>>59790
Well, there are logistics and there are logistics. I would argue that the US military made use of the M113 fur decades and decades, and there were a great many vehicles based on its chassis and transmission, from self-propelled mortar carriers to short-range air defense vehicles. The spare parts they shared in common, and the common points of designs about which mechanics were already trained helped logistics a great deal.
Something like the BMP doesn't get great fuel economy, but it's an armored tracked AFV, and that kind of goes with the territory. I am a little surprised the Russians never made wider use of the BMP and, even more so, the wheeled BTR60/BTR70 chassis. If I had been a defense analyst circa 1965 and you'd asked me to predict what was going to be coming out of the production lines in the USSR, I'd have said "BTR60 chassis are cheap and common, so of course they're going to use them fur self-propelled artillery and every other thing they can think of to bolt onto it that'll kinda-sorta work and fit." Instead the Russians created bespoke armored chassis fur things like the ZSU-23-4, that had parts hardly anything else used. But then they also created and manufactured the T64 and T72 simultaneously, two tanks with the same gun, the same electro-optical systems, very similar laminated armor chassis, and absolutely no parts shared in common between the two. It's bizarre to me. I can't