What's the difference between FLIR and passive IR?

Given the heavier 105mm version is basically just an upgunned 75, why not use hull stats and appliqué armour/ERA? The turret, as stated earlier, shouldn't add too much weight on top since it's little larger than the gun it contains.

Anyone know how much a 105mm gun weighs anyway compared to a 75mm?

The Royal Ordinance L7/M68 105mm weighs 1282 Kg.

I have emailed Ares regarding the XM274 automatic cannon.

Speaking of Ares, take a gander at the third image to the right:

http://www.aresinc.net/images/logo1.jpg

Thanks, Rak.

That's what I've done. I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Please clarify.

Rae, I think your approx. 25 tonnes compromise weight with ERA sounds reasonable, and with the highest level bolt-on armor package it might be getting up towards the weight Paul has on his site. That seems like a rational solution to me.

I'd love to see the calculations/musings you and Paul each used to arrive at your respective travel movement/combat movement/fuel consumption numbers. I know from my own vehicle generation experiences that they're hard to nail down.

I just adjusted some of the figures from the M113 and M8 entries in the BYB, basically averaging them out. I trust Paul's judgement, though, and am happy to use his figures for movement and fuel consumption.

As for armor, the add-ons that I have in mind are passive, composite bolt-on stuff. I added a brief bit about ERA in my revised write up but I wrote that ERA proved unpopular with the infantry tasked to work in concert with the Ridgway in its assault gun role, so passive composite panels were made standard instead. It's composite ally-ceramic armor, meant to be relatively light yet still increase protection when acting in concert with the vehicle's original standard armor.

Oh yeah, I can totally see why the infantry wouldn't be super happy about blocks of explosive detonating on the exterior hull of a nearby friendly vehicle that was supposed to be supporting them. In any case, ERA blocks are yet another finite resource, albeit easier to manufacture than ATGMs.

Yes, Russian troops found that out in Chechnya the hard way. In addition, if a tank got knocked out, the Chechens found a way to remove remaining ERA blocks and use them as IEDs.

I use a spreadsheet, but I also fudge (sometimes in total error, I'll admit).

Found the following info just through googling "XM274"
The following idea seems to be a good option for T2K. The M32 76mm gun (pulled from reserve stores) with updated ammo should be enough to give the Chinese a fighting chance against the Soviets...
An interesting idea....
Attachment 2066

Attachment 2067

Attachment 2068

Attachment 2069

Thanks, Leg. I'll have to take a closer look at the numbers tomorrow. The pic you posted at the bottom left looks most like the M20 Ridgway. The caption says "30 ton configuration with skirst and applique". That's pretty darn close to the weight I listed in my stat block. Lucky guess!

Well the caption says ton and 30 short tons = 27.2155 tonnes so actually it's eerily similar to the compromise weight of 25 tonnes you suggested. So either way you choose to interpret it they're good guesses indeed.

M20 Ridgway
 

Thanks for all of the feedback. I could probably continue to tweak it for weeks but I'm pretty happy with this version so I think I'll call it a day. Here's the final draft.

I summon this thread to rise from the grave!

Ahem.

While looking for some unrelated miniatures information, I stumbled across an offering of a metal and resin Stingray kit in 1/48th scale (should be an acceptable, albeit not perfect, fit with 25mm/28mm miniatures):

http://www.hlbs.co.uk/images/catalogue/UV01.png

http://www.hlbs.co.uk/product.php?id=725

Take note of the paint scheme. :)

- C.

That is B2 from the v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide! :cool:

It is, indeed!

Passive IR uses artificial illumination to see in low light conditions. Note that I said low light conditions.

FLIR is a common term used for what others call a 'thermal' sight. This type of sight allows the users to see via the heat radiated by the objects. It is much better than passive sights as FLIR does not require illumination and can allow the operator to see through smoke and fog.
Here is a very good history on the subject, plus a kewl army video!
http://www.nvl.army.mil/history.html

HEre is another website for history on NODS;
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ground/nvg.htm

and a couple more that explain the difference with pictures;
http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/nigh...-can-hurt-you/
http://www.infrared1.com/ANIR.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision

Yay M-8 AGS! Maybe coming back from the dead?

http://www.defenseone.com/technology...nk-90s/122731/

Real World LAV-75 Alternatives.
 

