Project Reality Forums

Tannhauser wrote:Most probably that it was a SRAW.

I've never seen an LAV25 get one-shotted by RPG or any LAT in fact. And believe me, RPGs hitting LAVs is a common sight.

i agree, but there's a dim chance that previous damage (bumps, etc) get unnoticed 'till your lav blows up from a single rpg

Yeah my driver saw the guy with the RPG it deff was a RPG... It was the second time it happened to me while crewing one. And I have seen it once b4 when I was riding in a LAV but I did not see the 3rd one... the driver told us that RPG 1 hit killed us.

It also often happens that multiple RPG gunners shoot at the same time, especially when in the same squad. I still have to see an LAV going down by one RPG hit to the hull.

USMCMIDN wrote:The spall liner protects against RPGs and the up armor also

Without armor add-on, the spall liner is totaly useless against RPG.

Hotrod525 wrote:Without armor add-on, the spall liner is totaly useless against RPG.

Well im no armorer nor am interested in armor really so I do not know but the sources I provided earlier said they did.

And the spall liner is added on with the additional armor, making it effective. It is not added on alone.

wood_badger wrote:Not on subject with OP, but I think the LAV accelerates way too fast. Any one have the Real Steel performances specs for that??

I got it's sister Vehicle, the Bison, up to highway speeds (80+kph) with out causing any slow down for civies on the road. It's got a great Engine.

~Thanato

USMCMIDN wrote:Well im no armorer nor am interested in armor really so I do not know but the sources I provided earlier said they did.

And the spall liner is added on with the additional armor, making it effective. It is not added on alone.

Do you actually know what a spall liner is intended to accomplish? It's meant to either prevent or contain spall which is created from non penetrating shots bending the armour and creating internal crack and splinters which can injure crew, usually only rounds with high kinetic energy, or that create such energy as part of their warhead mechanism, will create said spall. (Such as the larger calibre AP munitions the up armour is intended to protect against)

No where is it suggested in the documentation shown in this thread that mechanisms have been placed as part of this up armour package to defeat High Explosive Anti Tank RPG warheads with utilise Explosively Formed Penetrators.

What it needs (in real life) is something like this....

http://www.murdoconline.net/2008/austra ... V_slat.jpg

But, IMO for PR we shouldn't be using the LAV25 as much as we do. What I mean, is that we use it on the map Fallujah West because in the real battle of Fallujah, they were used. But, in the real battle, there were lots and lots of other units fighting along side it, it had its role and wasn't the bread and butter of armored combat. And also, the real Fallujah is a huge place. In PR, we're putting 2 LAV25s into one square kilometer, with 32 angry insurgents running around. So, even with the best of intentions, the LAV25 will not be used in a realistic fashion on that map. (From what i've read) The USMC use their LAVs for light-armored recon, rear security, convoy escort, route patrol, infantry transport, etc. In PR it's pushed up to the front line as a mini-tank and takes a **** load of enemy RPG fire. And then we end up with threads like this saying the LAV25 is too weak against RPGs.

I suggest we remove the LAVs from such small maps and add more Bradleys in its' place. The LAVs still have their place on larger maps that require armored transport, recon, etc. but on Fallujah West their pretty much sent to their deaths time and time again.

A quote from http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/10-827.aspx

There are Add-On Armor kits (ceramic tiles) that bring the protection level up to the 14.5mm AP level (with a weight/reduced mobility penalty). I have yet to see any pictures of LAV's using them in Iraq. The same applies to LAV losses due to RPG's. We use to tell everyone that "In the armor comunity, the LAV was a high-speed flaq-jacket, as far as armor protection goes". So the crews (& their leaders) use the terrain like a rifleman does, for cover & concealment. They do this, along with good 'fire & maneuver' technigues. The crews look at the armor as their last means of protection. Where as Army armored vehicle crews & leaders have a tendency to view the armor(stryker) as the primary means of protection.

coulda have been that glitch where if you nail any of the armoured vehicles in between the turret and body it deflects between the two and causes an insta kill

Kim Jong ill wrote:No where is it suggested in the documentation shown in this thread that mechanisms have been placed as part of this up armour package to defeat High Explosive Anti Tank RPG warheads with utilise Explosively Formed Penetrators.

shaped charge also produce spalls, so while it do not add in armour thickness, it does help to reduce its effect
i dont know the original source of this picture, sorry, but it suggests that spalling is one of primary effects of HEAT pic, article it is taken from is on russian and also researches effects and myth about HEAT projectiles

here is a research about effects of HEAT projectiles
original article
Google translate

Metal lumps at several grams

It was estimated that this could cause secondary effects in the form of metal text entries from the underside of steel armor around breakthrough spot. . To detect this effect was of an appropriate distance from the breakthrough site, installed "witness plates" in the form of particle board. Fragment of metal ejection would then be picked up or break through the witness plate. One might note that these draft entries metal dispersed in the tank in a divergent pattern.

