m2 bradly infantry fighting vehicle

[McG]

I've seen photo's of the LAV-25 TOW in Ausse service.  What is the Australian opinion on this vehicle?

 

[PJOsborne]

I'm not entirely sure what their opinion is. However, the LAV-25 platform is getting a bit long in the tooth.. the USMC is undergoing a 400 million dollar fleet upgrade to modernize the gunnery software and communications gear to bring it up to current standards and replace the older, more difficult to operate computer systems. the upgraded USMC LAV-25s will then be able to fire depleted uranium APFSDS ammo

 

[McG]

Stop.  You are popping up in several AFV threads and talking outside your lane.  Speaking as someone qualified in the LAV turret, the only barrier I could see to firing that type of ammunition might be if the gunner did not know which dot to use as his aiming mark at a given range.

 

[PJOsborne]

sir, while i respect your first-hand experience with the LAV turret, the LAV-25 does differ from our LAV-IIIs. a quick external visual comparison reveals that the USMC M242 25mm chaingun has a barrel cover which conceals the three barrels from view, unlike our own turrets which clearly show off the separate barrels. I'm not sure if that's what makes them unable to fire DU munitions, but certainly some sort of modification was necessary. perhaps you misread my post. I'm not saying that all of a sudden they're gaining the ability to fire APFSDS ammunition, i'm saying that the upgrade gives them the ability to fire the DU variant. due to the heavier projectile weight and different ballistic properties involved, this requires modifications to the gunnery software and to the firing mechanism, which needs a heavier 'kick' to get the round moving.

 

[McG]

Qualify your information.

 

[PJOsborne]

Sorry, i should have done that right off the bat.

LAV-25 pictures:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/lav-25.htm

the Canadian Delco Defence turret for the LAV-III:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-m242.htm

As to the USMC LAV-25 upgrades, i'll write down the article and edition of Jane's Defence Weekly tomorrow.

 

[McG]

That is impressive.  Wow.  Look you are right, and your pictures prove it.

the USMC M242 25mm chaingun has a barrel cover which conceals the three barrels from view, unlike our own turrets which clearly show off the separate barrels.

Stop posting outside your area of knowledge unless you are looking to experience our warning system first hand.  The reason you can only see one barrel on the US LAV 25 is because there is only one 25 mm barrel.  There is only one barrel on our 25 mm cannon as well.

 

[PJOsborne]

Why are you threatening me with a warning? the pictures clearly show that the canadian M242 version has more than one barrel...

 

[McG]

No.  There is not more that one barrel.

 

[PJOsborne]

okay then. my bad, i'm sorry for assuming otherwise. i'll get you that info on the LAV-25 upgrades though.

 

[PJOsborne]

No. There is not more that one barrel.

can you tell me why the gun has a wraparound look? just to put my curiosity to rest.. i assumed it was a triple barrel weapon using an electrical drive motor to load and eject the rounds into the barrels.

 

[McG]

can you tell me why the gun has a wraparound look?  

?

 

[Britney Spears]

I think someone left the kiddie corral door open again...... You guys realize you've just spent 3 pages arguing with an AIRSOFTER about the merits of firing ports on AFVs right? not to mention the current argument over how many barrels the LAVIII gun has(wtf?), This thread is like one of those MVAs, I just can't stop looking.....


To keep things on topic.
The barrel looks like that because its fluted. More surface area for better heat dissipitation. You're a "defence analyst"? For who?  Weekly World News?

 

[PJOsborne]

thanks for the pics, MCG. the Casr page seems to show the barrel liner twisting, and that's what i meant. 

 

[Infanteer]

I think someone left the kiddie corral door open again...... You guys realize you've just spent 3 pages arguing with an AIRSOFTER about the merits of firing ports on AFVs right? not to mention the current argument over how many barrels the LAVIII gun has(wtf?), This thread is like one of those MVAs, I just can't stop looking.....


To keep things on topic.
The barrel looks like that because its fluted. More surface area for better heat dissipitation. You're a "defence analyst"? For who?   Weekly World News?

Lord Osborne, I have some friends in the C Scots, NCO and Officer, and they are going to love you defence analysis....