There is still a "near 75mm" option for the LAV-75. Considering how "Anti-Aircraft Weapons light" both the Army and the Marines are; One can easily see them adopting "off the shelf" alternatives to fill the AA and light AT gaps in the inventory. That "off the shelf" alternative would be the OTO Melara 76/62mm Compact Rapid Fire Cannon. Originally built as a compact self contained naval cannon; OTO Melara designed a special turret to fit on armored vehicles in the 90's but saw no real sales. I could see both the Army and Marines buying the turrets and fitting them to either a tracked or LAV chassis (the original Italian design was mounted on a MOWAG chassis). This would give such a force both a heavy AA capability AND a light AT capability in one gun. The only disadvantage I could see, is that the gun turret is very high/tall. It was fitted with a radar as well. This means that you could use this vehicle as a "picket" for your forces. The only target it couldn't engage is an MTB.

I'm sure somewhere, Tim, "TR" Walker is very happy about this if it goes through. IIRC, he was a big supporter of the M-8 Buford in the 1990's.

I like the article along the sidebar: "Don't chase Putin out of Syria; let him fail on his own." That may be a valid strategy!

Doesn't the STRYKER already come in a variant with the 105mm low recoil gun?

No doubt. I liked the vehicle since I saw it in Tom Clancy's Armored Cav. Clancy never forgave the Clinton Administration for canceling the vehicle to pay for the Bosnia Peacekeeping Force.

It's also a taller vehicle that is much more difficult to airdrop.

don't understand
 

Sorry, I am not used to the idea but why is it harder to kick out?
Is it the Center of g or is it because of the height at the door?

The M8 is the perfect weapon for the 82nd and any light infantry forces - gives you a real weapons system that can take on enemy tanks and armored vehicles if need be and light enough to be easily air-dropped - and its a lot more surviveable than a TOW equipped light vehicle or a Stryker

and with the different armor packages you have the ability to tailor the vehicle for the mission

The big problem comes not when you send it out the door, but in rigging it up before the mission -- vehicles in general need their suspensions lowered to prevent damaging them upon hitting the ground, and with a wheeled vehicle it is much more difficult to immobilize the suspension. You don't want the suspension to spring -- creates too many funny bounces that may make the vehicle upend, tailstand, or overturn.

It's also a little dicey when you're dropping something that's not much bigger than the rampway door. More space between the cargo and the doorway is better. Murphy's always there, waiting for you.

As I said on the afv forum (yes, finally got 'em to fix my account a while back! :) ) it'd be a great match for LAHAT.

The quote below is from the following article:

Innovative, Feasible, Formidable: What I saw at AUSA 2015

"The Army, however, is paying attention. At the battalion or brigade level, the service wants to further redress its lack of firepower with not just missiles, but a new light tank, or “mobile protected firepower vehicle”. BAE Systems brought to the show an M8 Buford, the 17-ton air-droppable tank that the Army had ordered in the mid-1990s. A whole battalion were supposed to replace the M551 Sheridan tanks in the 82nd Airborne Division, but only six examples were built before budget priorities and a queasiness about MOOTWA led to the program’s cancellation in 1996. Still, this is no warmed-over concept. With a new engine, the electronics of the CV90 Mark III or the latest Bradley, suspension components from either, BAE's transparent armor, one of those active protection systems, and perhaps the turret from the CV90-105—the vehicle could be more than innovative. It could be formidable."

“mobile protected firepower vehicle”
OMG-WTF! A vehicle that's, wait for it... MOBILE! MOBILE! VEHICLE!
A mobile vehicle!? Who woulda thought! It's a vehicle that can actually move!!!!!! ZOMGBBQ!!!!!!!

What the hell is it with naming conventions these days when they start to incorporate completely redundant terms into a phrase?
Or is it just me overreacting to this stupidity in language?

Keep in mind that I am defining the word vehicle as it is typically understood and as it's typically listed in a dictionary, example as follows: -
"any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport:"

It only gets better. I met a freelance writer working for Janes Defense Weekly at the Pittsburgh PA NRA Convention who claimed to be a "Weapons Expert" and had never fired a gun (he just researched them online). He was an American too (I could forgive someone from a "pro-gun control state")!

I also had a classroom instructor at my Truck Driving School who didn't have a CDL and had NEVER driven a big rig. It's hard to take someone seriously who's never done the job.

