The quantity vs quality argument raises its ugly head again.
We are getting caught up focusing on the individual interactions (such as tank vs tank in Normandy). While individually a Tiger or Panther was far superior to a Sherman, the reality is the Germans had far fewer of them because building and supporting them was resource intensive, and they were overwhelmed or rendered irrelevant by the sheer numbers of allied tanks (they could not possibly destroy or even stop all of them, there were not enough Panthers and Tigers to block every conceivable armoured approach), not to mention Allied fighter bombers hunting them from the sky and Allied strategic forces working to cripple the logistical infrastructure of Germany. Now the shoe is on the other foot: NATO in general has gone for quality over quantity, and *we* stand to be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of enemy ISTAR platforms, ATGM's and more traditional weapons (in one thread someone mentioned the most feared tank killer is the "Sprut" anti tank cannon, essentially a very updated version of the deadly "88" of WWII fame).
In one sense, we need to stop going down the rabbit hole of more armour, bigger guns etc. This is starting to look like the "Infantry Revolution" of the 14-1500's, when easy to use weapons like crossbows and then firearms, and new tactics, like pike formations, allowed masses of conscripted and relatively untrained men to take to the field and prevail against fully armoured knights (men at arms, Janissaries, Samurai) who required expensive kitting and a lifetime of training to be effective. Our bespoke military forces are like these knights of old, running into crossbowmen supported by pikes more and more often. One day soon we will be encountering "cannon" for the first time......
The TAPV is an awful example of this, it weighs 17 tons, holds 5 men (in very cramped conditions) and is pretty limited in cross country mobility. The Israeli "Combat Guard" may represent a possible direction to go, weighing only 8 tons, able to carry 8 troops, having high cross country mobility and using active rather than passive armour to defeat ATGMs. We could conceivably argue for MTV's like the Bronco (just go where other people are less likely to follow), even smaller ATV's or even look at man portable weapons that provide light infantry the sort of serious firepower to make people think twice about tangling with the troops (accepting that operational and strategic mobility becomes an issue).
This really becomes an argument about doctrine and the organizational models that we need to adopt inn order to achieve the desired effects, rather than catalogue shopping for shiny kit (which I am horribly guilty of myself). Since the TAPV was seemingly purchased without a very clear understanding of what the desired effect of having these vehicles was supposed to provide the Army, it should be no surprise that no one can particularly think of how to employ it, and attempts to issue it out (like to the Light Infantry Battalions) have met with failure since it clearly isn't the right tool for that job. Retroactively rewriting doctrine to reflect the capability of the vehicle is counterproductive, to say the least.