What do you like / not like?




Link: LAV-25

The truck has been in service now for nigh on 20 years, and as near as I know, the Marines are quite happy with them. They've been through a few upgrades at this point, for example, now all LAV-25s have thermal sights, which was not the case originally. During the 1991 Khafji fight, only the LAV-ATs had thermals, which slightly reduced the effectiveness of the 25mms. (They were shooting at tanks, so the 25mm wouldn't have done a hell of a lot anyway)

82nd Airborne used them for a short stint as well, designated M1047, I saw some Army LAV-25s in Panama and in the 1991 Gulf War. I presume experience from that led to the concept of the Stryker BCTs. I don't know what happened them actually, they might have been sold on to the Corps. They really only differed from USMC machines in ammunition stowage.

People will most obviously compare the LAV-25 (LAV-II) with the Stryker (LAV-III). People that only take a glancing interest will see that the -25 is an older, cheaper machine, with the same number of wheels, swimming ability, a much bigger gun, and similar armour, and wonder why the Army got robbed with Stryker. LAV-25 is almost a wheeled IFV, call it a light, fast, quiet Bradley without missiles. Stryker is an APC, not an IFV, and it sacrifices a much smaller turret in favour of the ability to carry twice as many troops, and so is designed to be used in a different manner.

NTM

Quoted: The truck has been in service now for nigh on 20 years, and as near as I know, the Marines are quite happy with them. They've been through a few upgrades at this point, for example, now all LAV-25s have thermal sights, which was not the case originally. During the 1991 Khafji fight, only the LAV-ATs had thermals, which slightly reduced the effectiveness of the 25mms. (They were shooting at tanks, so the 25mm wouldn't have done a hell of a lot anyway) 82nd Airborne used them for a short stint as well, designated M1047, I saw some Army LAV-25s in Panama and in the 1991 Gulf War. I presume experience from that led to the concept of the Stryker BCTs. I don't know what happened them actually, they might have been sold on to the Corps. They really only differed from USMC machines in ammunition stowage. People will most obviously compare the LAV-25 (LAV-II) with the Stryker (LAV-III). People that only take a glancing interest will see that the -25 is an older, cheaper machine, with the same number of wheels, swimming ability, a much bigger gun, and similar armour, and wonder why the Army got robbed with Stryker. LAV-25 is almost a wheeled IFV, call it a light, fast, quiet Bradley without missiles. Stryker is an APC, not an IFV, and it sacrifices a much smaller turret in favour of the ability to carry twice as many troops, and so is designed to be used in a different manner. NTM

Nice, thanks for the info.  It always seemed 'just right' to me for its intended use.

Quoted: The truck has been in service now for nigh on 20 years, and as near as I know, the Marines are quite happy with them. They've been through a few upgrades at this point, for example, now all LAV-25s have thermal sights, which was not the case originally. During the 1991 Khafji fight, only the LAV-ATs had thermals, which slightly reduced the effectiveness of the 25mms. (They were shooting at tanks, so the 25mm wouldn't have done a hell of a lot anyway) 82nd Airborne used them for a short stint as well, designated M1047, I saw some Army LAV-25s in Panama and in the 1991 Gulf War. I presume experience from that led to the concept of the Stryker BCTs. I don't know what happened them actually, they might have been sold on to the Corps. They really only differed from USMC machines in ammunition stowage. People will most obviously compare the LAV-25 (LAV-II) with the Stryker (LAV-III). People that only take a glancing interest will see that the -25 is an older, cheaper machine, with the same number of wheels, swimming ability, a much bigger gun, and similar armour, and wonder why the Army got robbed with Stryker. LAV-25 is almost a wheeled IFV, call it a light, fast, quiet Bradley without missiles. Stryker is an APC, not an IFV, and it sacrifices a much smaller turret in favour of the ability to carry twice as many troops, and so is designed to be used in a different manner. NTM

Works great in BF2 for running over charging MEC infantry and t90s

The LAVs are in Canadian Army use in Afghanistan. I gather they are working extremely well in that environment.

Quoted: The truck has been in service now for nigh on 20 years, and as near as I know, the Marines are quite happy with them. They've been through a few upgrades at this point, for example, now all LAV-25s have thermal sights, which was not the case originally. During the 1991 Khafji fight, only the LAV-ATs had thermals, which slightly reduced the effectiveness of the 25mms. (They were shooting at tanks, so the 25mm wouldn't have done a hell of a lot anyway) 82nd Airborne used them for a short stint as well, designated M1047, I saw some Army LAV-25s in Panama and in the 1991 Gulf War. I presume experience from that led to the concept of the Stryker BCTs. I don't know what happened them actually, they might have been sold on to the Corps. They really only differed from USMC machines in ammunition stowage. People will most obviously compare the LAV-25 (LAV-II) with the Stryker (LAV-III). People that only take a glancing interest will see that the -25 is an older, cheaper machine, with the same number of wheels, swimming ability, a much bigger gun, and similar armour, and wonder why the Army got robbed with Stryker. LAV-25 is almost a wheeled IFV, call it a light, fast, quiet Bradley without missiles. Stryker is an APC, not an IFV, and it sacrifices a much smaller turret in favour of the ability to carry twice as many troops, and so is designed to be used in a different manner. NTM

IIRC, the LAV25 armor protects from 12.7mm to the front and 7.62 AP to the sides/rear.  The Stryker is suppossed to protect from 14.5mm AP all round (I dont think they've gotten the ceramic armor package installed yet though).

