked primarily with suppressing over head and flanking attacks.

 

3.   Supporting vehicles, anything and everything that can provide additional fires on target.  AAA guns are best because of their rate of fire.  Heavy mortars with smart rounds for long range demolition work of strong points.

 

4.   UAV's to monitor enemy actions.

 

5.   Infantry to hold the breach and the flanks.

 

 

Thanks for the input, I hadn't thought of the bulldozer blade before.

 

What I was thinking though would be heavy armor all around (including top and bottom) as well as multiple ball turret type mounts (for good elevation and depression) with either 20 mm's or .50 cal's, as well as cameras for all around visual capability. 

They said that great minds think alike.  Well, I don't know about all of that, but I have to say that when I read Bird's post the first vehicle that came to my mind was the ZSU-23-4.  In many ways it would be perfect for urban warfare.  I've read that the Syrians used it to great effect in Lebanon in the early 80's, although I'm not sure if the Russians used it in Chechnya.  In reality, since WWII anti-aircraft weapons like the "Zoo" have seen more use against ground targets, such as troops or fighting positions, than they have against enemy aircraft. 

 

Yimmy also mentioned the M113 mounted with a Vulcan anti-aircraft cannon, but I think a better alternative would be a M113 with a quad .50 mount, which is four .50 caliber machine guns mounted on a turret.  This will do a good job of taking out snipers and enemy bunkers without taking down entire buildings.  Another alternative would be to look at other AA vehicles like the Gepard.  It might be easier to fit them with lots of fancy doo dads and more armor than it would elderly systems like the ZSU or M113.

 

From what I read about Grozny the Russians leaned from the first time and on the second go around included ZSU 23-4 and 2S6 SP anti-aircraft systems with the armored teams they sent in to the city.  These vehicles main guns had more elevation and depression than the tanks so they could hit the enemy at upper stories and basement levels that the tanks and BMPs could not.

It would seem that if you are going to commit resources to such a specialized vehicle you are going to need to have such elevation/depression and a high rate of fire. I would also include the ability to fire smoke, to put smoke on the target not just screen itself and fire a thermobaric round so you may need more than one gun.   Maybe a remote telescoping turret that can be raise to give it better depression and elevation mounting both a 30mm and 105mm.

 Heavy armor would of course be a must but not necessarily reactive armor because of the hazards is presents to friendly dismounted infantry who may be accompanying the vehicle.

 I think I would use the Merkava chassis as a starting point

Dunno, flamethrower tank cross bred with a bulldozer maybe?

Thermobaric warheads have replaced flamethrowers. 

 

I'm not sure that thermobarics are really more effective, but they are MUCH safer from a user standpoint.

Smitty is right, while a flamethrower would be a fantastic weapon for urban warfare, it's agressive and horrific effects would not go down well with any local residence.

Smitty is right, while a flamethrower would be a fantastic weapon for urban warfare, it's agressive and horrific effects would not go down well with any local residence.

So would I I think the Merkava is a good starting type chassis even older models like the 1 or 2. Instead of the standard turret use an up armored BMP-3 turret with an improved fire control system . Design a canister and a thermobaric round for the 100mm cannon and Air-burst rounds for the 30mm. I would put a Samson-jr  RCWS in the turret and two mini-Samson RCWS with Spike Launcher mounts on the rear of the tank on ether side. you need something that can with stand multiple rpg hits ans a Merkava can do that and keep its crew safe. it has the room in the back to hold the 2 or 3 extra crew for the RCWS's . though Merkava do tend to be slow, but I'll that the reduction in speed for crew protection.

Of course, in answer to the original question - there is always the neutron bomb.