Sigma-6

a:Even though Aussies don't use either of these vehicles? b: no, the LAV-III floats IRL, but is not strictly amphibious because it doesn't have props, etc. . . The Bison is, though.

Hey, the Bison is an 8 wheeled LAV. . . that Belgian LAV is a Mowag LAV-1 like the Canadian Cougar and Grizzly. . .

http://www.sonoranoise.com/wil/Bison.jpg Carries 8 troops and sports a C6 7.62mm Light Machine Gun. This is one of the standard Infantry Section Carriers of the Canadian Forces. It's being superseded however, by the LAV-III ISC, which is what the US Stryker is based on, except the LAV-III ISC has a 25mm Delco Bushmaster turret on it, and is capable of direct fire support. (as well as many other advantages over the US model) This vehicle looks clean and new because we are trying to depict the CF at its cleanest and newest. . . (to reflect the obsession our NCOs have with that sort of BS. . . Â Â ) [edit] Image > 100kb [/edit]

Don't ask it. . . it's sooner than you probably think, but I'm definitely not going to say when. As for the BTR thing. . . it's not really the same problem. . . those vehicles are hatchless. besides. . . these vehicles I'm showing here have no major bugs right now. . . and here's another. . . this was where I was saying before that it would be possible to convert *this* into a Stryker. . . it's the same basic hull. . .

That's not really relevant to this. None of these vehicles use missiles. Some of the US versions do, and certainly the TUA version will, but I'm not going to make them. . . Don't worry about the issues.

first thing you could do then, is find me a 5-view line-drawing.

well . .. you'd be able to carry more troops too. . . the advantages are endless!

lol. . . true, but the Canadian LAV-III carries just as many troops as the Stryker, and it's capable of defending itself. Also, it's arguable (and recent experience seems to prove it) that the Stryker is not air transportable in the C-130 with a roll-off capability anyway. . . so it mitigates its own advantage. My opinion? You want to beat the Stryker for operational stability? mount an M2HB on a 5 ton.

Personally, I think they're dead wrong about the LAV series, and so does the Marine Corps. Also personally, I would *not* have chosen the Stryker to replace the M113. It's a piece of flat-out junk. Place its specs alongside the Canadian version it was based on, and it simply doesn't stand up. For example, (and this is just one example) a Canadian LAVIII doesn't need to call somebody else to kill the enemy for it; it's armed with a 25mm in a two-man turret like the LAV-25. It also has countless other advantages, not the least of which is the fact that the Delco turret is stabilized, so it can fire on the move. The stryker has to stop completely to fire its paltry, unaimable remotely controlled popgun. Most of the argument against the LAV series comes from people with no experience with it, and little grasp of the inherent differences between the tracked and wheeled arguments. Also, whoever put together the specs for the Stryker must have been on crack, because they took *all* of the bite out of it in order to get it to fit into an outdated and obsolete transport aircraft. As an example of the fallacy of the "Wheeled LAVs are more vulnerable to mines than tracked LAVs" argument, here's an article: http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dsafeg/pubs/ptrain/2-94/wheeled_e.asp Trust me. . . an M113 running over that same mine is going to blow the crew to hell, just like in Vietnam. It's going to pop open like a tin can. The foolishness of the "LAVdanger" arguments is the sad fact that they are formulated without the benefit of the 20-odd years of operational and combat experience the CF has with the series, and they are almost always dead wrong. Where they're not wrong, they point out faults common to both wheeled *and* tracked vehicles. To reiterate, I agree that the Stryker is a POS, but only because it doesn't have any of the features that make the LAV series great. . . it's like a completely toothless LAV3. . . the stryker reminds me of a BTR-60 that can't engage the enemy on the move.

Funny, because the Stryker is a poor man's LAV-III (Kodiak), which is what the CF replaced the Bison with as an ISC. . .

About the LBVs: We'll get there. . . we just haven't modelled the LBVs yet. These things take time, and quite frankly, we were getting tired of having Canadians with no pistol proxies and no Resistance compatibility. That's an opinion. . . and it's an opinion that I like, because I agree. That may be frank, but it's not constructive, and in light of the other quote which I agree with personally, I personally classify it also as *your* opinion. Express it, but don't present it as fact please.

hehe. . . no worries, the US model is 'superior' to this version. . . just not to the other ones. . .

I'll be doing the Canadian ones. I'll leave it to others to make other countries'.

They'll still use ogg files, why would you only want a wav? if you wanted to change it, you'd just have to go into the config.cpp and rewrite the name of the file you want it to access. --the sounds, BTW, are BWmod's. . . I quite like them personally, but I understand why you don't. It's off-topic because this thread is about RHS, not Northstar.

