Project Reality Forums

@ -tomo-unit:

epic picture of APC

There are tons of ASLAV pics in Astan and elsewhere on the ADF media website, just pick a month and take a peek.

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:imo that puts the arguement towards not having that top MG, it'll save performance anyway but it creates problems ingame as seen by the merkava, and anyway as we say...one of the passengers isn't meant to man it but 3 man vehicle crew would kick out a 6th passenger...

Isn't problem - 1 rifleman can be request Crewman kit and ride on MG,when needed dismount - request back hes kit.
Anyway - with 8man squads they could be possible,don't thinks so thats they should transport 2 squad.In practice - it's pretty deadly.Good tactics - work with 1 squad or work with battlegroup with another IFVs/APCs.
Real problem is a jeeps like HMMWV,G-WAGON etc.It's really sad thats they don't have 6th seats and don't have powerful weapon for cover(or zoom on their guns).

Offtopic
I don't understand - why standard commander got m240.For engaging ground targets they got 25mm cannon,to make heavy suppress fire they got coaxial MG,but why they got m240 - I don't know.They useless against air targets and "eat" same rounds with coaxial MG.M2 for this role should be better,why they don't mounted?Just a little question.

No other APC has a secondary gunner and I don't see why this needs to be the exception.

Offtopic
I don't understand - why standard commander got m240.For engaging ground targets they got 25mm cannon,to make heavy suppress fire they got coaxial MG,but why they got m240 - I don't know.They useless against air targets and "eat" same rounds with coaxial MG.M2 for this role should be better,why they don't mounted?Just a little question.

in the book 'barefoot soldier' by Johnson Beharry VC, his warrior IFV commander liked to mark targets with tracer mags for the gunner, I imagine its similar, the top weapon has got a good view, and can probably be brought to bear on a target faster than the turret itself.

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:in the book 'barefoot soldier' by Johnson Beharry VC, his warrior IFV commander liked to mark targets with tracer mags for the gunner, I imagine its similar, the top weapon has got a good view, and can probably be brought to bear on a target faster than the turret itself.

Ah ok.but anyway HMG should be better and for this role too

samogon100500 wrote:Ah ok.but anyway HMG should be better and for this role too

an HMG on the top has bigger ammo. Storage space was limited in the APC according someone else in this thread. So I imagine they are using a weapon who's cartridges arent so big.

samogon100500 wrote: Offtopic
I don't understand - why standard commander got m240.For engaging ground targets they got 25mm cannon,to make heavy suppress fire they got coaxial MG,but why they got m240 - I don't know.They useless against air targets and "eat" same rounds with coaxial MG.M2 for this role should be better,why they don't mounted?Just a little question.

Right basicly the guy up top is norm ethier the commander or someone riding along. Also reason for having the mounted MAG58 or Minimi comes down to speed of fixing targerts and personal defence of the vehicle...

cyberzomby wrote:an HMG on the top has bigger ammo. Storage space was limited in the APC according someone else in this thread. So I imagine they are using a weapon who's cartridges arent so big.

They don't requests to much space inside.Just just they got heavy weight round(100 rounds chain - ~13-15 kilograms => 10 chains - 130-150 kilogramms,equals 1 soldier with his equipment)
They should be get multiply functions - close combat self-defense,anti-air defense,marking targets for cannon etc.Just my opinion.
And I think I say them with M2 HMG(May-be it's LAV-III?)

With all the extra rounds just for the main gun LAVs usually won't carry more than 4 passengers. I think a 7 player cap (3crew/etc) on all the variants would make sense.

The LAV-25 carries 6 players, it would be unfair to have the ASLAV only able to carry 4. If its needed, LAV crews would ditch their extra gear in order to carry a section in the back.

Realistically, transport for the ADF should be down to the M113AS4 (M113 with a 1-man .50 turret), the Bushmaster and if its ever actually introduced, the Hawkei.

