I've been harking on the fact that since WW2, the USMC has been behind the 8 ball when it comes to armored personnel carriers. A visual history will show you exactly what I mean.
Above you see pics of the M75 APC. It served with some distinction during the Korean War, however it was expensive to produce and maintain.
Next up was the M44. A co-produced vehicle, it bridged the gap between the M75 and the M59. Large does not describe it, it rivaled MBT's in size...consider it the original Israeli Namer.
The M59 was the official follow on to the M75. It sought to correct many of the deficiencies found but still was not a satisfactory design. It served in the early stages of the Vietnam war.
The M113. Many believe that this vehicle will serve for 100 years. It would probably still be in front line service except for the scare that the Soviet Union put on the Army by introducing the BMP. The BMP was supposedly the first IFV, but that concept is in my opinion flawed. The Soviets wanted a vehicle that could transport infantry in a nuclear battlefield and allow them to fight from inside the vehicle, not having to dismount. In actual practice supposed IFV always operate in the APC role. Dismounting infantry short of the objective and providing fire support while the grunts take the hill.
The Bradley. The USA's first IFV. Many point to the battle of 73 Eastings as proof of concept. I see it differently. In my reading of that battle Bradley's operated as Tank Killers using their TOW missiles to engage heavy armor from stand off distance and then using superior optics and fire control to take out supporting vehicles. The Bradley will continue but it will be modified and upgraded.
Stryker. The US Army didn't procure the Stryker because it was believed that the Bradley was inadequate, but because they wanted a strategically mobile APC. The concept is flawed and the double hulled stryker weighs as much as the Bradley.
Next up for the Army is the Ground Combat Vehicle and the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (a Bradley and M113 replacement respectively). The Marine Corps has struggled along with the LVTP. That WW2 vehicle served till the late 50's. Next up was the LVTP-5. It served throughout Vietnam to the early 70's. And finally the AAV (originally the LVTP-7 until "renamed" by the powers that be).
This history shows why I believe that at the very least a DRASTICALLY upgraded AAV or ACV is needed ALONG WITH the MPC.
Next up for the Army is the Ground Combat Vehicle and the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (a Bradley and M113 replacement respectively). The Marine Corps has struggled along with the LVTP. That WW2 vehicle served till the late 50's. Next up was the LVTP-5. It served throughout Vietnam to the early 70's. And finally the AAV (originally the LVTP-7 until "renamed" by the powers that be).
This history shows why I believe that at the very least a DRASTICALLY upgraded AAV or ACV is needed ALONG WITH the MPC.