Manouverability of AIFVs

This thread is a bit OT, but I'll beg indulgence since OO may have some
useful factoids or thoughts of interest to a number of us. (Even a
Byzantine wannabee or two.... *heh*) :) 

OO said:
The LAV is a lot lighter than the Bradley and has rather less internal 
volume, but most of that reduction comes from its the lesser *width*
(the LAV III is only about 2.5 meters wide, compared to the 3.2+ meters
of the Bradley and BMP-3) rather than lesser *height* (it is nearly as
high over the *hull* as the BMP-3 is over the *turret roof*). (The
Bradley, of course, is both tall *and* wide!) While narrow width is
important for maneuverability, especially in cramped places, low height
is a far more important dimension for not being seen by the enemy... and
also for how big the vehicle looks when you stand next to it :-/

[Tomb] Oerjan, correct me if I'm wrong, but about 36 hours ago I read a
comparison of MTVL (think I got the order right), M113 ACAV (or an
uprated version of same), M2 and LAV-III. In a few categories
(resistance to mines, self deployability), the LAV-III won. In terms of
air transportability (with anything approaching an actual combat loadout
of ammo and fuel....), it lost. In terms of bang for the buck, it lost.
In terms of ability to be effectively fitted with reactive armour, it
lost. In terms of manouverability, it lost because the tracklayers can
spin in place and the LAV has a 53 foot turning circle.... 

Now, if you're building a self sustaining, self deploying peacekeeping
force that needs to be fairly mine-aware, the LAV-III makes good sense.
If you're building a warfighting force where air mobility, rapid
deployment, survivability (ie low profile) vs. conventional weapons, and
ability to be refitted with good armour is key, then it seems (at least
from the review I read) to not be a terribly good option. And it
definitely seemed to lose in the "cross bad terrain" or "turn on a dime"
categories....

Am I missing something? 

Tomb.