Well, actually, Peiper from BWmod made the Leopard 1 series, and I converted his Leopard 1A4 and 1A5 into the Canadian versions: Leopard C1 (Leopard 1A3) Leopard C2 (Leopard 1A5 with Canadian conformal turret armour) Uparmoured Leopard C2 (Leopard 1A5 with applique armour rated to withstand a US M829A1 at 1km). I really didn't do much to them except make them olive green, add the applique and the bustle to the C2 series (badly, I might add. . . it was only my 2nd OFP project, and sort of an experiment to learn what I could do) add Canadian markings, and edit the CPP values to be more realistic, and reflect Canadian ammo. (c6 coax, for one) Yeah, they're getting a serious upgrade. I'm close to releasing a Leopard C1 that's totally remodelled and completely retextured and reconfigged. It does have Peiper's old interior though, but that's it. Anyway, this is sort of off-topic. . . if you want to discuss the Leopard upgrades, make a separate thread for it, and I might be enticed to post some screens. (it's about 96% complete and looking and running sweetly).

Not a lot of it. The stuff that is has been heavily modified, and the realism in appearance and performance is vastly improved. . . I think a lot of people are thinking right now that some of these tanks will be rehashes of the older ones (probably from looking at alpha pics). . . I'm telling you right now, they're wrong, The T-72, T-80 and T-90 that I did before will be completely unrecognizable except in completely superficial ways to these ones now. . . The old stuff is like pre-alpha compared to what we're working on now. Just ask some of the guys who have been working their asses off for months getting them ready for release, they'll tell you time and again what several months of working your ass off will do to a set of addons. . .

*Buzzer* Wrong again. . . That's a more complex story as well, and it has much more to do with timing than anything else (though a bit has to do with some poorly thought-out choices in the executive branch). This year CADPAT/AR is available. When they left it wasn't, like the USMC MARPAT, you can't go to war with kit that hasn't been issued yet. They liked the CADPAT/TW, in fact, so much that this time they had the option of taking the AR, and they opted to wear TW again. I'm sooooo sick of the media cooked-up "underfunded" story about the CADPAT I could just scream. Err. . . and the Snipers weren't wearing CADPAT then, they were wearing a british desert pattern.

Friendly fire incidents? Which ones? The one where a US pilot killed four Canadians? Let's please not bring that up, it's quite a sore point, and I'm sure we'd all rather not talk about it. Yeah. . . Those snipers were nominated for four bronze stars by the US, but the Canadian Government wouldn't let them accept them. . . (there's a darker side to the story; again, not the sort of conversation we should be having here, like the above, it risks becoming a flame war.)

Sorry to resurrect an off-topic comment. . . though the CF uses CADPAT. . . so that's my excuse. . . (that and the last several posts are equally as off-topic, so I don't feel so bad) AK, I didn't know you were so short on knowledge about your own military. . . maybe you should go regs just to set you straight. . . it's obvious that you've never been with a CF unit on an Ex with American troops before. . . (there are reasons why the US Army and the USMC have adopted so much Canadian kit in recent years, if you catch my drift.) Hehe. . . I'd like to introduce you to some guys from 3RCR. . . you can have a chat with them about how much they suck. . . Back on topic. . . as a Canadian, (Soldier [who "sucks"]) I'm loving these Marines and the MARPAT on them. . . (and as an RHS member, I'm loving the Naval Infantry dudes. . . I just read this whole thread beginning to end. . .) Hopes here that some recent developments at ON* and RHS will provide them with a LAV-25 to unass from (we're making unprecedented progress in the wheeled-vehicle class). . . (Of course, since the LAV series used by the US is of Swiss design and comes out of GM Defense Canada. . . it probably "sucks" . . . so I'm not sure why I'm bothering. . . LOL)

Right now, compressed, it's closer to 12-14, I think.

No. . . the Iraqi version will be the same as the Chinese. . . base version with the 100mm gun.

Canadians used the Carl Gustav as a bunker buster in Afghanistan. . . of course, it's essentially a recoilless rifle in RL (unlike in OFP). . . It has a fairly wide range of ammo types. The US uses it as well.

ARRRRR!!!!! Yes! only alpha! Those T-90 shots are more than 2 months old! It doesn't even look like that anymore. Both the hull and turret models are changed and the textures are seriously reworked on nearly every part! The-T-80 shots are new, but they aren't the dirty versions (not done yet).

I dunno. . . last time RHS showed a whack of pics/a video without a definite release date attached, I got stuck in a long IM dialogue with an Irate fan (though I don't understand why anyone who gets something that complex for free could possibly be irate) about how we were 'teasing' him on purpose, and how it didn't matter whether things were any good or not, just as long as we released them when he wanted them. . . maybe we should wait until we're done to show stuff. . . [this disclaimer in parentheses is for the faint of mind, who may be unable to tell how tongue-in-cheek this post is, or who may be unaware of what the expression 'tongue-in-cheek' actually means. Those who don't fit those categories may disregard these parentheses.]

Yes. It's sitting on my hard drive. It would be very simple to make it into a working Stryker. . . Unfortunately, I'm not going to. I'm releasing it as a Canadian Forces LAV-III APC, which is *exactly* the same vehicle (The 'Stryker' is from Mowag/GM defense Canada) except with a full-scale 25mm Bushmaster turret on it.