LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Targan

A collaboration between two greatly respected members of the forum? Sounds good to me!

The weight difference between the two versions is significant (yours is basically double that of Paul's, Rae). That would have to be more than just armour, I'm thinking powerplant and drivetrain differences as well. I'd love to see you guys brainstorm a version you were both happy with.

I'd be happy to split the difference. I figure that because of the extra armor and the 105mm main-gun system, the M20 would be heavier than a standard M113, but without a conventional armored turret, it would be lighter than the AGS. The Marder seems like the best match, chasis-wise, but its turret/gun is smaller than the Ridgway's so I figure that the latter would be heavier still.

How does 25 tonnes sound?

[Legbreaker]

The armour doesn't need to be heavy. The Marder, and virtually all APCs, tanks, etc, have to have armour strong enough to withstand a few hits now and then. By their very nature they're going into harms way just to carry out their job of transporting troops across the fire-swept battlefield, or bully their way over the top of the enemy (I know it's more complicated than that, but I think you get the point).

The LAV-75, etc is another beast entirely. A light armoured vehicle, it's primary mission is to put fire down upon the enemy (as well as scouting, etc of course). Stealth, concealment, and above all, fighting from hull down positions is where it's all at for this class of vehicle. If it needs to expose it's hull to observation, let alone enemy fire, it's mission is already a bust.

Therefore, I'd say a thin armour rated/hoped to protect against shrapnel and the occasional small arms fire should be more than sufficient for it's intended role. Optional add on armour packages and ERA may be available, but only issued in extremis.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The armour doesn't need to be heavy. The Marder, and virtually all APCs, tanks, etc, have to have armour strong enough to withstand a few hits now and then. By their very nature they're going into harms way just to carry out their job of transporting troops across the fire-swept battlefield, or bully their way over the top of the enemy (I know it's more complicated than that, but I think you get the point).

The LAV-75, etc is another beast entirely. A light armoured vehicle, it's primary mission is to put fire down upon the enemy (as well as scouting, etc of course). Stealth, concealment, and above all, fighting from hull down positions is where it's all at for this class of vehicle. If it needs to expose it's hull to observation, let alone enemy fire, it's mission is already a bust.

Therefore, I'd say a thin armour rated/hoped to protect against shrapnel and the occasional small arms fire should be more than sufficient for it's intended role. Optional add on armour packages and ERA may be available, but only issued in extremis.

I agree with your statement regarding tactical doctrine when operating in the anti-armor role. Still, the Chinese, using the LAV-75 primarily as a a tank destroyers and MBT stand-in, found that it would not survive long on the modern battlefield without additional armor protection. The U.S., much more casualty conscious than the PLA, would have concurred and insisted on adding hull armor to the upgunned version. As an assault gun (the primary role of the LAV-75, as per the v1.0 USAVG), the Ridgway would be advancing in support of dismounted infantry, and would not have the luxury of operating from the hull down position. Therefore, it would need additional armor in order to survive attacks from enemy AT weapons and/or the occasional enemy AFV. When pressed into service as a tank, this would be doubly so. Therefore, supplemental armor is a must.

[DigTw0Grav3s]

What's the difference between FLIR and passive IR?

[Legbreaker]

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?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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:

[Raellus]

Thanks, Rak.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

...why not use hull stats and appliqué armour/ERA?

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

[Targan]

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.

[robert.munsey]

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

Originally Posted by DigTw0Grav3s

What's the difference between FLIR and passive IR?

[Targan]

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

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

[swaghauler]

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.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Targan

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

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

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!