hellfish6 7 Posted January 13, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (pzvg @ Jan. 13 2003,04:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">@ hellfish6 I think what most of us DAT's are screaming about is the concept of, you have to be ALIVE to change the tire Downscaling the armor protection while the rest of the planet is busy upscaling the capability of your average MANPAT seems a tad,....dangerous? <span id='postcolor'> See... I was what tankers call a 'crunchie', therefore more armor protection for the infantry is a good thing, IMHO. I don't think the Army should get rid of its M-1s and M-2s, but I *DO* think that there is a definate need for the Strykers. The fact is that the US Army needs a quickly deployable, survivable (with armor packages, I think the Stryker is as protected as an M-2A3) vehicle with a small logistics tail and ample firepower. In a low intensity conflict like what we've seen over the past ten years (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Afghanistan, etc.) you don't need 70 ton tanks that guzzle hundred of gallons of fuel a day. You need something like the Stryker. And we're not downscaling. In anything, we're upscaling. Except for one brigade, we're turning light infantry into armored infantry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Major Fubar 0 Posted January 13, 2003 Just open up the config to adjust the armor, and give it a Bradley type optics view...maybe add an MG...perfect. Nice addon, but needs some tweaking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miles teg 1 Posted January 13, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ Jan. 13 2003,11:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The fact is that the US Army needs a quickly deployable, survivable (with armor packages, I think the Stryker is as protected as an M-2A3) vehicle with a small logistics tail and ample firepower. In a low intensity conflict like what we've seen over the past ten years (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Afghanistan, etc.) you don't need 70 ton tanks that guzzle hundred of gallons of fuel a day. You need something like the Stryker. And we're not downscaling. In anything, we're upscaling. Except for one brigade, we're turning light infantry into armored infantry.<span id='postcolor'> Actually the armor levels are nothing anything close to a M2A3. The armor is 14.5mm but does not PROTECT against 14.5mm weapons. At least that's according to that site unless they are lying and those pictures they show of the dammage 5.56mm AP rounds cause are fake. The M2A3 for the most part is protected against 14.5mm HMG fire, and with reactive armor to protect against RPG fire. According to that site the LAV's armor isn't even thick enough to safely mount reactive armor. Again they could be wrong on that. But I've seen similar sites with similar information. But I agree that there is definitely a need for wheeled armored vehicles where tracked vehicles aren't practical. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hellfish6 7 Posted January 13, 2003 That site was very, very biased IMHO. I'm not saying that it's impossible that the Stryker has weaker armor, but I'm saying it's very unlikely. After all, look at the fiasco when the Bradley was first undergoing tests. It's possible that the Army/defense industry is covering something up. But how likely is it? What would they benefit by it? And why would they have picked the Stryker over the regular Pandurs, LAV-25s, Coyotes or LAV-IIIs? I guess we won't know until they're actually in combat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miles teg 1 Posted January 14, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ Jan. 13 2003,22:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That site was very, very biased IMHO. I'm not saying that it's impossible that the Stryker has weaker armor, but I'm saying it's very unlikely. After all, look at the fiasco when the Bradley was first undergoing tests. It's possible that the Army/defense industry is covering something up. But how likely is it? What would they benefit by it? And why would they have picked the Stryker over the regular Pandurs, LAV-25s, Coyotes or LAV-IIIs? I guess we won't know until they're actually in combat.<span id='postcolor'> True... but keep in mind that the military covers up things on a regular basis. Alot of these weapons systems are HEAVILY tied into politics with alot of people lining their pockets with money with these huge contracts, not to mention alot of politicians lining their campaign expense accounts with money from generous campaign contributions by lobbiests for these defense companies, whether they be foreign or domestic. It doesn't matter if these weapon systems get cancelled later because by that time, people will have made their money. Kinda like the Osprey. The thing is just not a good design for combat (if one engine goes out, it'll spin like a corkscrew and fall like a rock for example), but political clout pushes the program through every measure to cancel it. Key generals push through such programs because they know that it guarantees them a cushy, high-paying, low stress "consultant" job when they retire from the military. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
digitalcenturion 20 Posted January 14, 2003 Ah yes, so true. And let's face it, tracked armor is better than wheeled in a combat enviroment. Even if it saves you time during peacetime that should hardly be a measure of how good something is, not at the very least for a army who likes to get into crap alot, like the USA. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess we won't know until they're actually in combat.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, but then it will be a bit late for the soldiers sitting in the deathtrap, won't it. One final note: IF this had been about USA exchanging something really poor for something better i dont think any issues would have risen at all, but the M113 is not a poor vehicle by any standard. If it aint broken, dont fix it i say. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miles teg 1 Posted January 14, 2003 I agree. The M113 has been a tried and true design that is cheap, reliable, effective and takes a remarkable amount of punishment as has been shown in countless combat engagements that it's been in serving in armies all over the world. The Israeli "Zeldas" are examples of the type of RPG-resistant M113's the U.S. should have. But for stuff like convoy protection and peace-keeping duties, the LAV is probably a fine vehicle. The LAV-105 is most likely a good tank destroyer as well. That's one reason why I liked the idea of the Centauro addon. