Too big; too heavy

Blacktail just reminded me about this post in relation to the U.S. Army problem with having a AFV roadmap....

Not mentioned in the above article is that the GCV design was looking at......... 84 tons...... (Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.,"Bradley Offspring, GCV, May Top 84 Tons, Heavier Than M1 Tank", Breaking Defense, November 08, 2012)

Also mentioned by Blacktail:

- BAe is trying to use the GCV's hybrid engine technology as a floatation device to keep the project as a whole from being killed-off. There's nothing new worth developing for it, because the MTVL (the would-be M113A4) had a variant that already achieved that objective decades ago. Here's a video of it from the mid-1990s;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbWbkOkTydk

- Invariably, almost all of the images used in stories on the GCV show it front-on, or from a forward 3/4 perspective. Very few show a side, view, which highlights the vehicle's utterly ridiculous rear sponson overhang;
http://images.gizmag.com/hero/bae-gcv-hybrid-0.jpg (see image at top of blog post: EP)

- Imagine the GCV trying to climb a ramp or the foot of a hill with that thing --- or crossing a trench for that matter.

- Worst of all, the rear overhang is a permanent component of the chassis itself, because it houses major components of the powertain;
http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/gcv_hed_design.jpg

- The GCV's turret is an EGT (an "External Gun Turret"). See Episode 35 of my Failed Tanks series and the associated links in the video description for a tutorial on why this approach is wrong.