Thanks to Gessler for the pic!
Just got back from a short trip and while going over the comments I noticed people talking about the height of the ACV.
While not ideal its easily explained, makes sense and is dictated by mission requirements for the vehicle.
First we're talking about a vehicle having high mobility. The gold standard for wheeled vehicle mobility in the Marine Corps today is the MTVR. That truck has proven itself capable of going anywhere. What is the secret to its
success? Ground clearance, horsepower, and an outstanding suspension system. Ask anyone that's gone off road in any type wheeled vehicle and they'll tell you that's the "formula" for success. The reason why the MRZR is being touted as a capable off road performer is because it has that formula in spades. If not for the requirement for internal carriage inside the V-22, I'd expect lift kits to be added (SOCOM is probably already/has already looked into it to increase the mobility of their rigs).
Another issue is the requirement to carry upwards of 10 Marines. Most Marines aren't Smurfs and more than many know are in the 95th percentile that is so often talked about but dismissed by armored vehicle manufacturers. Lets just say that big guys in kids seats is very uncomfortable. You build a vehicle to fit the full spectrum of Marines and the vehicle will be "big".
Last but not least is the swim requirement. Sorry but this is what makes building TRUE amphibious assault vehicles hard and what separates the men from the boys. You can't simply put a swim vane on a non-amphibious vehicle and expect to be capable of swimming from ship to shore. Displacement counts.
All in all I have no problem with the size of the BAE SuperAV or the ST Kinetics Terrex 3. Form follows function and these vehicles sing!