This thread is a bit OT, but I'll beg indulgence since OO may have some useful
factoids or thoughts of interest to a number of us. (Even a Byzantine wannabee
or two.... *heh*):)
OO said: The LAV is a lot lighter than the Bradley and has rather less
internal volume, but most of that reduction comes from its the lesser *width*
(the LAV III is only about 2.5 meters wide, compared to the 3.2+ meters
of the Bradley and BMP-3) rather than lesser *height* (it is nearly as
high over the *hull* as the BMP-3 is over the *turret roof*). (The
Bradley, of course, is both tall *and* wide!) While narrow width is important
for maneuverability, especially in cramped places, low height is a far more
important dimension for not being seen by the enemy... and
also for how big the vehicle looks when you stand next to it :-/
[Tomb] Oerjan, correct me if I'm wrong, but about 36 hours ago I read a
comparison of MTVL (think I got the order right), M113 ACAV (or an
uprated version of same), M2 and LAV-III. In a few categories
(resistance to mines, self deployability), the LAV-III won. In terms of
air transportability (with anything approaching an actual combat loadout of
ammo and fuel....), it lost. In terms of bang for the buck, it lost. In terms
of ability to be effectively fitted with reactive armour, it lost. In terms of
manouverability, it lost because the tracklayers can spin in place and the LAV
has a 53 foot turning circle....
Now, if you're building a self sustaining, self deploying peacekeeping
force that needs to be fairly mine-aware, the LAV-III makes good sense.
If you're building a warfighting force where air mobility, rapid deployment,
survivability (ie low profile) vs. conventional weapons, and ability to be
refitted with good armour is key, then it seems (at least from the review I
read) to not be a terribly good option. And it definitely seemed to lose in
the "cross bad terrain" or "turn on a dime" categories....
Am I missing something?
Tomb.
> OO said:
and
> also for how big the vehicle looks when you stand next to it :-/
Sounds like one the comparisons posted to StrategyPage.com over the past
few months. I know the LAV lost the armour protection contest to the M2 (which
is even harder to air deploy), but did it lose to the MTLV and M113 as well?
> In terms of manouverability, it lost because the tracklayers can
Sorry, I should have been clearer. The "narrow width is important for
maneuverability" was intended as a generic bit, not specific to a comparison
between the wheeled LAV and the tracked BMP and M2; it was most definitely
*not* intended to imply that the LAV is more maneuverable than the tracks! If
your vehicle is too wide to move between the
houses/boulders/whatever, it doesn't matter much if you can turn
in place... you're stuck anyway <g>
Later,
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:06:51 -0500 "Tomb" <kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca> writes:
<snip>
> Now, if you're building a self sustaining, self deploying peacekeeping
Marines don't buy Army.
Gracias,
[quoted original message omitted]
> Glenn Wilson wrote:
[discussion of LAV vs M113, MTLV, M2]
> >Am I missing something?
That is pretty irrelevant, since Tom was talking about the US Army's planned
purchase of LAVs as their Interim Fighting Vehicles for their new medium
brigades. The USMC isn't involved in any of this AFAIK.
Sure, Army don't buy Marine stuff - that's why Army develops a bunch of
new
LAV models of its own instead of just buying the USMC's LAV-25s :-)
Regards,
> At 6:59 AM +0100 11/29/01, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
They are the same family of vehicles. Small differences in fit and weapons
packages aren't as significant a deal as an entirely new hull.
> Sure, Army don't buy Marine stuff - that's why Army develops a bunch
The LAV-III is the same family of vehicles as the LAV-25 in about the
same way as the Ford Escort is the same family of vehicles as the Ford Caprio:
Same manufacturer and very similar layout, but designed many years apart
and with significant differences in size, weight and payload capability.
> Small differences in fit and weapons packages aren't as significant a
With the LAV-III being about 2' longer, 2-3" wider, IIRC 6" taller
(could be 8"), 4 metric tons heavier (empty weight) and with twice the payload
capability (6000 kg compared to 3200 kg), and with very few common parts
shared between LAV-III and LAV-25, it effectively *is* an entirely new
hull... it's just that it is an entirely new hull which someone else has
already developed and put into production :-)
Regards,