Lav's

[killagee 0]

These days you can download just about anything as an addon for OFP/R. Most are really good, especially the HKPack. But where are the LAV's? the G8 Centurio B1 is great, and close to the LAV ( 8 wheels anyway!. I can supply many pictures, videos and variant information to anybody keen on making these. I am from New Zealand, and we just bought some LAV[s very similar to the US MArine Stryker's.

If you want to make lots of friends in a hurry... make some LAV's some body!!

[waffendennis 0]

well First you posted in the wrong forum ( this is only the forum for the compleet addons you need to post this in addons:Work in progress the mod gonna put this to Addons WIP ( watch my words )

2: there is a mod making a LAV but i cant rember the name of it and if i found it again and some pics i will poist them here ok.

[Guest]

Moving to Work in Progress

[Alakaluf 0]

I think the Tales of War Mod promised to make one!

[VXR 9]

yes, but they also promised a littlebird, but the creator is gone heh

ill see if i can get some pics of the LAV 25 current status.

[-AFR-Ranger 0]

Actually,  Operation Northstar has made the Canadian version to the LAV-25 which I believe is called the Coyote.  I'm not sure what stage of development its in but I know it hasn't be released yet.

Here is a screenshot:

Operation Northstar LAV

[Gollum1 0]

Yeah, and the real LAV-III Stryker can´t fire while moving, has cramped infantry spaces, easily punctured tyres, poor

off-road mobility, requires constant maintenance, can´t be effectively air-transported or dropped, costs a bundle etc. etc. Nice for cruising along roads in slow peacekeeping missions, but I wouldn´t be caught dead in one of ´em in a combat situation. Or actually, I probably would be dead in one of them if I got into some real combat.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/

No flame, honest!

[KDF 0]

The Version of the LAV-III that NZ is buying is closer in configuration to the Canadian Grizzly than the US Stryker..it has the large 25mm auto cannon turret etc. The armour is certainly better than the M-113 its replacing. I know there's alot of armchair generals bitching about the US Stryker and posting it all over the web..garbled versions of their "wisdom" turns up here (NZ) in the Media and from politicians attacking the Govt. for buying the LAV-III. All the same things (and worse) were said about the Abrams and Bradley before they were adopted..I'm not sure what utopian vehicle these people expect troops to get around in - as heavily armoured as a MBT but still air transportable and with no maintenance needs and cheap as a bag of chips..good luck in finding one.

[Guest ####]

The LAV is being developed by op Northstar. We are having problems with the class configuration with it how ever since it shares properites of both a car and a tank. We are not going to release it until it works properly. here is a pic:

http://www.operationnorthstar.com/dls/promonstar.jpg

here is a thread on it at Op Northstar forum:

http://www.operationnorthstar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=271

[mr. Duck 0]

4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KDF @ Jan. 22 2003,024)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Version of the LAV-III that NZ is buying is closer in configuration to the Canadian Grizzly than the US Stryker..it has the large 25mm auto cannon turret etc. The armour is certainly better than the M-113 its replacing. I know there's alot of armchair generals bitching about the US Stryker and posting it all over the web..garbled versions of their "wisdom" turns up here (NZ) in the Media and from politicians attacking the Govt. for buying the LAV-III. All the same things (and worse) were said about the Abrams and Bradley before they were adopted..I'm not sure what utopian vehicle these people expect troops to get around in - as heavily armoured as a MBT but still air transportable and with no maintenance needs and cheap as a bag of chips..good luck in finding one.<span id='postcolor'>

We'll going to have a vehicle like that... In over 500 years...

But people wanted a lav a looong time ago. And there still aint one here. I sure wouldn't mind one. It would look great with suchey's marines.

edit:

thank you operation northstar

[pzvg 0]

Actually, the airhead pundits don't get it, it's all about cost effectiveness.

There isn't an APC out there that cannot be killed by today's shoulder-fired LAAW weapons, and the only way you would make an APC that could would be to make it into an undergunned tank, which would be too costly to be realistic.

Militaries buy these things based on upkeep and overall cost,

the LAV is no more a nightmare to maintain than a bradly, with the plus of tires not wearing out as fast as tracks <the real reason they're so attractive>

[Sigma-6 29]

Better yet, the Bradley (The US Army's 'miracle solution' to the 'we don't want to buy wheeled LAVs' argument) has the same air transportability problems as the LAVIII. . . The Coyote, LAVIII and LAV25 are air transportable in a C-130, (not combat deployable from a C-130, however) where the Bradley simply won't fit without being dismantled, they are 'broken down' (tires deflated, etc.). If you like, the CF has a video of a Coyote being driven onto a C-130 completely intact.

