How close do the turret rings of the Bradey and the LAV-25 measure up?

I haven't found the turret ring diameter of the LAV-25 (but I haven't really searched for the info either) but according to one site I've visited a few times, the Bradley turret ring diameter is 150cm.
Does anyone have the the diameter for the LAV-25 so we can compare the two?

Information source http://afvdb.50megs.com/
Specifically this page for the Bradley http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m3bradley.html#M3

The M2 Bradley has a turret ring of 150cm (60"). Having a bit of trouble finding info on turret ring dimension of the LAV-25, LAV II, ASLAV or any related vehicle though, but I'm thinking it would have to be similar.

Leg - I searched and couldnt find it so far but will keep looking

What I did find I bet you you would love to look thru - Armored Car Newsletter

http://www.warwheels.net/images/ACJfinal32.pdf

File is too big to upload so may break it up - but great article on the ASLAV

Okay here you go its M113/TS90

Thanks for posting that image.
I have to say, it kinda looks "wrong", as in, the turret look too big for the hull - like seeing a fat head on a tiny body kinda wrong (and not photoshop kinda wrong)

The M113/LS90 looks less top-heavy, since it uses a smaller LP90 turret from the Cadillac Gage V-300/LAV-300 with a Cockerill Mk. III gun. It's quite a bit smaller than the GIAT TS90 turret with CS90 gun. Ammunition stowage was 42 rounds, and the fully equipped and crewed turret weighed about 4900 pounds.

Australia had a number of turreted M113s that loosely fit into the Frankenvehicle concept - they were standard production, but cannibalized parts from vehicles being retired. I expect the Australian board members will know more than I do, but my understanding is it started with an interim fire support vehicle that had the Saladin armored car's turret added, giving the M113 a 76mm and .30 coax. It was replaced by the medium fire support vehicle with the FV101 Scorpion's turret, also 76mm and .30. There was also a light fire support vehicle with the T50 turret from the Cadillac Gage V100/V150, which had a .50 and a .30. Troops were generally equipped with 3 light and 2 medium support vehicles.

In regard to how Australia equipped units with the M113, it depends on the time period.
Initially, Cavalry units were equipped with the the Saladin turret M113 which was know as the Fire Support Vehicle (M113 FSV), other vehicles retained the standard commander's hatch and pintle mounted MG until it was decided to fit the T50 turret to protect the commander (from memory, as a response to casualties in Vietnam). They still retained their APC designation as the Cavalry units were essentially still "battlefield taxi" units despite having the fire support of the Saladin turret M113.

When some units were re-roled as Armoured Reconnaissance units, they were taken away from the "taxi" role and were equipped with the Scorpion turret M113 but as befits the role, they were known as Medium Reconnaissance Vehicles (M113 MRV) while the standard APC M113 was known, only within the Armoured Recce units, as the Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (M113 LRV).
Even though, by this time, all troop carrying M113s had been fitted with the T50 turret, those vehicles in cavalry units were know as APCs while M113s with the exact same configuration (i.e. T50 turret) in the Armoured Recce units were know as LRVs.

All the 76mm armed M113s in Australian service had been retired before the 2000s and the common talk at the time was that the smoke from the 76mm ammunition was carcinogenic so it was done for health reasons. Neither the Saladin or Scorpion turrets had any sort of bore or barrel evacuator so a lot of that smoke ended up in the turret.

You really don't need the bore evacuator on a smaller caliber main gun the turret blower is all you really need.

Almost all NATO standard cannon ammunition is ammonia -based, after firing several rounds, blowers get switched on and hatches get cracked! Another problem on AFVs without escape hatches, is the practice of using a spent case as a piss tube, not so nice on a hot day....

As mentioned, it was "common talk" i.e. soldier's gossip.
The actual reason for withdrawal of the M113 MRV may have been as prosaic as plans for the future structure of the army no longer saw a role for it.
Or because the 76mm was seen as no longer effective against current and/or potential future threats.
However, what was commonly mentioned at the time was that it was done for health reasons because the 76mm ammo was claimed to produce carcinogenic smoke.
How accurate that belief was, I don't particularly know.

EDIT:
After some checking on the web, it seems the claim most likely originated in the UK in 1991. The belief is that the Scorpion was classified as a "tank" under the Conventional Forces Europe treaty and was earmarked for removal from British forces, apparently in order to prevent the number of MBTs on strength from having to be reduced further. However soldier's gossip made that into "Scorpion was removed because it caused cancer etc. etc."
Other claims about the smoke from the 76mm ammo are that it was toxic, that it caused Alzheimer's disease and even Parkinson's disease.
Why Australia chose to remove the MRV from service could have been a knee-jerk reaction to the those rumours or it could indeed be something as mundane as the 76mm (which if I recall, only carried HESH and HE as offensive rounds in Australian service) was considered no longer up to the task.

I may be misremembering something I read, but weren't the cavalry T50s equipped with dual .30 MGs, while the LRV T50s had a .50 and a .30?

Really it appeared a bit random in my experience as an infantryman. Most the buckets I rode in had the .50/.30 but a handful (usually older machines) had the twin .30's. Mostly it seemed to come down to what guns were available and functional in the unit's armoury at the time.

