An sb-players wet dream when hull-down looks like this:

[Bennewitz]

I have started this discussion in a german forum and now want your thoughts on this vehicle.
http://www.forumfactory2.de/cgi-bin/forenserver2/foren/F_1690/cutecast.pl?forum=3&thread=80

Imagine if someone had the protection-levels of this vehicle so Mr.Delany could implement it into Steel-beasts 2.... the vehicle shows that reduced fontal surface is absolutely feasable, but the crew lay-out sadly is only of good if you have long engagement-distances. You don`t want to get into a situation where you have to listen for enemy tanks, which you`d normally do unbuttoned(with your engines turned off). This isn`t a choice here, I think.
There should be no `Button` here to stick out the head, because It´s an unmanned turret or at least going into the direction.

[brazen]

damn. although the merkavia already is quite close to that without loosing the crew.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/images/merkava4.jpg%20

jordan got some interesting ideas going on... and in the desert where fighting is done at great distance i am sure that it is a completely sound idea.

same concept as the new russian models that are being talked about on here lately.

[dejawolf]

here's another low-profiler, although not an mbt..
http://www.ets-news.com/images/LAV_3.jpg

[brazen]

here's another low-profiler, although not an mbt..
http://www.ets-news.com/images/LAV_3.jpg

despite its many advertised shortcommings, i am a great fan of the lav, its simply too irresistable to have armour that moves that fast.

[chrisotto]

Well, all systems are not necessarily "more" hull-down, the turret just is far slimmer, however higher... Compare the Merk' to the LAV - the width to hight ratio is far larger than with those other strange contraptions. And : An Autoloader might mean extra danger to the crew, if they function in the same way like the T 72's...

[Ssnake]

An Autoloader might mean extra danger to the crew, if they function in the same way like the T 72's... Please stop to purport this urban myth. There have been malfunctions with the early 60s prototypes, yes, but the autoloader is no more dangerous than any kind of heavy machinery. I'm pretty sure that the Rheinmetall gun breeches have ruined more loaders' health than Russian autoloaders have eaten gunners' arms. Yet nobody mentions that being a loader can be a hazardous job either, especially if you're tired, stressed out to the max, and working on shaking ground.

What I want to say with this is that both solutions have their advantages and disadvantages. You have to be careful, and in the end it doesn't matter if one of the solutions has a snagging hazard while the other one threatens to crush arms, feet, or knees. Either you consider both solutions as dangerous, or none. I have yet to see evidence that autoloader technology in itself is significantly more dangerous than other solutions. Having a carousel loader with ammo in the crew compartment is a different issue, but the Leo shows that this can happen in a tank with a human loader just as well. ;)

[chrisotto]

I was actually referring to the open round and single propellant charges...

Not the auto-load-function for the loader's limbs.

As far as I recall the 72 has a round open and ready to fire with single propellant bags at all times - even a turret without personel inside is useless if a catastrophic hit triggers an explosion.

I'm a total friend of auto-loaders, as long as they stay semi-automatic, meaning that it still requires a touch of a button or a flick of a switch. Hey, otherwise I would be pushing those arty shell with my frail student arms into the breach...

[Ssnake]

Well then, so not the autoloader technology per se is the problem, but the compartmentalization of crew and all things with strong exothermic reactions (or better: The lack thereof). Here we totally agree. :)

[chrisotto]

Voilà

[brazen]

but either way... if youre gonna get into a tank fight in a lav, i think the risk of an autoloader failing is probably secondary to the need to keep well well well out of sight of that tank youre engaging.

[dejawolf]

another disadvantage with the LAV is the ammo, or the lack of it.
25 rounds max.

but a reload time of 4.3 seconds...

[brazen]

another disadvantage with the LAV is the ammo, or the lack of it.
25 rounds max.

but a reload time of 4.3 seconds...

[Edited on 18/4/2003 by dejawolf]

at that timing you could put a lot more pressure on a tank than it could put on you, but you could only sustain it for a couple of minutes.. but i would imagine they would have to work in teams anyway.

[Newbie-Olle]

Nothing new about this concept.
A narrow remote controlled autocannon on top of a low hull has been thought of for a long time now. It's just that the technology haven't been available yet.
One major problem is feeding the gun. One of the latest solutions is to "throw" the ammo from a storage inside and up to the loading mechanism...

The LAV III is way too high, overall, to count. And the 4.3 s reload time is pretty crappy.
Compare that to strv 103 that was roughly the size of a M60 hull, but a little shorter and narrower. Reload time ~3 s.

Cheers
Olle

[Ssnake]

In all fairness: It's easier to build a fast autoloader if the gun position is fixed like in the S-tank. If you need a 360° rotatable turret, things can become a bit more complicated.