The problem with PR atm is that every BLUFOR faction is pretty much the same, each faction has a heavy/medium APC such as the Bradley/Stryker situation and we've yet to see any variation on the Stryker platform in something like 3 versions even though it can fulfill many different mission roles. The ASLAV-PC is used as a logistics platform in support of regular ASLAV's but it can also function as a Stryker-esque vehicle if need be.

Why not to put m113 as transport APC?And make it's like lite IFV?

Why don't we mount a TOW launcher on it while we are at it, just for the hell of it?

Also what would be call is if the passengers can throw out mines out the rear door too so any vehicles following it will run over the mines?

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:Why don't we mount a TOW launcher on it while we are at it, just for the hell of it?

Also what would be call is if the passengers can throw out mines out the rear door too so any vehicles following it will run over the mines?

Placing MAG-58's or Minimi's in a 'static' fashion with a limited FOV similar to the static AR's placed around mains would stop that, whilst still being inherently realistic.

Its not too much to ask for a single open hatch on vehicles which feature it, such as the BTR's and BMP's where this static weapon I'm proposing can be placed. It increases the vehicles awareness, adds a new gameplay feature and is most definitely realistic.

It increases the vehicles awareness

beeeeeeeeeeep, wrong answer

the driver camera is in a position that easily, and more effectively than RL, allows situational awareness

if we had the driver's view down at the viewpoint by the hatch similar to the 1st camera option on tanks then you'd have a case, but is not so my friend

How does it not increase vehicle awareness? Its another piece of the pie that the driver doesn't have to worry about. There is no 'driver camera' aka CITV on the LAV vehicles anyway, simply vision periscopes and a camera that is slaved to the gunner's view.

Don't think you understand what I mean, I'm proposing having the current iteration of the LAV/ASLAV, but with one of the rear hatches open giving the option for someone to crew an AR which is attached to the vehicle, but has a limited view area, similar to the firing ports on the WZ551's except this position is much more exposed and for balance purposes, can even have iron-sights and no zoom.

dtacs wrote:The LAV-25 carries 6 players, it would be unfair to have the ASLAV only able to carry 4. If its needed, LAV crews would ditch their extra gear in order to carry a section in the back.

That's what I was getting at the LAV-25 shouldn't be used as a troop transport anyway, that role is filled by AAVs, MRAPs, and 7 tons. It's not a fairness issue differentiating between factions but something that should be done across the board.

To be fair, I don't know how the Aussies deploy their LAVs, maybe they don't carry much ammo and use them for recon and screening. But if they're using them as troop transports when they're pretty easily shattered by rpgs and IEDs then you're correct it should be 2 crew 6 in the back. But then all LAVs should have their ammo counts changed to reflect or have existing LAVs see a reduction in passengers and increase in ammo.

Just make it the same as the existing LAV, which is, at the very least, balanced.

Ninjam3rc wrote:That's what I was getting at the LAV-25 shouldn't be used as a troop transport anyway, that role is filled by AAVs, MRAPs, and 7 tons. It's not a fairness issue differentiating between factions but something that should be done across the board.

To be fair, I don't know how the Aussies deploy their LAVs, maybe they don't carry much ammo and use them for recon and screening. But if they're using them as troop transports when they're pretty easily shattered by rpgs and IEDs then you're correct it should be 2 crew 6 in the back. But then all LAVs should have their ammo counts changed to reflect or have existing LAVs see a reduction in passengers and increase in ammo.

ok lets get a few things straight, we are talking about the ADF gen3 ASLAV-25. please note this is not the same vehicle as a LAV-25. there are several diffences that a quick google search will inform everyone about.

oh and rhino, we did mount a hellfire and a javilin to the aslavs a year or two ago, haven't heard anything new on that program though..

anglomanii wrote:ok lets get a few things straight, we are talking about the ADF gen3 ASLAV-25.

I'm aware of the slight differences, I am not aware of the most assured differences in doctrines.