FMC XM723 design vs. M2 Bradley IFV design

[Pioneer]

G'day once again gents

I've just recently posted a new topic titled Truth to The Pentagon Wars and the Bradley IFV?? (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,20319.0.html). This got me think of both the movie and the difference that eventuated from the seemingly useful, logical and workable original FMC XM723 design and what would eventually manifest into the giant, expensive and questionable M2/M3 Bradley IFV.
Can I press upon the expertise of the forum's vast knowledge to perhaps assess and give comment into whether the U.S. Army would have been better continuing down the path of the smaller, simpler and cheaper XM723 path? I've know and have heard the arguments of the one-man turret verses the two man turret arrangement. I also know of the two-man turret predominately being derived from the requirement of the M3 Cavalry/Scout requirement. Then there was the decision to add the TOW ATGM capability (Both this two-man turret and TOW requirement meaning the sizable and in my opinion very questionable reduction in troop capacity!)
I've also just discovered that the original XM723 was specified (and was) capable to be airlifted by the USAF's premier cargo aircraft - the Lockheed C-141 Starlifter!
What happened? What went wrong?
Do you believe that the XM723 could have been a more practical (and potentially more exportable) IFV?
I would very much appreciate any information, drawings and pics (and video footage) of the XM723

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Nothing went wrong. The US Army was able to replace two types of vehicle with a single type, the Bradley, and boost infantry firepower with a two man turret, 25mm gun, TOW missile launcher down to every section. All they had to do to achieve this was add the bigger turret to the XM723.

 

[mithril]

looking at that vehicle.. the bigger turret isn't what made it "too tall", which is one complaint i've seen from its detractors. the bigger turret didn't make it too tall.. it was really tall to start with. the turret just gave it the teeth to fight since it couldn't hide.

 

[Winston]

More views of the XM723 from ebay. I wanted to add these to help illustrate its design.

 

[Void]

Do you believe that the XM723 could have been a more practical (and potentially more exportable) IFV?

No.

• One man turrets have never been a good idea. They overwork the commander.
• The Bradleys TOW missiles and FLIRs have proven extremely useful in combat.
• The Bradley was intended to operate alongside the M1, which could not be carried by a C141.
• The Bradley and it's foreign contemporaries have subsequently gained a great deal of weight anyways because the original assumptions that IFVs only needed protection from autocannon fire and shrapnel were wrong - a vehicle designed to be lighter at the expense of firepower would not have yielded much benefit in the long run.
• The Bradley's basic design principles have been vindicated by the spread of similarly patterned vehicles to almost every other major army.

 

[GTX]

Not sure if this is relevant here - 1964 Weapons Command infantry fighting vehicle concept (complete with infantry firing ports) compared to the Bradley Fighting Vehicle:

 

[Forest Green]

That concept would have been terrible for getting stuck in trenches.

 

[Grey Havoc]

That concept would have been terrible for getting stuck in trenches.

It had a Hydropneumatic suspension if I'm not mistaken. That roller in the nose was also likely intended to further aid traversing trenches and rough terrain.

 

[jsport]

viva la roller