One of the most urgent renewal programs for the equipment supplied to the Italian Army concerns the replacement of the Dardo Bersaglieri combat vehicle (opening photo). Acquired in 2002, it was designed and built by national industry after a very long period of development that started in the 1970s (VCC-80 project). Equipped with a turret armed with a 25mm automatic cannon and mobility performance close to that of the Ariete tank, the Dardo was a moderately performing medium at the time of its entry into the line, comparable to the Russian one BMP-2 and that held the I also compare with NATO infantry fighting vehicles like the AMX-10, the Warrior and the first version of the Bradley M-2, while suffering from the lack of a launch pad for anti-tank missiles.
During its service the Dardo was never improved and today seems to be lacking in particular in terms of protection provided by an armored aluminum hull with overlapping 6mm thick steel plates.
After several unsuccessful improvement projects (new drumless turret with a 30mm machine gun and additional external armor) and the expansion of production to special versions that were finally proposed in the 1910s, the manufacturer had recently advised against developing a modernized version.
The war in Ukraine changed the prospects, and now the army has decided to carry out some measures to increase performance. The fact remains, however, that the Dardo is affected by the design’s seniority, and the Bundeswehr is considering a replacement.
Various options are being studied, such as the already ventilated take on the German tracked vehicle Lynx (photo below) or an updated version of the 8×8 Freccia armored vehicle.
First of all, the choice to be made is that between a tracked vehicle or a wheeled vehicle, following the example of the French army in the latter case, which decided to complement the Leclerc tank with the 8-wheeled VBCI weighing 29 .t and armed with a 25mm machine gun in the turret. The British, who have decided to abandon the modernization of the Warrior in favor of the Boxer, also seem to be going in this direction.
In the world panorama of armored vehicles, the schools of thought regarding infantry fighting vehicles differ significantly from country to country: in fact, we are moving from super-heavy IFVs, derived from the hulls of tanks like the Namer, weighing 63 t and produced in Israel on the mechanics of the Merkava tank and the Russian T-15, equipped with the hull of the T-14 Armata tank, with a 30 or 57 mm machine gun with 4 anti-tank rocket launchers and weighing 48 t, until to medium chain-size IFVs like the Swedish CV-90 (photo below) and the German Puma and Lynx, recently acquired by Hungary and using special hulls that weigh less than the MBTs, for the IFV versions that rotated from 8×8 Troops were taken over by transport vehicles such as the German Boxer armed with a 30mm machine gun, the French VBCI, the Patria AMV, etc.
The author has many doubts about the ability of a turned vehicle, albeit 8×8, to be able to cooperate with a tank on difficult terrain and to ensure a sufficient level of protection to operate in ballistic contact with an opponent armed with modern anti-tank weapons.
An IFV intended to operate in close contact with armored formations must have similar mobility to tanks, large caliber machine guns (30mm and larger), long-range counter-tank rocket launchers or loitering ammunition launchers, all weapons that can be integrated into the main armament of the tanks, in addition to passive armor as close as possible to that of a main battle tank, and of course active missile and drone protection systems identical to those on the tanks. The installation of such a variety of armament and self-protection systems on board an IFV, and especially the mounting of armor plates of considerable weight and thickness, cannot be achieved with turned tow vehicles, under penalty of an excessive drop in mobility performance.
The emphasis placed on the requirement that IFVs survive like a wagon is based on the following considerations:
1) Compared to the Cold War era, when it was necessary to acquire a large number of IFVs to equip all mechanized infantry units in large armored units, today this number has decreased significantly, and a few hundred IFVs would be enough to meet the need by armies like the Italian, British or French armies that field no more than 200-300 tanks.
2) The modern criteria for the use of armored units in the open field, characterized by high dynamics, short deployment times to avoid enemy fire and fire on the move, mean that the Bersaglieri have less need for evasion.
3) In battles in inhabited centers, an event that is becoming more and more common on current battlefields, the performances of the most protected and armored, and especially armored tracked vehicles, which are better suited than wheeled vehicles to overcome barricades, obstacles and masses of rubble or walls, excel destroy .
Finally, it is not clear why an IFV should have significantly less protection than a wagon when the first carries at least three times as many men as the second.
The main task of an armored vehicle today is to ensure the survival of its crew. The vulnerable and offensive role is certainly important, but secondary to the ability to take blows without harming the occupiers, especially in western armies that have a pronounced sensitivity to the loss of life.
Why should the tankers have much more protection than the Bersaglieri, at least until they go ashore? In war, the tanks most valued by crews were always those that could best withstand enemy attacks. See for example the British Matilda and Centurion, the Soviet T-34/76 and KV-1, the German Tiger and Panther, the Israeli Merkava.
In military operations, unprotected tanks have always been viewed with suspicion and concern by their crews. The same and even more so for troop transport vehicles, as evidenced by hundreds of carcasses of BMP, BTR, MTLB, BMD, etc. scattered across the Ukrainian battlefields.
After these considerations, there should at least be no doubts about the traction choice of the new armored personnel carrier for the Bersaglieri, which in our humble opinion can only be the tracked vehicles.
The numerous 8×8 types in service around the world, the infantry armored vehicles that have become the most popular in recent years, only adapt to certain scenarios, e.g. those with medium/low intensity or in special operational contexts such as desert terrain o the great plains of central Europe, where they can enhance their mobility characteristics on groomed roads or trails and make the most of their superior travel capacity on even terrain compared to tracked vehicles.
The 8×8, whose side protection is usually limited to firing 12.7-14.5mm caliber automatic weapons, lacks passive protection and, with overly developed shapes, is too conspicuous in height (equal to or often greater than that of the M -Wagens.-60A1). and having trouble hosting missile/missile protection systems on board. The only 8×8 infantry fighting vehicle equipped so far appears to be the Israeli Eitan.
FC
Photo: Italian Army / Rheinmetall / BAE Systems / US Marine Corps