Yuku free message boards

Because the way the IDF fights is not the way the Cold War hordes were planning to go about it in central Europe where every vehicle it seems had to be able to kill a tank, and maybe carry a few infantry when it had the time.

NATO IFVs were never intended to be tank killers. The rationale behind the Soviet BMP was to allow the infantry to fight from within an armoured vehicle on a nulcear battlefield; the 73mm low-pressure gun was simply for suppreesive fire, indeed its wild inaccuracy at anything other than point-blank ranges precluded little else.

NATO's first response to the BMP was the Thyssen-Henschel Marder MICV. Its 20mm cannon and remote-controlled 7.62mm MG3 were again for suppressive fire, the 20mm calibre cannon allowing for longer-ranged fire than a rifle-calibre gun while the rear-mounted MG3 provided a modicum of cover for disembarking troops. The later-generation Bradly and Warrior are design in a similar vein with both vehicles turreted weapons being primarily for fire-suppression/fire support; they are definately NOT intended for anti-armour use although they do have a secondary anti-IFV capability.

The addition of the twin-tow launcher on the Bradley is as much a hold-over from the USA's original requirement for two systems, the MIVC (ex-XM723) and the ARSV. The ARSV was combined with the XM723 to produce what eventually became the M2 Bradley IFV and M3 Devers CFV. The CFV role demanded a heavy anti-tank capability; rather than design and produce two distinct turrets it was decided to fit the TOW-turret to both types. Eventually the name Devers was dropped for the M3 and the whole system redesignated Bradley Fighting Vehecle System.

As a point of interest the British Army never had a requirment for a heavy ant-tank capable MICV, believing that the destruction of enemy tanks is best left in the hands of specially trained troops and if placed in the hands of "recce" or "sloggies" would be counter-productive. Hence all British Army ground-based heavy anti-tank systems are owned by the Royal Artillery or Armoured Corps.

As to the original question as to why the IDF never embraced the IFV concept I strongly suspect that by the time the concept had matured enough to be considered, the IFVs main opponent, Egypt, was at peace with Israel and it was considered that the terrain on the other fronts negated the value of a dedicated IFV. In other words if the "Zelda" wasn't going to survive in the Golan then neither would a "Bradley". It is interesting to note that no traditional armoured operations have ever met with success on Israels northern front. Syria's vigorous armoured assault on the Golan Heights in 1973 was defeated by Israels equally vigorous armoured defence, Operation Litani in 1978 was a raid-in-force, and the various subsequent wars against Syria in the Lebanon have been in conditions where the M113 Zelda and tank-based APCs have been more than adequate. To a country with a small industrial and manpower base the cost involved in designing, building and manning a dedicated IFV is simply not viable.

IMHO as always

Andy