To further add to what Legbreaker said, the choice of whether to fit two .30 cals or a 30/50 combo or even a single .50 cal usually came down to the unit itself and what they felt was the best mix.
The first Armoured Recce unit I joined typically had all the T50 turrets armed with the 30/50 mix and extra .30 cals were mounted on the designated APC in the Troops (on pintles at the rear so that the Assault Troops being carried could use them from the read hatch).

Typical structure of the Recce Troop in the 1980s onward was five vehicles comprised of 2x MRV, 2x LRV, 1x APC. A Section of Assault Troops was carried to allow recce tasks in areas the vehicles couldn't access but they were also expected to carry out minor demolitions and engineering work in support of the vehicles.

That's more of a roll hazard than a 577...

Let me try something...get back to you tomorrow...

this might not be the best fit but I just found this image to day.

Well, I didn't find what I was looking for on my hard drives, but I did find this
https://euro-sd.com/2020/02/articles...mbat-vehicles/

Which, among other things seems to say that most Western European, Canadian, US, Australian, Swedish, Finnish, and Kiwi 6x6 and 8x8 vehicles with a turret are designed to accept a wide variety of other turrets designed for other 6x6 and 8x8 turreted vehicles.

Not exactly what you were looking for, but useful information.

And let me try something else I just thought of... be back again tomorrow.

MT-LB Plus...
 

Seems you can slap just about anything on top of an MT-LB. Both Russians and Ukrainians have been mounting all sorts of weapons that would have been widely available in the T2k timelines on the top decks of MT-LBs.

So far, I've seen:

ZU-23-2 (RU & UAF)
Vasilek auto-mortars (UAF)
MT-12 Rapira AT gun (UAF)

And, for a more modern timeline, a Turko-Ukrainian SEDAR remote weapon station (UAF)

Pics: Rapira at left, and Vasilek in armored barbette (improvised) at right.

-

Best I've got is that the Grizzly/Piranha 1 had a 1m turret ring. Whether this stayed the same as the vehicle design morphed to LAV-25 I can't tell.
https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcont...67&context=cmh

Possibly / probably not the info. required but this links to the What If modellers forum... and the theme is turret rings:

https://www.whatifmodellers.com/inde...7093#msg507093

That really does look too much turret on too little a vehicle... but...

Go with me on this but the WWII Matilda tank turret to me works on the M113. I know I stuck one on one... :o

The WWII, etc, Stuart turret 'works' too...

It's not all that surprising - the 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled howitzer is on an MT-LBu chassis (7 roadwheels instead of 6). If a very slightly bigger variant can carry around a 122mm artillery gun and its ammunition, the MT-LB should be capable of carrying a fair bit of kit itself.

For the ZU-23-2 in particular, Iraq had two different versions of an MT-LB with ZU-23-2, one open mount for use as a SPAAG and one closed turreted mount for use as an infantry support vehicle.

The MT-LB is like a slightly more professional-looking technical - if it's at all possible to physically mount a particular weapon on it, someone has probably done so somewhere.

Ukrainian Ark
 

Although not really an example an armored fighting vehicle per se, this thread seems to be the most appropriate place for it.

This UAF battlefield medical vehicle- which looks like it just rolled out of Damnation Alley- is based on a BTR-60 chassis but looks nothing like the original.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...edical-vehicle

-

From the Ukraine Weapons tracker Twitter account:

"An interesting Russian MT-LB variant was captured by the Ukrainian army in the vicinity of Vuhledar, #Donetsk Oblast - the APC was upgunned with a 2M-7 naval turret with 2 KPV 14.5mm heavy machine guns, originally intended to be installed on patrol boats and trawlers."

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status...HQls0Ub9SBiG2A

That's a good amount of firepower for an APC, but the addition of the naval turret nearly doubles the height/profile of the MTLB.

-

MOUT (military operations in urban terrain) modification? Gives you a higher inclination (I am assuming) in addition to higher volume of fire.

Good thought. The photo in the Tweet showed it on Ukraine's steppe, but that doesn't mean it isn't intended for MOUT.

-

My money still is on "what was available". The vehicle seems to belong to one of the self-proclaimed proto-states in Donbas. They get the hand-me-downs Russia won't even give to it's mobilized troops.

70 year-old armored tractor + 80 year-old naval guns =
 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=70c72160112c

"In early March, photos circulated online depicting MT-LBs with 2M-3 naval turrets welded to their roofs. The 2M-3 is two 25-millimeter auto-cannons, one atop the other in an enclosed casing. The 2M-3 made its debut in 1953."

https://i.redd.it/z8wnauspljla1.jpg

This is an upgrade (?) on the modified MT-LB mentioned upthread. From the piece:

"The first of these weirdo MT-LBs started showing up in Ukraine last month. On or before Feb. 3, Ukrainian forces in Vuhledar captured from hapless Russian brigades a 13-ton, two-crew MT-LB sporting a 2M-7 gunboat turret.

The 2M-7 is an over-under pair of 14.5-millimeter machine guns behind a steel shield. It entered service with Soviet forces in 1945."

-

The optimistic assumptions I have read about this particular conversion is that

• Perhaps 25mm Ammo is relatively plentiful in current stores (thought not manufactured since 1984)
• Increased elevation allows interception of drones (though ammo is not proximity fused)
• Up-gunned for urban warfare
• A feel good weapon for masses of cannon fodder (added in edit)

Or they are simply scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Edited ammo info after getting more information.

Russian 25mm 2M-3M naval gun emplaced on a Russian ATS-59G artillery tractor.