Project Reality Forums

dtacs wrote:Source on that?

Wikipedia suggests it water fording will be significantly hindered, or removed. We might as well keep it as it is for gameplay reasons.

Hotrod525 wrote: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.

M113 has 2 inches of Aluminum/Magnesium alloy?

Hotrod525 wrote: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.

Yes I know what a RPG can do...

the up graded armor is made to better protect against RPG rounds (I have seen on sites that is says it will STOP/deflect and others that say it gives increased protection) and IEDs as well as stop 14.5mm AP. It is on their website. The armor that protects only against 7.62 is the base armor and not what I am talking about.

Not to undermine your argument Hotrod, but figures suggest that it's more towards then 13 inch mark for standard PG-7V warheads. People don't seem to realise this but back in the day almost some 50 years these weapons were the state of the art Soviet weapon for dealing with enemy main battle tanks. And guess what? They're still being used by the Russian Federation today because they are a seriously bad arse piece of weaponry, if you think for a second that anything short of slat armour, ERA, Chobham or a seriously thick piece of steel plate is going to stop one of these then you are sadly mistaken.

You are yet to provide us with a source stating that the up armour is capable of defeating RPG-7 HEAT rounds.

Kim Jong ill wrote:Not to undermine your argument Hotrod, but figures suggest that it's more towards then 13 inch mark for standard PG-7V warheads. People don't seem to realise this but back in the day almost some 50 years these weapons were the state of the art Soviet weapon for dealing with enemy main battle tanks. And guess what? They're still being used by the Russian Federation today because they are a seriously bad arse piece of weaponry, if you think for a second that anything short of slat armour, ERA, Chobham or a seriously thick piece of steel plate is going to stop one of these then you are sadly mistaken.

You are yet to provide us with a source stating that the up armour is capable of defeating RPG-7 HEAT rounds.

LAVA2 has increased survivability against kinetic energy weapons (which online it says RPGs are KEWs) and IEDs
LIGHT ARMORED VEHICLE (LAV)

http://www.tanknutdave.com/component/co ... rticle/104

Kim Jong ill wrote:Not to undermine your argument Hotrod, but figures suggest that it's more towards then 13 inch mark for standard PG-7V warheads. People don't seem to realise this but back in the day almost some 50 years these weapons were the state of the art Soviet weapon for dealing with enemy main battle tanks. And guess what? They're still being used by the Russian Federation today because they are a seriously bad arse piece of weaponry, if you think for a second that anything short of slat armour, ERA, Chobham or a seriously thick piece of steel plate is going to stop one of these then you are sadly mistaken.

You are yet to provide us with a source stating that the up armour is capable of defeating RPG-7 HEAT rounds.

Never mind that Trophy can stop RPGs, over and over again.

Mate you're grasping at straws and drawing links where they aren't any to try and support your failing argument. I hate to quote wikipedia but they sum it up nicely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator wrote:The opposite technique to KE-penetrators uses chemical energy penetrators. There are two types of these shells in use: high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) and high explosive squash head (HESH). They have been widely used against armour in the past and still have a role but are less effective against modern composite armour such as Chobham, Kanchan as used on main battle tanks today.

Hunt3r wrote:Never mind that Trophy can stop RPGs, over and over again.

Just like Iron Fist and Quick Kill, but what the hell may I ask is your point? They're both experimental systems that have yet to be deployed and are hardly relevant to the situation at hand. Only Drozd and Arena have been deployed and their use is limited to Russian and Soviet armour and therefore once again are IRRELEVANT. Please could you people stay on topic and stop trying to weazle around with your method of arguing because it is extremely irritating.

Just saying, because active protection systems is the ultimate ERA. Also, wut?

http://defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.htm wrote:During the first months of 2009 the Trophy system went through comprehensive operational testing and was cleared for operational use after a successful operational firing test conducted early August 09. By the end of the year all new Merkava Mk4 tanks will be equipped with the system. Until then, Trophy is being retrofitted to operational tanks.

During the first months of 2009 the Trophy system went through comprehensive operational testing and was cleared for operational use after a successful operational firing test conducted early August 09. By the end of the year all new Merkava Mk4 tanks will be equipped with the system. Until then, Trophy is being retrofitted to operational tanks.

Until a system is fully installed and integrated then you cannot say it's in active service.

source : Canadians involved in Afghan village firefight

MCpl Jason Cuppage, crew commander of the lead LAV in the blocking force, speculates that the two LAVs were targeted with the RPG's to disable them and trap everyone in the ambush zone. "My LAV took six hits from RPGs, three in the turret, and it had virtually no effect on our ability to fight," he said. Taking over the main gun when the gunners' vision became obscured, he fired about 90 rounds during the fight and directed his dismounts onto the enemy.

Granted he doesn't specify warhead types and there's other cases where LAV's have been taken out by a single RPG.

Kim Jong ill wrote:Until a system is fully installed and integrated then you cannot say it's in active service.

