This movie (Pentagon Wars) is as far from reality as Star Wars are... really people, what will be more credible, a movie made by pacifist morons from Hollywood or a book written by professional historian that is writing about AFV's R&D history. Intead of this stupid money I suggest to read Richard P. Hunnicutt Bradley - A History Of The American Fighting And Support Vehicles. It is far more interesting, based on official documentation from TACOM archieves etc. etc. etc.
I would personally slap in face director of "Pentagon Wars", why? Because he is complete idiot.
Indeed, this is why GDLS have here a serious edge over other competitors because the overall plan is to achieve parts commonality between M1 and GCV, and this is a very smart move to use advantage of being manufacturer of US Armed Forces MBT fleet.If we have Namer the M88 recovery vehicles have to carry M1, Bradley and Namer spare links, sprockets, roadwheels... it needlessly complicates the loadplans, the logistics to introduce a totally different chassis.
Oh, one more thing, there was a question, why GCV is designed.
Well GCV will first completely replace M113's, and later when more GCV's will be manufactured, they will slowly replace IFV variant of M2 Bradley, the older M2's will be then converted in to specialized vehicles, like C2 vehicles, Medical treatment vehicles, mortar carriers, well they replace all currently used specialized variants of M113.
So GCV IFV will replace all currently used IFV's in HBCT in active US Army component, while the M2A3 and M2A2ODS-SA will be send to storage and/or ARNG units that will not recive GCV.
In a long term it is very possible that GCV program will expand for other types of vehicles, currently called secondary vehicle + new self propelled howitzer.
GCV will be a completely different vehicle than Namer, due to different structure, tactics and strategy of US Army. It will be used as normal IFV but with much better protection, vehicle and crew survivability.
Also GCV will most probably use unmanned turret, so we should not see it's protection as inferior to Namer for example, but more likely as a comparable one.
ALso why Namer will rather be not choose, mainly because it's use completely different components than M1 tanks, so this will be logistical nightmare, and it could be too expensive to modify it by GDLS to use a new common components.
We should remember that current GDLS modernization proposal of M1 tanks fleet (i.e. new Diesel engine, new hydrogas suspension and other improvements) should not be seen as separated to GCV program, but there is a very close connection between.