I didn't suggest it was an "improvement." The original US plans for the FCS family did feature more than one weight class, but now everybody seems focused on the 20-ton-range vehicles. The Leo 1 weighs in at somewhere between 40-45 tons, depending on the variant, kit, and crew "stuff" stored all over the tank. Another impressive medium that didn't get orders was the Bernardini (Brazil, back in the 1980s before they went under) MB-3 Tamoio (or Tamoyo), a "modification", but new-build based off the M41 tank components. Armed with a high-power 90mm or 105mm L7 series gun, it was ideal as a medium-weight MBT, weighing in at about 68,000 lbs (34 tons) in the Mk 3 model. This basically would equate to a medium MBT based off the running gear (6 road wheels per side) of the Bradley series, and this would allow for additional armor packages to be fitted if necessary. The Swedish 22 ton CV90 can fit and fire a 120mm gun, so this platform could also. Considering Bradley vehicles have faired fairly well in Iraq, it is safe assumption that this medium MBT would have at least equivalent protection as a BFV, but being a foot or so shorter in overall height, this could save weight which could be put back on in the form of ERA or applique passive armor plates. Also, even artillery up to 155mm can be incorporated into the same weight-class of hull (as we see in this German design, or we could opt for a more conventional layout.) And SP mortars could also be incorporated, as well as air defense and logistics variants (what the BFV is trying to accomplish now, anyway.) Point being, a 30-40 ton medium MBT can go places where the heavyweight 55-70 ton MBTs cannot. We need not equip the entire Army with jus light- and medium- vehicles, but this could allow greater tactical and strategic deployment capabilities (fits in nicely with the US "Units of Action" mixed elements: light, medium, and heavy assets.) It is interesting in that the Warrior, Marder, and several other European IFVs have been trialled with different turrets even up to 105mm, yet the US Bradley has never mounted anything heavier than the 35/50mm Bushmaster 3 gun. Ideally, the BFV turret could be a candidate for the 60mm gun (and perhaps a Javelin pod off the side instead of TOWs? Or maybe a series of swappable pods exchanging TOWs, Javelins, Stingers, or even APKWS, depending on mission requirement?) The Bradley CAN, and should, follow suit as with European and other nations' IFVs: heavier cannon to go with its additional armor. If we were to suddenly find ourselves facing someone with heavyweight IFVs (up-armored or tank-based), the Bradley crews may run out of their M919 sabot rounds at an alarming rate, in an effort to inflict the same damage that only a few 40mm, 50mm, or 60mm rounds can do. Even mounting something like a TS-90 turret would allow very credible support capabilities when encroaching into urban environments, although "street fighting" dictates guns that aren't extremely long to the point which would limit their traverse in narrow confines. What may have kept the Stingray light tank (Thailand bought 106) in better favor in the US would've been if it was built off the running gear of the BFV family. The M8 AGS (Buford by some) did/does incorporate some M113 and M2 components, but considering it's a UDLP project, that makes sense. In the end, having a full medium-weight class of vehicles actually could improve some capabilities of the US Army (and USMC?): A Bradley-based tank won't be a logistical or infrastructure (roads and bridges) strain like an M1 series tank. It can mount the same gun/ammo family, and can be deployed in larger numbers for the same amount of time, or maybe the same amount of numbers quicker. And a medium-weight MBT would be more survivable than the 20-ton class cannon-armed Strykers and FCS. At the onset of WW2, the US was equipped with with little more than light tanks and combat cars, which would have faired poorly when facing off against heavier Axis armor on "home turf." Fortunately, Sherman mediums were able to be produced in sufficient numbers to counter the threat. But today, production lines for modern complex MBTs cannot be tooled up that rapidly, and if we deploy only light FCS elements in a future conflict, we may find ourselves at the mercy of more enemy heavy armor and RPG teams than we'd like. A C-17 could, ideally, carry a pair of 30-32 ton medium MBTs as opposed to only 1 M1 series tank. And an A-400M, for those who will have them, could easily carry 1. A C-5 could carry 3, maybe even 4. And certainly, with slighty smaller dimensions (length, width) than an MBT, prepositioning ships could hold more, and USMC LCACs could carry 2 mediums ashore as opposed to one heavy MBT. Back when the M551 Sherdian was being developed, a family of light-to-medium vehicles was being developed also, but politics reared its ugly head and corrupted the project, and only the un

who used leo-1s in kosovo? The Bundeswehr used Leo-2 A6

The Danes!!

The Russians produce top-knotch fighting vehicles. Click on below link. Just scroll past the top part of below webpage. http://www.thatcherthunders.org/ttruscom2.htm

"Soviet Airborne forces are equipped with light armored vehicles that provide mobility and firepower well beyond that of Western Airborne units. There is no Western equivalent to this family of Soviet Airborne vehicles: BMD (9 tons), BMP (11.5 tons), PT-76 (14 tons), ASU–85 (14 tons) and the ZSU–23–4 (14 tons)." http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/airlandvehicle.htm

"There is no Western equivalent to this family of Soviet Airborne vehicles:" What of the UK's (Alvis) Scorpion/Scimitar CVR(T) series of vehicles (Combat Vehicle, Recce, Tracked)? All of them except the latest and heaviest variants of the stretched Stormer model (longer hull and additional road wheel position) are sling-loadable by CH-47 Chinook. They can withstand 7.62mm AP, and can be uparmored to withstand 20mm AP. Mosdt of them weigh between 8-11 tons. Weapons fits include a 76mm support gun (more of a low-angle howitzer, actually) in the Scorpion (which can be exchanged for a 90mm Belgian gun), a 30mm Rarden or Bushmaster gun (Scimitar, Sabre), Swingfire ATGMs (Striker), Starstreak HVM air defense, APC (Spartan), ambulance (Samaritan), command vehicle (Sultan), logistics/carrier vehicle (Streaker), and recovery vehicle (Samson). There are also a large variety of GIAT and Panhard armored cars from France (and license built elsewhere) that are relatively the same weights and afford the crews comparable protection as the Russian vehicles. Armament fits can be anything from MGs up to hard-hitting 90mm guns and the latest MANPADS and ATGMs. No offense, but... it seems like there ARE some western equivalents after all..

I have not read all this thread as my net is running slow, but has anyone mentioned the Jordanian Temsah? http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw010309_1_n.shtml It is a heavy IFV based on a rebuilt Centurian MBT hull. It looks damn daunting. http://images.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw010309_3_p.jpg

In my previous post, which doesnt seem to have worked, I mentioned the Jordanian Temsah ICV, which has to be the heaviest IFV going at the moment... any of you lot heard of it?

French army use AMX10RC for airbone: high mobility, 105 mm gun, modern firecontrol with thermal cameras, IFV protection plus active protection (equivalent of shtora plus galix). A interesting concept are French armored airborne raid: few C160 Transall land on a semiprepared field in the night 100 miles away from objectives inside the country with light vehicules, elites troops and AMX10RC to conduct a night raid and come back.

"No offense, but... it seems like there ARE some western equivalents after all." None taken, I agree. The article I cite most be old as it refers to the Russians as Soviets. My intent was to bring Russian point of view into this debate as I feel they invest heavily in "Airmechanization", more so than many nations.