Ummm trophy is in use by the IDF... look it up...

and my sources are relevant. If it adds protection against kinetic energy weapons and an RPG is a KEW whats the problem... Now sure a side hit most likely will decimate the LAV A2...but a hit from the hull or turret...IDK with the new enhanced armor there are plenty of instances where up armored LAVs have taken numerous hits...

and the quote you are sourcing is from the LAV 25!!! not LAV A2 (WHICH IS THE LAV 25 THAT HAS BEEN UPGRADED!!!)

*EDIT*

Here is a source of a LAV surviving RPG hits...

MCpl Jason Cuppage, crew commander of the lead LAV in the blocking force, speculates that the two LAVs were targeted with the RPG's to disable them and trap everyone in the ambush zone. "My LAV took six hits from RPGs, three in the turret, and it had virtually no effect on our ability to fight," he said. Taking over the main gun when the gunners' vision became obscured, he fired about 90 rounds during the fight and directed his dismounts onto the enemy.

Granted he doesn't specify warhead types and there's other cases where LAV's have been taken out by a single RPG.
(this is true too it all depends on where it is hit)

Thanks DEV

This LAV the LAV III is basically a larger and uses a gen 3 turret, this is the only difference between the LAV III and LAV A2... I agree that it does not provide what kind of RPG hit it but someone it may of been this thread said the HEAT is the most common used RPG in Stan and Iraq.

it says here they use the same hull

http://www.1ofthefew.com/thelavfamily.htm

http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op= ... 495&page=1

Also I believe a direct fired kinetic energy weapon can classify as an RPG...


ALSO

here is a source which says the LAV A2 has equivalent armor to the US Army's Stryker

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Spending+ ... 0146956688

and this source tells how the Stryker has a better survivability then the LAV III

http://www.g2mil.com/Stryker.htm

and here is another source which claims they (Stryker and LAV III are the same)

so in conclusion if the LAV A2 armor gives the same protection as the Stryker and the Stryker is the same as the LAV III and that story provided by the dev explaining how that LAV sustained hits from RPGs and survived... well you see where I am going...

USMCMIDN wrote:Also I believe a direct fired kinetic energy weapon can classify as an RPG...

uh, no
Tthe way RPG works is forming metal jet using shape charge, so its a HEAT weapon, which uses chemical energy and its not a KE weapon, since its penetration is not dependant on projectile speed(in opposite of APFSDS and other KE projectiles)


About LAV taking 6 RPG and continuing fighting- well, as always depends where it hits, i read memoirs of BMP-1 gunner from 1st chechen war- he survived about 15 RPG hits in one day of fighting
3rd hit went through few munitions, but they didnt explode, he had to abandon his BMP after 4th hit, then continued to move in another vehicle, which took 5 hits, last one ignited fire, but it was ceased by the crew, later it took another 4-5 hits which also caused fire and only after that they abandoned vehicle

the original story for those who can read russian link

'[R-CON wrote:DankE_SPB;1317427']uh, no
Tthe way RPG works is forming metal jet using shape charge, so its a HEAT weapon, which uses chemical energy and its not a KE weapon, since its penetration is not dependant on projectile speed(in opposite of APFSDS and other KE projectiles)


About LAV taking 6 RPG and continuing fighting- well, as always depends where it hits, i read memoirs of BMP-1 gunner from 1st chechen war- he survived about 15 RPG hits in one day of fighting
3rd hit went through few munitions, but they didnt explode, he had to abandon his BMP after , 4th hit, then continued to move in another vehicle, which took 5 hits, last one ignited fire, but it was ceased by the crew, later it took another 4-5 hits which also caused fire and only after that they abandoned vehicle

the original story for those who can read russian link

ok I may of been wrong about that (KE being an RPG (however im still sure that it does help protect against RPG if it does against IED and KE why not and the stories of them taking multiple hits and not to mention the spall liners)) but about the LAV taking hits from RPGs...thats a real story... but yes I do agree it depends on where they hit also. But that stories of the LAV taking multiple hits including the turret and the BMP taking 15 is pretty sick and real life.

EDIT

The KE is for AP rounds such as the 14.5mm and 30mm... Not RPGs you guys were right.

I am reasonably sure still that the Increased armor would help against RPGs why not? ? ? Maybe not a direct hit on the sides, top, or back but in the hull possibly. And not to mention all the accounts of the LAVs taking numerous RPGs in Stan and Iraq so in conclusion I can assume that it depends on where it hits and other probabilities.

You're just over-rating the LAV25, its pointless to argue. RPG will pierce and kill people inside a LAV25, do not compare LAV3 LORIT with LAV25, there are not the same vehicle, they are not armored at the same level, and they dont use the same type of armor. And even so, the M.Cpl. in that LAV3L must be the luckiest guy ever, ex : if the RPG hit the rack before the turret, it wont have the same effect, if the RPG do not explode on hit ( keep in mind Taliban arent using brand new stuff' ) it wont have any effect, the type of warhead used, etc,etc,etc... there is alot of value to consider when you read "i took 6 rpg and keep on fightin'"

Hotrod525 wrote:You're just over-rating the LAV25, its pointless to argue. RPG will pierce and kill people inside a LAV25, do not compare LAV3 LORIT with LAV25, there are not the same vehicle, they are not armored at the same level, and they dont use the same type of armor. And even so, the M.Cpl. in that LAV3L must be the luckiest guy ever, ex : if the RPG hit the rack before the turret, it wont have the same effect, if the RPG do not explode on hit ( keep in mind Taliban arent using brand new stuff' ) it wont have any effect, the type of warhead used, etc,etc,etc... there is alot of value to consider when you read "i took 6 rpg and keep on fightin'"

It says they are armored at the same level... (with the upgrades)

if it says the LAV A2 has the same armor protection rating as the Stryker and the Stryker has the same armor rating as the LAV III then they do dont they?