The silliest thing about the whole argument is, in fact, that both TLAVs and WLAVs (Tracked and Wheeled Light Armoured Vehicles, here in Canada) suffer from most of the same problems in equal measure. . . (survivability, uparmourability. . . fuel consumption, wheel/track replacement. . .) and where they actually differ, they diverge equally.

For example:

1: the LAV bottoms out and gets stuck in deep mud, and the long, flat bottom causes a suction effect that requires retrieval vehicles to pull it out laterally.

1: The M113 bottoms out and gets mired in comparatively shallow mud, digging itself deeper in with its treads.

2: The LAV3 has mobility problems in offroad conditions (Though I have yet to see them demonstrated in any way other than barricades, which often stop tracked vehicles as well. . . ), but is excellent on roads and flat ground, nearly doubling the speeds of TLAVs (In actual fact, LAV III can climb almost every obstacle an M113 can, with the major disadvantage that it is top-heavy, and tends to tip over.

2: The M113 blows fuel out the window on roads, is not particularly fast in either scenario, and is a money-wasting beast in peacekeeping,

3: LAVs can be killed by mines very easily. Crews will be killed

3: TLAVS can be killed by mines very easily. Crews will be killed

4: LAVs are vulnerable to RPGs!

4: TLAVs are vulnerable to RPGs! (I might remind you also that Russian ballistics tests had T90s penetrated several times out of ten rounds by RPGs fired at the frontal aspect. . . to say nothing of T80BVs in Chechnya, often killed by one round from an RPG7 in the rear (often the front as well))

5: LAVs tip over or tumble on uneven or loose ground. (Yes. . .)

5: TLAVs (M113, Bradley) tip over or tumble on uneven or loose ground. . . one story (on operations overseas) involves an M113 on a road on an embankment losing grip and rolling down the hill, killing one, and severely injuring another.

6: TLAV can take addon protection

6: surprise, surprise, so can the LAV series. . . fat lot of good it does either, when manportable antiarmour weapons and mines can kill/disable MBTs. . .

The real issue then? Well, for one thing, the pundits, [one in particular whose name I won't mention. . . (runs a blazingly loud website on the topic)] seem strangely paranoid toward Canada. . . (the loudest one thinks we're conspiring communists, out to get the US any way we can. . . his words paraphrased)

The LAV series is designed by MOWAG, a Swiss company, which was purchased by GM Defense Canada. It's marketed to the US, and the advanced testing of the new models is done here, not to mention that we're its most prolific user. Not only is it cheaper to maintain and operate, its also "made in Canada" (not the US, like the M113 and the Bradley). This, more than any reason, is why the pudits are pissed, as far as I can tell.

[Wick_105 0]

HELL YA....its about time someone said it!!! a few more points

1. I hear a large number of yanks saying it (lav-III) doesnt have the armour of other apc's...no & yes...less armour more chances to upgrade...it has a cevlar lined iner hull to help stop metal fragments from killing the occupents. and if you just have I large armour plate with a crap load of dings init chances are the apc will be scrapped.

2.their woried about having to change a flat tire that has been blown out in combat while the bullets are still flying.

IT HAS 8 BLOODY WHEELS. if one goes in combat you still have 7 on the road...hell you can loose 3 and the damn thing will still move...there also run flat tires!

3. the stryker is designed as a mobile fire support system...its like having a 105mm howitzer right behind you supporting the advance...IT IS NOT A REPLACMENT FOR MAIN BATTLE TANKS

if your country thinks it is, then you better vote for a new prez...hell that would make me happy.

4. ever notice how lots of apc's and afv's have angled armour such as the bmp's, btr's, marder, scimitars'n'such reason being so that the rounds are deflected away...the m113's and bradley and warrior for that matter are big ass boxes not to say big ass targets thats why they need more armour.

now dont get all pissy about what us canadians say, we be abit smarter than most.