Fragment consisted partly of a few rather large metal chunks in several gram and masses of particles of sand grain size. The real impact of this phenomenon is analyzed in the present, but there is no doubt that helmet and flak reduce any adverse effect on the crew of the tank significantly.

'[R-CON wrote:DankE_SPB;1315312']shaped charge also produce spalls, so while it do not add in armour thickness, it does help to reduce its effect
i dont know the original source of this picture, sorry, but it suggests that spalling is one of primary effects of HEAT pic, article it is taken from is on russian and also researches effects and myth about HEAT projectiles

here is a research about effects of HEAT projectiles
original article
Google translate

Thank You. This is what I was trying to say but you said it better.

But all that does is increase crewman survivability, if that jet of molten metal is heading towards a critical component then no spall liner is going to stop it. With that in mind I don't see how it really fits into the current argument, because as it stands if it's a one hit kill everyone dies but if it's a one hit delayed kill then a quick crew can bail with only minor injuries.

keep in mind if they do feature the "enhanced armour" package LAV it loses its ability to water ford.

General Fuct wrote:keep in mind if they do feature the "enhanced armour" package LAV it loses its ability to water ford.

Source on that?

General Fuct wrote:keep in mind if they do feature the "enhanced armour" package LAV it loses its ability to water ford.

That does not sound right... Im not really sure I do not know for sure but a source would be nice. I know the AAV with the upgraded armor will not swim but idk about the LAV.

and going back to the spall liner it will help against RPGs. Think about it if a RPG hit and does not penetrate (which if an up armored humm will stop or withstand the blast of a RPG then why not the LAV upgraded...)

DoD Buzz | New Armored Capsule For Humvee

Vehicle armour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The metal inside the LAV or the spall liners are elasticated/flexible so this in return prevents splintering and it is also made to withstand a bit more blast then an easily splintering metal. So it will help.

That link you posted about the HMMWV up armour doesn't state anywhere that it is designed to or can withstand a direct hit from an RPG.

Kim Jong ill wrote:That link you posted about the HMMWV up armour doesn't state anywhere that it is designed to or can withstand a direct hit from an RPG.

I never said it would stop against a direct hit. There are many variables to it. It is meant to stop or withstand the blast. And this is for the Humm not the LAV Which it does say that in the articles.

And this source states it will stop the whole RPG.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6699553/%20 ... %20Similar

"Lt. Gen. John Sattler, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, says the M1114 is the “best uparmored vehicle in the world.” It can stop AK-47 bullets, anti-personnel RPGs and most roadside bombs and mines."

but I am skeptical on a direct hit...

anyway going bak to the topic yes spall does protect against RPG

*EDIT*

They are currently in use by the USMC

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3490.html

USMCMIDN wrote:I never said it would stop against a direct hit. There are many variables to it. It is meant to stop or withstand the blast. And this is for the Humm not the LAV Which it does say that in the articles.

And this source states it will stop the whole RPG.

U.S. commanders welcome new Humvees - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com

"Lt. Gen. John Sattler, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, says the M1114 is the “best uparmored vehicle in the world.” It can stop AK-47 bullets, anti-personnel RPGs and most roadside bombs and mines."

but I am skeptical on a direct hit...

anyway going bak to the topic yes spall does protect against RPG

*EDIT*

They are currently in use by the USMC

Army Guide - LAV-A2, Wheeled armoured personnel carrier

Highlighted the important part. It won't protect against normal RPG rounds, the most common in use is the AT variant.

It is still a RPG but that is the Humm I am positive the new LAV armor is not the same as the metal plates we strap on the humms.

USMCMIDN wrote:That does not sound right... Im not really sure I do not know for sure but a source would be nice. I know the AAV with the upgraded armor will not swim but idk about the LAV.

and going back to the spall liner it will help against RPGs. Think about it if a RPG hit and does not penetrate (which if an up armored humm will stop or withstand the blast of a RPG then why not the LAV upgraded...)

DoD Buzz | New Armored Capsule For Humvee

Vehicle armour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The metal inside the LAV or the spall liners are elasticated/flexible so this in return prevents splintering and it is also made to withstand a bit more blast then an easily splintering metal. So it will help.

You do realise that a RPG can pierce 10 inch of RHA ? And you do realise that a LAV25 do not have a thick armor ? It was build to sustain 7.62, not a HEAT warhead. If you are in a LAV25 and you take an RPG it will be you're last or you're worst day ever. Spall liner is about ½ of an inch of KEVLAR inside a LAV25... it wont help at all.

IFV/APC are not MBT, MBT can have up to a foot of thickness, APC/IFV generaly have something up to a inch, may be two in some case.