With LAVs having equaled or outdone the weight of IFVs what then

You cant rapidly deploy them if they need a C-17 to get around
They're gonna have a hard time off road with all that weight spread out only on tires
So what do?

>>27584586
>what then is their point
Looks cool
Lots of wheels
Much kill
Amphibious

>>27584611
The VBCI is a full meter wider than a C-130, you'll need an Airbus A400 to move it at minimum.
The Boxer at 2.99m would be very tight fit

>>27584625
>looks cool
this isn't a Joss Whedon movie
>lots of wheels
to get bogged down in!
>Much kill
But of who though?
>Amphibious
Are they building these newer LAVs with that role in mind? Can they be amphibious with all that extra weight?

File: Mowag_Piranha_V_Danish.jpg (873KB, 1920x1416px) Image search: [Google]

873KB, 1920x1416px

>30 tonnes
good god

>LAV is a category of vehicle

>>27584682

That looks nothing like a piranha! This guy is a phoney!

>>27584586
>With LAVs having equaled or outdone the weight of IFVs what then is their point now?

Still lighter than tracked platform with similar armor, better strategic mobility, lower maintenance requirements and logistics footprint.

Pretty selective weights for those vehicles. Some are at lower end of configurations while some are at high end when it comes to weight.

>>27584586
I don't know about the other LAVs but the Terrex is primarily for transporting infantry.

>>27584586
Boxer APC in combat order is much heavier than that, around 35t. 25t much be nearer to its empty weigh, and then again i'd say it must be a couple tons above.
VBCI in combat order is around to 29 tons for the heaviest current IFV version.