[miles teg 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sigma-6 @ Jan. 23 2003,05:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Better yet, the Bradley (The US Army's 'miracle solution' to the 'we don't want to buy wheeled LAVs' argument) has the same air transportability problems as the LAVIII. . . The Coyote, LAVIII and LAV25 are air transportable in a C-130, (not combat deployable from a C-130, however) where the Bradley simply won't fit without being dismantled, they are 'broken down' (tires deflated, etc.). If you like, the CF has a video of a Coyote being driven onto a C-130 completely intact.

The silliest thing about the whole argument is, in fact, that both TLAVs and WLAVs (Tracked and Wheeled Light Armoured Vehicles, here in Canada) suffer from most of the same problems in equal measure. . . (survivability, uparmourability. . . fuel consumption, wheel/track replacement. . .) and where they actually differ, they diverge equally.

For example:

1: the LAV bottoms out and gets stuck in deep mud, and the long, flat bottom causes a suction effect that requires retrieval vehicles to pull it out laterally.

1: The M113 bottoms out and gets mired in comparatively shallow mud, digging itself deeper in with its treads.

2: The LAV3 has mobility problems in offroad conditions (Though I have yet to see them demonstrated in any way other than barricades, which often stop tracked vehicles as well. . . ), but is excellent on roads and flat ground, nearly doubling the speeds of TLAVs (In actual fact, LAV III can climb almost every obstacle an M113 can, with the major disadvantage that it is top-heavy, and tends to tip over.

2: The M113 blows fuel out the window on roads, is not particularly fast in either scenario, and is a money-wasting beast in peacekeeping,

3: LAVs can be killed by mines very easily. Crews will be killed

3: TLAVS can be killed by mines very easily. Crews will be killed

4: LAVs are vulnerable to RPGs!

4: TLAVs are vulnerable to RPGs! (I might remind you also that Russian ballistics tests had T90s penetrated several times out of ten rounds by RPGs fired at the frontal aspect. . . to say nothing of T80BVs in Chechnya, often killed by one round from an RPG7 in the rear (often the front as well))

5: LAVs tip over or tumble on uneven or loose ground. (Yes. . .)

5: TLAVs (M113, Bradley) tip over or tumble on uneven or loose ground. . . one story (on operations overseas) involves an M113 on a road on an embankment losing grip and rolling down the hill, killing one, and severely injuring another.

6: TLAV can take addon protection

6: surprise, surprise, so can the LAV series. . . fat lot of good it does either, when manportable antiarmour weapons and mines can kill/disable MBTs. . .

The real issue then? Well, for one thing, the pundits, [one in particular whose name I won't mention. . . (runs a blazingly loud website on the topic)] seem strangely paranoid toward Canada. . . (the loudest one thinks we're conspiring communists, out to get the US any way we can. . . his words paraphrased)

The LAV series is designed by MOWAG, a Swiss company, which was purchased by GM Defense Canada. It's marketed to the US, and the advanced testing of the new models is done here, not to mention that we're its most prolific user. Not only is it cheaper to maintain and operate, its also "made in Canada" (not the US, like the M113 and the Bradley). This, more than any reason, is why the pudits are pissed, as far as I can tell.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm must curious, but where did you hear about tests that RPG's could penetrate the frontal armor of T90's?

Also reactive armor has proven to be very effective in the conflicts that Isreal has been involved in including their current conflict with the Palistinians in which their Zelda APC's are equipped with reactive armor. To my knowledge I don't think they've lost any to RPG fire.

http://www.elitegrp.com.lb/modelin....20ZELDA

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons....da.html

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[peanuckle_00 0]

I guess you'll have to use the centauro B1 until someone makes a LAV. It's nice, but it doesn't look like an effective mobile command platform that the lav C2 is for the U.S.

a lav webpage for the lav c2

[digitalcenturion 20]

I don't know about you, i'd STILL go for a tracked vehicle in combat over a wheeled.

Another point is that people always compare the M113 and the LAV. Why dont you compare them with the russian MT-LB and/or BTR-80/90. From internet sources both vehicles seem to beat LAVs/M113s.

Not to say i don't think wheeled APCs dont have a place in combat, finland fields alot of patria XA-180 apcs, wich are tried and true.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

Can you compare the m2a3 and the lav-III?

[mattmayhem 0]

Damn I REALLY love those Isreali M113s, it would be smart to follow their lead and upgrade the M113s because it has been tested and is obviously a good vehicle or these guys would be the first to buy something new. I love the pictures of Zelda m113s pilled with sandbags, reminds me of those ACAVs from vietnam.