I agree that naming conventions can get pretty stupid. But, being familiar with how they work, in this case the "mobile" refers to the "firepower." The term "vehicle" defines the "mobile." You can have "mobile protected firepower" that is not a vehicle.

Also, there is a lot of grumbling going on in the Army right now about the MGS. It seems that they are not too happy with it. But, that could be translated a multitude of ways with even more outcomes.

Tanks Falling From the Sky
 

So, we've pretty much established that a 105mm gun-armed LAV light tank would be superior in pretty much every way to the 75mm version introduced in the US Army Vehicle Guides but I've thought of a reason to keep the original LAV-75 in US Army service.

The LAV-75A2 (or M20 Ridgway, if you will) proved unsuitable for air-dropping. Its remote turret was easily knocked out of whack by the shock, and it was difficult to repair in the field. The LAV-75's turret, however, was immune to this defect, meaning that it was kept for use by US airborne forces.

Sound plausible/reasonable?

Plausible. But the fact the 105 version was introduced later also works.

True, but in the timeline we came up with for it a few years back (document earlier in this thread), US LAV-75s were up-gunned after combat testing in China demonstrated that its 75mm high velocity gun was unable to defeat modern Soviet MBTs' frontal armor at anything beyond medium-short range. That's why I wanted to come up with a reason for the US to still field the LAV-75 in my T2kU. I realize that folks that don't want to include the LAV-75A2/M20 Ridgway, or prefer the M8 as their light tank for US forces, don't have this problem, so this is admittedly a bit niche.

Without taking a look at the numbers... the LAV-75 was originally intended for RDF deployment to the Middle East. Would it have had to deal with modern Soviet MBT frontal armor or would the 75mm have been sufficient to deal with the obsolete/export models that were its intended prey there?

- C.

The LAV-75 would have most likely been hopelessly inadequate against any Soviet armor other than the T-54/T-55 and possibly not even against that tank if they had to take on its frontal armor.

And there was better armor than that in the Middle East on both sides by the time the original edition was released. The Syrians and the Iraqis had T-72 tanks as did Ethiopia.

Now against the side or rear armor of those tanks it probably had a real chance but good luck with penetrating the frontal armor.

This is correct. It was created to satisfy requirements from the RDF initiated under the Carter administration, in response to the Iranian revolution. The RDF was primarily intended, of course, to operate in the Middle East.

The LAV-75 was never really intended to fight MBTs, it was more of an assault gun kind of thing. But could be used against other armored vehicles if needed. Now this is where my memory is a little sketchy, but I believe most folks referred to it as a “light tank,” which brings a connotation that is was intended to fight other tanks. This was why the Army made great efforts to say the M8 was not a light tank during its development. They did not want future M8 crews, or unit commanders, thinking they could go after MBTs.

The M8 could take out enemy tanks - its gun was similiar to the one on the original M1 tank - but it definitely was not a stand toe to toe and slug it out tank. What it could do was have a real chance to take out a modern MBT and survive - notice I didnt say participate in a stand up tank battle like 73 Easting.

Used to work at BAE and actually got a chance to ride in an M8 on our test track when we did a maintenance cycle on one of the ones we had there.

Ok, let's go "real-world Franken tank" here. There isn't a modern 75mm in the US inventory that was mass-produced in the '80s or '90s. There IS (was?) however, a 76mm RAPID FIRE dual-purpose cannon available to mount on a vehicle... The OTO-Melara 76mm NAVAL gun. The US had several ships equipped with this cannon and a version of a heavy AA SPAAG was considered by Leonardo mounting a 76mm cannon, radar, imaging sight, and IR sight on a leopard I tank chasis. The gun fed from a 10-round hopper and had 60 added rounds on the mount. Leonardo then developed a light-weight turret using the 90 round-per-minute ROF 76mm Cannon on a powered mount with optical targeting system and the ability to link into a separate radar director system. It was fully powered with 70 rounds on the mount but the turret could be fitted to a Marder or LAV chasis. Range was 12km against aircraft, 8km against helicopters, and 5km against ground targets. The system never sold but it did exist. Maybe the US would take surplus 76mm Naval cannon and adapt them to such a mission. The justification would be that it was PRIMARILY a clear-weather heavy AA system with a SECONDARY anti-vehicle role.