Once again I will refer to the rule that says if you are making a statement in these forums you have to back them up with facts and sources

H.sta wrote:Once again I will refer to the rule that says if you are making a statement in these forums you have to back them up with facts and sources

I have a couple posts up but....here they are again....

Same Hull

TheLAVFamily

LAV A2 has same armor protection as Stryker

"Recognizing that their two decade-old light armored vehicles will remain with them for another 20 years, the Years, The Marines have decided to modernize them. "We're going to upgrade them to the next-generation armor that can withstand 14.5 mm rounds," Catto said. "They'll have the same level of protection as the Army's Stryker." "

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Spending+ ... 0146956688

Here is a source that says the LAV III is less protected against the Stryker but IDK...

LAV III Stryking Out

The GEN III configurations are newly designed LAVs from ground up. The chassis is longer and wider than the baseline vehicle. Higher capacity Power Pack, Driveline and Suspension have been introduced to provide more load carrying capacity.

That doesn't sound like the same hull to me. Maybe you meant it was armored to withstand the same sized round?

So what is your argument anyway? That the LAV25 has the same amount of armor as the Stryker or LAV3? So what would that prove? If the Stryker or LAV3 could stop an RPG on their own, the military wouldn't bother building cage armor to put on them. I don't see cages on any Abrams tanks, because they can stop RPGs.

Your arguing about all these facts that have nothing to do with stopping an RPG. Think about it this way, if you threw a stick of C4 on the ground 5m from a tank, it'll blow up and send rocks and **** flying, and most likely won't hurt the tank. Hell, you could find some plastic sheets that will protect against that type of blast. But, slap the stick of C4 directly onto the tank or sheet of plastic and its a whole other story. The c4 will blow a hole through very thick surfaces, it's all about the release of energy and where it can go. Up tight against a surface, the energy will try to push through that surface. It's the same with a HEAT RPG round.

When the RPG hits the side of a LAV it explodes in the direction of the armor.(shape charge) So any type of thick steel plating armor will fail. Unless you have some type of energy absorbing material. Like they have on modern main battle tanks.

With the cages, the RPG detonates a foot away from the armor which is enough distance to let the explosion spread out before getting to close to the armor. It has room to waste its energy.

So, when they say the armor will stop 14.5mm kinetic rounds, they mean if you fire a high powered bullet up to the size of 14.5mm (with no explosive properties) it won't penetrate the armor. Anything bigger will punch through, anything smaller will bounce off.

badmojo420 wrote:That doesn't sound like the same hull to me. Maybe you meant it was armored to withstand the same sized round?

So what is your argument anyway? That the LAV25 has the same amount of armor as the Stryker or LAV3? So what would that prove? If the Stryker or LAV3 could stop an RPG on their own, the military wouldn't bother building cage armor to put on them. I don't see cages on any Abrams tanks, because they can stop RPGs.

Your arguing about all these facts that have nothing to do with stopping an RPG. Think about it this way, if you threw a stick of C4 on the ground 5m from a tank, it'll blow up and send rocks and **** flying, and most likely won't hurt the tank. Hell, you could find some plastic sheets that will protect against that type of blast. But, slap the stick of C4 directly onto the tank or sheet of plastic and its a whole other story. The c4 will blow a hole through very thick surfaces, it's all about the release of energy and where it can go. Up tight against a surface, the energy will try to push through that surface. It's the same with a HEAT RPG round.

When the RPG hits the side of a LAV it explodes in the direction of the armor.(shape charge) So any type of thick steel plating armor will fail. Unless you have some type of energy absorbing material. Like they have on modern main battle tanks.

With the cages, the RPG detonates a foot away from the armor which is enough distance to let the explosion spread out before getting to close to the armor. It has room to waste its energy.

So, when they say the armor will stop 14.5mm kinetic rounds, they mean if you fire a high powered bullet up to the size of 14.5mm (with no explosive properties) it won't penetrate the armor. Anything bigger will punch through, anything smaller will bounce off.

we already kind of solved your point thanks? It all depends on where it is hit, types of RPGs, and other factors... Read the story about the BMP taking 15 RPGs and the LAV taking 6 RPGs that the DEV shot out very interesting. There is a chance of survival and with the upgrades why wouldn't there be a better chance?

and you said the LAV 25 was different I was trying to explain how the LAV A2 has the same armor protection as the Stryker which is your LAV 3...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAV_III

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... nd/iav.htm