I've read vague articles on it: it's roughly in the same class as the Israeli Achzarit and Russian BTR-T, tank chassis converted into infantry carriers and armed (in the case of the BTR-T, which is sometimes referred to as BMP-4, with a medium-caliber automatic cannon (30mm) and ATGMs.) The Achzarit is rather poorly armed, with only MGs or light cannon..

Indeed, it seems the Russian doctrine of old was a lot of air-mobile capable AFVs. Fortunately for them, it was not the US who designed the RPG-7 series and sold it by the millions to any countries under the threat of the communist regime. With large numbers of the An-12 "Cub" (Russian C-130 equivalent), the big Mi-6 "Hook" and Mi-26 "Halo" helicopters, and very capable retro-rocket equipped heavy parachute systems, the Russian forces certainly had more of a rapid deployment "edge" than the US in general. The US had, by comparison, M113 variants, M151 4x4 vehicles, and the Sheridan AFV. Several opportunities were in the works to afford the US with very credible air-mobile capable vehicles, but political favoritism, and lack of "adequate vision", left most US Army thinkers and planners aiming to build and prepare for onslaughts of Soviet heavy armored rushes across Europe. Even though the 1970s and 1980s mentalities and thoughts have now given us the Bradleys, the Stingray and M8 light tanks, and even the Stryker platform, we certainly could have done better back in those days. At least, we could have come up with something similar to the Alvis CVR(T) series, which would have served the US Airborne Divisions far, far better than the Sheridans (although an effectively-capable missile, in terms of warhead power, the 152mm Shillelagh did nothing that could not be achieved by the TOW.) .

"At least, we could have come up with something similar to the Alvis CVR(T) series, which would have served the US Airborne Divisions far, far better than the Sheridans (although an effectively-capable missile, in terms of warhead power, the 152mm Shillelagh did nothing that could not be achieved by the TOW.)" Not sure if the M8 would have been a practical answer? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-ags.htm --------------------- http://www.stratmag.com/issueApr-15/page07.htm

The Merkava series!

The merkava is a MBT not an IFV

The manner in which the Israelis use it, and its ability to take 8 infantry makes it every bit the infantry Fighting Vehicle if you ask me.

The Merkava rarely carries a total of 8 fighting men. You have to dump most of the ammo to carry any at all. The rear door came about as more of a alternate exit and entry requirement then infantry carrying requirement.

Sure the Merkava has it's weak points, but is it the way forward? Extending the hull to increase capacity is a cheap alternative to the flimsy boxes the infantry has to drive in up to now. And what about cavalry/infantry cooperation!

MBT+IFV=infantry cavalry cooperation Abrams+Bradley, Leo+CV90, Challenger+Warrior The Merkava is not designed as a IFV, but to be much more of an MBT

Why are these threats always called ''best ...'' there isn't any BEST IFV or any BEST tank!