Well said. And where is my beloved Merkava 4? It can carry 8 (eight) not 6 soldiers and is lot better armed and armored than any other IFV. Oh sorry, it's a tank. So what, can it bring infantry to the battlezone yes or no? Oh sorry it's UP to 8 soldiers. Well ok make it 6 or 5 and the total package still beats any known IFV. Be a bit more creative!

The majority of current-crop IFVs do have stab systems available for the main weapon (although a good portion of earlier -BMP-2 and further back- Russian/WP style vehicles consider it an option, not initial equipment.) The only modern Western IFV really lacking a stab system for its gun is the British Warrior with its 30mm Rarden. Although an adequately performing weapon, the lack of stabilization can hinder overall performance capabilities (pisspoor fire-on-the-move.) However, this will be alleviated when the hard-hitting CTAI 40mm gun turret is fitted (I mentioned its performance a few posts back.) .

Lennard, the Merkava IV is a tanker's tank, that ALSO has the ability to carry some infantry in a hurry, such as in a rescue situation. Riding once in a buttoned-up M113 "Zelda" with no sensory connection to the outside world except for the stupid earphones, made me so motion-sick after such a short time that the alternative offered to me for sitting in a Merk's belly should be that the tank sits on me. The present conflict in the Palestinian hyperdense urban areas has caused the IDF to retrofit a few Merks with a fifth crewman station, a sniper firing from a firing port located in the rear hatch, for situations such as narrow alleys where the tank's turret cannot traverse. At least, this guy has his gunsight to try and coordinate his inner ear with perceived motion, and his infantry helmet to puke in. Furthermore, a Merkava tank in MOUT, cannot elevate anything heavier than it's commander's hatch GPMG for more than 20 DoA. Hardly an IFV, although it can do a great job in anything from fire support, with the new submunition airburst shells, to long-range, uh, sniping, as was seen last week in the northern Gaza strip. Needless to say, the collateral results of the 120 mm smoothbore firing surplus HEAT-MP in the counter-sniper role were nothing short of disastrous, but heck, they'd been asking for it! In most warfare situations Israel may be confronted with, nothing much needs to be airlifted, and nothing much needs to be able to swim either. Israel has plenty of tanks and tank crews available, and the infantry only needs to be protected from the enemy's abundant ATGM's and artillery. The tanks will provide all the necessary firepower, and any of these BMP2/3 deathtraps that pop up will be dead long before they can even identify a tank to shoot their "kornets" or "bastions" at. APC's that can provide reasonable protection against both ATGM's and CW agents are, apparently, all we need to provide the infantry with tactical mobility. There's nothing that can be accomplished with these 20/23/25/27/30/35 mm plinkers that can't be done better, cheaper, at a longer range and with more accuracy, with, say, a 105 mm. M68 gun. Modern ATGM's can be carried by small, quiet and nimble platforms, the more so if these are NLOS, standoff missiles such as Netfires, EFOGM, Nimrod or ER-Spike. Question is, if you are the small, cash-starved ground component of a small country's army with a purely defensive posture and no force-projection or peacekeeping ambitions, what would these expensive IFV's really be for? It is understandable that the Europeans, mainly the Germans and the French, wanted something to offset the huge Soviet numerical superiority in tanks without building more tanks that could not swim across rivers anyway, so they went on and developed vehicles that could carry troops, swim, and that had a punch similar to, or better than, the opponent's 14.5 mm HMG's. It was only natural for them to develop and field the 1970's version of their XIVth century "couleuvrines", that is, the automatic 20 mm cannons with their expensive ammunition. The IDF has lots of real tanks with real guns on them, that can kill anything that's shooting at us except perhaps jet fighters and warships. Does the infantry really need anything more than the Akhzarit and up-armored, upgraded M-113 APC's if they can always count on some tanks to be there for them?

boris the romanian wrote:"The BMP-2 has some useful advantages over the Bradley. The 2A42/72 is more powerful than the 25mm, it is about even with the Warrior's gun." Hmm, from everything I've read, the 25mm APFSDS-DU round is significantly better than anything available for the 2A42/72.

Shirrush wrote: "It was only natural for them to develop and field the 1970's version of their XIVth century "couleuvrines", that is, the automatic 20 mm cannons with their expensive ammunition." 20mm ammunition, expensive? Maybe compared to 7.62mm, but not near as expensive as a decent 105mm round. From https://aftoc.hill.af.mil/AFI65503/Logistics_Factors/11-1.html 7.62MM BALL LINKED - $0.55 20MM PGU-28/B HEI - $27.80 105MM HE - $168.31

Thanks Smitty. That's also why a 20 mm subcaliber is used for gunner training. Then you may tell me how large a burst of these "low-cost" 20 mm PGU-28/B HEI is needed to get the effect of one 105 mm shell?

My question is: why developping expensive tin boxes like the bradley if all we need is a merk 1-4 with some room to spare? It IS a tank, but also a quantum leap forward to everything ever thought up in the ifv world. The merkava in my view is a way of conceptual and creative thinking more armies should follow. The basic idea is how to get infantry to the battlezone unharmed. You don't use bmp's and bradleys for it just because everybody says it should. This is narrow minded. So, the merkava as an ifv may not be ideal, but the idea behind it is.

"My question is: why developping expensive tin boxes like the bradley if all we need is a merk 1-4 with some room to spare?" Well, getting the spare room and keeping the armor / protective levels at what they currently are, I would imagine greatly increase the overall weight and size of the vehichle. You would have to protect a much greater volume. So I would say the size, weight and cost are primary factors. Second, I don't think I would lump the Bradley and BMP into the same class. The Bradley has performed well and has been proven to protect the crews. If it is not broken, why go to another system?

We come back to the cost efficiency issue.With the money of a modern IFV, Israelis update an old tank to a modern standard (ex: Magash7) so for the same money they have two time more tank. What it is more efficient for the same cost? The Swedish: (2 top IFV for a tank)*0,7 The US: 1 top IFV for a tank The Israelis: 3 old M113 or halftrack and 2 tank (one updated)?

Shirrush wrote:"Then you may tell me how large a burst of these "low-cost" 20 mm PGU-28/B HEI is needed to get the effect of one 105 mm shell?" They are not directly comparable. However, on the flip side, why waste 105mms on trucks, infantry or light armor? A single Bradley carries nine HUNDRED 25mm rounds. How many 105mm rounds does your average tank carry? 50?