Quoted: Quoted: The truck has been in service now for nigh on 20 years, and as near as I know, the Marines are quite happy with them. They've been through a few upgrades at this point, for example, now all LAV-25s have thermal sights, which was not the case originally. During the 1991 Khafji fight, only the LAV-ATs had thermals, which slightly reduced the effectiveness of the 25mms. (They were shooting at tanks, so the 25mm wouldn't have done a hell of a lot anyway) 82nd Airborne used them for a short stint as well, designated M1047, I saw some Army LAV-25s in Panama and in the 1991 Gulf War. I presume experience from that led to the concept of the Stryker BCTs. I don't know what happened them actually, they might have been sold on to the Corps. They really only differed from USMC machines in ammunition stowage. People will most obviously compare the LAV-25 (LAV-II) with the Stryker (LAV-III). People that only take a glancing interest will see that the -25 is an older, cheaper machine, with the same number of wheels, swimming ability, a much bigger gun, and similar armour, and wonder why the Army got robbed with Stryker. LAV-25 is almost a wheeled IFV, call it a light, fast, quiet Bradley without missiles. Stryker is an APC, not an IFV, and it sacrifices a much smaller turret in favour of the ability to carry twice as many troops, and so is designed to be used in a different manner. NTM IIRC, the LAV25 armor protects from 12.7mm to the front and 7.62 AP to the sides/rear.  The Stryker is suppossed to protect from 14.5mm AP all round (I dont think they've gotten the ceramic armor package installed yet though).

Stryker has to fit in a C-130. It barely does, in order to do so it has to have an adjustable height suspension.

What we really need is an American (modernized) version of the Russian BMP-3.
It's really just a big tank, with all of ones capabilities, which also carries seven passengers plus gear and supplies...

I do see the advantage of the wheels, but I think it's still lacking having the 25mm and all. I do like the idea of large bores capable of firing rockets (think versatility, especially against buildings and in a tight environment -- worked extremely well in Chechnya when used correctly(!)).

A BMP-3 has few of the capabilities of a tank. It can't take the hits, and it can't deal out the punishment to anything with modern tank-like armour. It's a decent attempt to combine a direct fire explosive round infantry support capability with an IFV.

It's a fascinating vehicle, with some export success (Cyprus, UAE, South Korea) but is as much a solution seeking a problem as anything else. I am not convinced that it does any job fantastically well.

NTM

Only have this to contribute.

I was an 1833/ Assault Amphib. Vehicle crewman/chief, and we had LAVs in our jetty all the time, and while I never actually saw it happen, I was told that if the water is too rough the LAVs have a problem with going tits up.  The wheels are the problem with its purported amphibius capabilities.  Having eight, very large air filled tires, below water level tends to make them quite unstable in cross currents or rough water.  In all fariness though, Tracks (AAVs) can go tits up too, but it will usually only happen if you get sideways while in the surf.

Other than the dead duck syndrome the LAVs are an impressive vehicle.  The beat feet across some rough terrain with no problem, have a nice 25mm cannon with great ammo versitility, good rate of fire and 'knock down power'.  Very cool to watch.

Also, I might add that while I never got to pilot an LAV 25, I did get to sit in one, and the drivers seat is a bit wierd.  You sit with your torso facing direct front, but your legs have to be angled to the right.  I imagine that over time, that seat is very hard on the back, especially on rough terrain.


EDT:  Oh yea, another advantage of being wheeled is that the LAVs can use normal roads to move the vehicles from place to place.  With tracked vehicles like AAVs and M1A1 you have to Lo-boy the vehicles (say from Pendleton to Twentynine palms) to get them around, otherwise they eat the concrete up every time you turn or pivot.

The Saudi National Guard has a couple of versions of the LAV that I wish we would use. One is a LAV-M  with a turreted 120mm breach-loaded mortar with both indirect and direct fire control systems. The other is the LAV-AG 90mm gun version. I've had the opportunity to operate both systems and have a great opinion of them.
LAV-M
LAV-AG

The Strykers are loved by the Army as far as I've read/heard. The grille on the outside disperses the RPG hits so that they are not deadly. In fact the only way to really disable a stryker is to hit it with an RPG from above, and down into a hatch, at least that is what I've read. They've also taken a few large IED's from underneath and come out OK. The older LAV's are vulnerable to RPG hits on the sides where the Stryker isn't.


- rem

Our blokes are happy with ours. The ones that we have in Baghdad and al Muthana have done exceptionally well. One of the Baghdad- deployed ones ate an IED. The commander was in his hatch and copped a lot of it, but survived, and everyone else was ok. They've now been upgraded with spall liners and bar armour, and are apparently doing alot better that the Strykers, mainly due to the're smaller size.

Quoted: What we really need is an American (modernized) version of the Russian BMP-3. It's really just a big tank, with all of ones capabilities, which also carries seven passengers plus gear and supplies...

Not even remotely. The low-pressure 100mm gun on the BMP-3, when not jamming because of its autoloader, does not impart the same direct-fire capabilities of a tanks main gun. Not to mention that the armor on the -3 is far less than that of any modern tank.

Since I do not hear much about (mainstream media being what it is), I figured it was doing really well.





What other info/stories are out there?

You probably don't hear much about it since there's nothing much new to say. It's an old vehicle, the Piranha II on which it is based has had massive export success, so other countries also see its merit, and they've had plenty of time with it, to include a number of wars/fights that nothing is really a surprise any more. There's no controversy.

NTM

want to hear more