 

[Franko]

can you tell me why the gun has a wraparound look? just to put my curiosity to rest.. i assumed it was a triple barrel weapon using an electrical drive motor to load and eject the rounds into the barrels.

:

Alright....I'm going to chime in here.

LordOsborne, you are full of it.

If you were a defence anylist as you say you are you'd know your topic a wee bit better.

Did you really think you'd get away with it? M242 gun with 3 barrels  :

......Wait a tick.....

Hmmmmm.....19 years old and a defence anylist 'eh? Let's see some credentials and some papers you've written, how about some arcticles from newspapers.

Regards

 

[George Wallace]

But Franko.....he read it on the Internet.  He also has books that he bought in the Mall.  When he tries to tell users what they are using and he has never ever seen a "real one", then I guess we must accept his qualifications Carte Blanche.    ;D 


Back to the M/M3 as a good vehicle to purchase:  I don't think it would be that great an idea.  This vehicle is extremely difficult to maintain mechanically, compared to other vehicles on the market. 

As mentioned, firing ports are a mote point.  The Marder was one of the first vehicles to go heavy in that direction, but with many upgrades, those firing ports slowly disappeared.  The Marders remote fired 7.62 MGs were slowly removed over time also.  The last thing a Mech Inf unit wants, is to be caught fighting from within their "Battle Taxi" by an anti-tank system.  All your eggs in one convenient basket makes a tempting target. 

 

[PJOsborne]

I'd like to apologize for my headstrong posts earlier. Clearly i overstepped my boundaries with you guys, and i'm sorry for that. To answer your questions about my "background", i'm not actually working as a defence analyst, no. it's more of a hobby title than anything else, really. I am majoring in Military History at UVic, and i'm going to be taking some analysis courses in my final years. As to my sources, yes, i admit to not "Getting out there to see the real thing", and i understand that there is little i can do about it in the meantime. I always accept criticism, though, and if you'll tolerate someone who wants to learn more, i'll play the eager student, so to speak. Once again i apologize for my bravado.

the article i mentioned earlier came from the January 31 2005 edition of Jane's Defence Weekly, by the way. If you have a subscription to it or the online version, you can check it out there.

 

[combat_medic]

LordOsborne: Since you are a teenager who has not even completed the recruiting process by your own admission, it seems safe to say that you have never once in your entire life been remotely close to having a single moment of first hand experience with any of the vehicles or weapons you're talking about. Other than reading about it on the internet, you have nothing to contribute, and no credentials with which to qualify your statements (other than posting the internet links which you previously read).

With regards to your choice for a vehicle to "do the job", considering you've never, EVER "done the job", what on earth makes you qualified to make such a statement?

Unless you are, in fact, some kind of boy genius with a PhD at the tender age of 19, and are legitimately serving as a defence analyst, and have published real works on the military, which you will be asked to produce, you had better remove the title of "defence analyst" from your profile, and stop posting about your non-existant expertise.

You're not a defence analyst, you're not an officer cadet, you're not a soldier. Heck, you aren't even a RECRUIT yet. Stop posting like you have any experience with activities which there's no way you could have possibly participated in.

 

[Danjanou]

I'd like to apologize for my headstrong posts earlier. Clearly i overstepped my boundaries with you guys, and i'm sorry for that. To answer your questions about my "background", i'm not actually working as a defence analyst, no. it's more of a hobby title than anything else, really. I am majoring in Military History at UVic, and i'm going to be taking some analysis courses in my final years. As to my sources, yes, i admit to not "Getting out there to see the real thing", and i understand that there is little i can do about it in the meantime. I always accept criticism, though, and if you'll tolerate someone who wants to learn more, i'll play the eager student, so to speak. Once again i apologize for my bravado.

the article i mentioned earlier came from the January 31 2005 edition of Jane's Defence Weekly, by the way. If you have a subscription to it or the online version, you can check it out there.

Got that right slick.

Here's a thought. Fill your profile in with the following:

â Å“Hi, I'm a university student presently studying military and defence studies which, I have an interest in. I have little/no practical military experience as I have never served in the military to date, although would like/hope to in the future. Any advice on that would be gratly appreciated BTW.

My intent here is to read and learn and only when I have something valid to contribute will do so. Not drag absurd and incorrect comments out of mt a**.â ?

Oops to late, your credibility here is shot.