[charlie_zero_five]

The Stryker BDE is making its debut in JRTC this month..... so if you see alot of weird looking wheeled vehicles, please dont shoot! A little teaser for all you LAV fans.....now just show me a grunt who drove a LAV who didn't roll or break it, and I'll give ya a cookie;)

[dejawolf]

Nothing new about this concept.
A narrow remote controlled autocannon on top of a low hull has been thought of for a long time now. It's just that the technology haven't been available yet.
One major problem is feeding the gun. One of the latest solutions is to "throw" the ammo from a storage inside and up to the loading mechanism...

The LAV III is way too high, overall, to count. And the 4.3 s reload time is pretty crappy.
Compare that to strv 103 that was roughly the size of a M60 hull, but a little shorter and narrower. Reload time ~3 s.

Cheers
Olle

there's things that is limiting the s-tank.
it has no ability to fire at the move.
and i believe it has no stabilization either.

[Newbie-Olle]

... the s-tank. it has no ability to fire at the move.Can you prove that?
A cheesy reply to your statement would be to say; "It can fire on the move, but not hit any specific target while doing so." But I will elaborate deeper...

I know for sure that the British army did their best to prove that hypothesis ("The S-tank is unable to fire on the move.") by performing several comparative tests with S-tank and Cheftain in 1973.

The final report clearly states that they were unable to prove the S-tank unable to fire on the move. (I could point you to the exact report if you want to, but I don't have it at hand.)

Frankly, what the Brits thought initially was something on the line of; "MBTs need turrets so that they can fire on the move. Cheftain has a turret and can, S-tank don't have a turret and can't."
The actual live firing tests showed that the turreted tanks couldn't fire with any precision while moving anyway, so the S-tank didn't perform worse.
After the tests about half of the British officers involved confessed they'd actually prefer the S-tank to Cheftain...

In th 70ies there were no tanks at all that could fire accurately on the move. The S-tank was on par with turreted tanks to fire the first shot with a short halt, and faster to the second shot (thanks to the autocannon). This is true even if the target originally appeared in the rear arc of the tank, since turning the S-tank was about as fast as turning a turret (unless the tank was standing in 80+cm of snow).

The technical development of gun stabilisers went on a lot faster than anticipated in the 60ies, when the S-tank was developed. Tanks that actually can hit anything while moving started to appear in the early 80ies; Abrams, Challenger and Merkava, to mention some. This was about a decade earlier than previously anticipated, and the S-tank obviously can't compare to these. For a fair comparison one must use tanks of the same generation; Cheftain, Leopard 1, M60. None of these could hit any specific target while firing on the move in combat conditions, at least not often enough to make it worthwhile spending the ammo.

Disclamer:
I don't claim the design of the S-tank to be flawless or without downsides, just that having a fixed gun was not a flaw, but a very sensible feature!

Cheers
Olle

[dejawolf]

thanks for the great info olle :)
i wrote about the s-tank's stab in the knowledge i could be wrong, since i didn't know a lot about the s-tank.

[Bennewitz]

Does that thing look good?

http://www.kaddb.com/Product_View.asp?ItemID=64

[Volcano]

There are other problems for the LAV 105 that we (the crew) are just now discovering. Every thing looks good on paper but when you put an actual crew on a vehicle that has to perform their duties then problems unforseen to the infinite wisdom of the designers begin to manifest themselves. For one thing you need about a 9 foot step ladder to put the MBD in the gun tube to bore sight it. Sure you may be able to find a tall berm somewhere (like on a range) but it is not like you can just dig out the ol' Gott cooler from the bustle rack and stand on it to look into the MBD. ;) Then of course besides boresighting itself, just attempting to perform the occasional and expedient confirmation of boresight becomes problematic as well. Will I have to strap a 9 foot ladder to the side of the vehicle from Home Depot?

The gunner also has no manual controls, only the TC. This also makes boresighting it very difficult and time consuming (for all those who have boresighted a tank you know what I mean). This is just two small examples of the mass of problems with the system that was not designed with the crew in mind like the M1 or Leo series was. It is basically a 105mm gun stuck on a wheel vehicle that was not designed to carry such. There are other problems as well but these are just two at the sub atomic level.

Is this off topic or what. :o And no, I am not a LAV crew member, I just follow it closely being the in the armor community.

[12Alfa]

Also if you look at the commanders sight and therefore the gunners sight you will see it is below the gun.
Now exposing the gun before your sights might seem like a good idea I would think eyes before gun is better.

Through TIS the gun will be hoter than the terrian around it (most times).

Therefore you are seen even before you can see whats beyond the ridge you are moving upto to take a turretdown position (sort of).
In my opion this is the biggest drawback of this system, i can live with the autoloader, the small amount of ready ammo, but not the reduced viewing for the crew.

Thank God i will be out before Canada get this POS.

12Alfa