Bradley Offspring, GCV, May Top 84 Tons, Heavier Than M1 Tank

[unhappycamper]

http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/08/bradley-offspring-gcv-may-top-84-tons-hheavier-than-m1-tank/




Bradley Offspring, GCV, May Top 84 Tons, Heavier Than M1 Tank
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
Published: November 8, 2012

What may weigh more than an M1 Abrams tank and carry 12 soldiers? The Army's Ground Combat Vehicle. New weight estimates for GCV, released this week by the Congressional Budget Office, will likely go over like a lead ballon with the program's critics in Congress and in the Army itself.

Depending on the model and add-on armor package, an M1 weighs 60 to 75.5 tons. According to a CBO report released this week, the General Dynamics design for the GCV weighs 64 to 70 tons. BAE's proposal is still heavier, at 70 to 84.

There's a tactical reason for all this weight: It's armor. The Ground Combat Vehicle is supposed to replace the Army's current frontline infantry carrier, the M2 Bradley, carrying more foot troops in back -- nine instead of six -- and protecting them better against everything from rocket-propelled grenades to roadside bombs. Even the most heavily uparmored models of the M2, at almost 40 tons, proved too vulnerable for the worst streets in Baghdad during the "surge," so commanders often sent 70-plus-ton M1s to clear the way. Even some of those M1s blew up, in part because the insurgents could build huge improvised explosive devices, in part because the M1's armor is mostly on the front to protect against enemy tanks, not on the underside.

So there is some logic to making any future troop carrier at least as heavy and well-protected as the M1 tank -- especially since it would have more American lives inside. It's just not the direction the Army was trying to go with GCV.

[DetlefK]

1. It's a hybrid!

Seriously, taking that heavy beast out there for patrols, day by day by day, would use up massive amounts of gas.

[PavePusher]

2. Oh shit.... Haven't we done this before?

The biggest problem is simply trying to used large armored vehicles in an urban area. It's been proven time and again that this is simply a good way to convert those vehicles to scrap metal and kill the crew/passengers. It's a matter of tactical doctrine real-politic, nothing else.