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted January 14, 2003 you could have a wheeled battle tank if you had choosen the AMX 10RC over the Lav 105 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hellfish6 7 Posted January 14, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DigitalCenturion @ Jan. 14 2003,08:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ah yes, so true. And let's face it, tracked armor is better than wheeled in a combat enviroment. Even if it saves you time during peacetime that should hardly be a measure of how good something is, not at the very least for a army who likes to get into crap alot, like the USA. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess we won't know until they're actually in combat.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, but then it will be a bit late for the soldiers sitting in the deathtrap, won't it. One final note: IF this had been about USA exchanging something really poor for something better i dont think any issues would have risen at all, but the M113 is not a poor vehicle by any standard. If it aint broken, dont fix it  i say.<span id='postcolor'> It's not about the US exhanging something poor for something better. They aren't replacing tanks or M113s with Strykers. They're building new units with new vehicles. That's all. And where did I say wheeled armor is better that tracked? I'd certainly rather be in an M-1A2 than a Stryker even if someone was just throwing stones. But having a Stryker is certainly better than walking into combat, which is what four of those brigades had done previously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted January 14, 2003 wheeled vehicles are really usefull in peacekeeping missions , especially in southern europe because the troops who possess wheeled vehicles can use the local road network and causing less damages than tracked vehicles with steel tracks (and as already said , changing a pair of tracks on a tank takes time , so when fitting tanks with rubber track sets doesn't allow tanks to be quickly combat ready and rubber track sets get "tired" really fast) and the speed .. the speed is the main factor , in most of the today's conflict and low intensity wars , you don't need all the last generation reactive armor or whatever protection you can imagine , if it can resist to 7.62 AP , it's OK for use j/k but the mobility is the essential advantage of the wheeled vehicles i remember during my conscript service in 1985 , our infantry unit had just been issued with the VAB .... it was a huge change over the AMX10P , it was lighter but had a bigger carryage capacity eventhough it was a little bit less armoured , and it was twice faster than the 10P , that was a shock when we went full speed on a road for the first time the little con was .... the lack on 20mm gun on the early production VAB's and in that time they were just fitted with an AA T52 F1 (7.62 mg) , it was a really great battle taxi and did a fantastic job as such , when we first saw it , it was just an armored truck , but right after the first UN intervention in bosnia with the UNPROFOR and the field modifications he VAB system encountered ..... it became a real AIFV with the adjunction of a 20mm turret and the change from the AA T52 to the M2HB transformed this light armored battle truck in a real fighting vehicle the good ol' 10P : Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wick_105 0 Posted January 15, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ Jan. 13 2003,05:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LAV-25 because that's what the US Marines use (and Canadian armed forces among others) the canadian army has never owned lav 25's we have had the bison,coyote,AVGP(grizzley) and the huskey all are the parents and grandfathers of the lav-25 and lav-III and when I say grandfather I mean it, the AVGP's were designed in the verry early 60's Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Major Fubar 0 Posted January 15, 2003 The Centauro from G8 mod seems to be armoured like the LST... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miles teg 1 Posted January 15, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wick_105 @ Jan. 15 2003,08:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the canadian army has never owned lav 25's we have had the bison,coyote,AVGP(grizzley) and the huskey all are the parents and grandfathers of the lav-25 and lav-III and when I say grandfather I mean it, the AVGP's were designed in the verry early 60's<span id='postcolor'> If Canada doesn't use them then what are these? http://www.thunderandsteel.co.uk/aslav.html and http://www.caf.itgo.8m.com/army_06.html Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hellfish6 7 Posted January 15, 2003 Well.. the ASLAV is Austrialian and the LAV-III isn't an LAV-25. However, LAV-25s ARE made in Canada, but the Canadians don't use the version with the 25mm turret. They use the Bison, which is an LAV-25 without a turret, basically. Kinda confusing, I know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miles teg 1 Posted January 15, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ Jan. 15 2003,16:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well.. the ASLAV is Austrialian and the LAV-III isn't an LAV-25. However, LAV-25s ARE made in Canada, but the Canadians don't use the version with the 25mm turret. They use the Bison, which is an LAV-25 without a turret, basically. Kinda confusing, I know.<span id='postcolor'> Oh...ok. My bad... That makes sense now. That is confusing. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wick_105 0 Posted January 16, 2003 thank's hellfish yes canada does have LAV III's, our regular force battalions recieved them last year some time, all the older bison, couger, and AVGP's are comming down to the reserves since ours are all banged up'n'broke. just to set it strait one last time though the bison is not a turret less lav 25...the bison has a fatter boxier ass end. I'm looking at my afv/ac recognition package right now and it is a little confusing but you guys will just have to believe me Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OxPecker 0 Posted January 16, 2003 ........Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away........ ..........This topic was about G8 mod's Centauro.......... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wick_105 0 Posted January 16, 2003 ok sorry for the run around, with a little work, I think it will be a good addon I'm sorry for the fun around and yes it is my fault Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