[pzvg 0]

I wouldn't go that far, considering the Isreali army operates on a very frugal budget, and has a long history of using equipment that's 15-20 years behind the curve

The M113 is a deathtrap, I'd ride it up to where the fight is,damn sure wouldn't be found in it up there.

The brad is ok, too big to be really safe,too thin too be really tough and too undergunned to be really dangerous, The TOW makes it a threat, but the price tag is excessive.

The Lav's suffer from many of the brad's problems, I hardly consider them Ideal either, however I really don't see western

militaries taking the idea of buying BMP's,just not gonna happen

[MrMilli 0]

My view on this subject,

APC's and IFV's are not tanks.

They are not designed to to go charging into battle right behind the MBT's and go toe to toe with a T80.

They are "Battle Taxi's"

Carry the kit, Get the infantry to the battle, unharmed and relatively rested (unlike if you had to walk) and provide supporting fire while they do the job.

What you need essentially is a in-expensive vehicle capable of stopping small arms fire, and giving some protection to the occupants from mines, while providing some covering fire for the infantry (which a GPMG will do, but the bigger the better)

What you don't need is a vehicle that infantry commanders will mistake into thinking that its as good as a tank and they can roll them right into an enemy position and be back home in time for tea and medals.

A Warrior for example is a tough IFV, but would I want to be in one in the sights of a RPG-7?

Not a chance.

You've got a better chance of surviving a anti-tank missile in a IFV than an wheeled APC, but you've got an even better chance of not getting hit at all if your not in either of them.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wouldn't go that far, considering the Isreali army operates on a very frugal budget, and has a long history of using equipment that's 15-20 years behind the curve<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, it certainly does, they still use WWII halftracks in some areas as command vehicles!  But you're missing one important point, they upgrade the Sh*t out of the their equipment.  For example, their F16's are probably block 50, nothing fancy, but they are equipped with Raphael fourth gen python missiles...

I think the lesson learned from israel is how to make a "cost effective" army that can be a regional power on a shoestring budget.  (not counting the 2billion in aid from uncle sam)  

[pzvg 0]

At ease Rufus,

I'm not dissing on the IDF,:)

But seriously, ask those highly experienced IDF troopers what they consider APC's for?

FMC factoid, in order to put enough armor on an M113 to defeat ANY ManpAT, it would be too heavy for the existing powertrain to move, the new applique armor being marketed for the FMC vehicle family is proofed against LAAW of less than 66mm, and still adds nearly a half a ton to the vehicle.

[Major Fubar 0]

So are we still talking about addon suggestions here, or having a pissing contest about who's country has the coolest LAV variants? j/k

[Sigma-6 29]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm must curious, but where did you hear about tests that RPG's could penetrate the frontal armor of T90's?<span id='postcolor'>

It's a test run by the Russian army on a T90 and a T80U, in which RPG29 [sorry, believe it or not, this was a typo. . . meant to have an *and* here] Kornets were able to penetrate the T80U with Kontakt 5 in several cases, and one was able to penetrate a T90 with its Kontakt 5 removed. These were all frontal shots.

[miles teg 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sigma-6 @ Feb. 02 2003,22<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm must curious, but where did you hear about tests that RPG's could penetrate the frontal armor of T90's?<span id='postcolor'>

It's a test run by the Russian army on a T90 and a T80U, in which RPG29 Kornets were able to penetrate the T80U with Kontakt 5 in several cases, and one was able to penetrate a T90 with its Kontakt 5 removed. These were all frontal shots.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, but what I was wondering is what your source of information was for that.   I read a great deal of information on Russian military hardware and I've never heard of such a test.   I'm just curious.  

EDIT:   Never mind... I just found references to this test on the net.  Actually the RPG29 and the Kornets are two different weapons.  The Kornet is a ATGM.

It eamers that in the test 3 RPG-29 rounds penetrated the T90 with ERA out of 5 shots.  It's interesting to look at what areas they penetrated (the area where the cannon projects from the turret, the driver hatch, and the turret ring are all areas of low armor).  Interesting enough no Kornets (which had larger warheads) penetrated the ERA equipped T90's.  

The site I found the info (with pictures) is at:

http://members.rediff.com/wolf17679/k-55.html

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>