• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

LAV III 105 mm SPH

4

49thrca

Guest
Has anyone seen any information on the testing that was done with a 105 slapped on the top of a Lav III?

I found some pics on the net, it looked impressive, but are they any good?
 
H

Harry

Guest
Before you turn this into the post I saw last night on another board of mindless futility, do yourself a favour and search out a very extensive post in here on the LAV.

PLEASE
 
4

49thrca

Guest
I am not sure what your reffering too.

I have seen them on the GM Defense (LAV-105 LPT).
Check out:
http://www.gm-defense.com/products.asp?ProductID=16

I have a video of one firing.
Check out:
http://www.mowag.ch/Video/LAV_schuss_105.avi

The US is using them, they call them Strykers.
No futility involved, I was curious if anyone has seen anything about them. I have read the specs, seen some video, but are they any good in practice? What kind of range do they have?
 
H

Harry

Guest
Go into the Search feature above, type in lav and look in ‘The Canadian Army‘.

Look for the topic,

Canada should adopt the LAV III as its sole armoured vehicle?

This topic is like the venerable FN topic in this board, beaten to death.
 
4

49thrca

Guest
What are you talking about?
I know how to use the search feature, and I find no information that in anyway relates to what I asked.

I suggest you read my post.

I never mentioned anything about the replacement of anything. While there are discussions about the m109 and they do mention a LAV III with a 105 they never discuss it‘s merits or any practical information on it. They are however quite entertaining.

Do you have any information on the topic at hand?
 
H

Harry

Guest
I will paint a picture for you. We may NOT have dragged the guts out of the 105 version, but we tortured too death the LAV in general.

I am more inclined to hear and read the hard facts on the deployment of the Stryker than banter about what could be or should be. It isn‘t even a pipe dream for the CF so why go there.

The CF is having a hard enough time figuring out what to do with the 109‘s. And to be blunt, I seriously question the fire rate, round accuracy and abilities of the Stryker. It hasn‘t been battle proven and look closely at it, NO SPADES, your a Gunner type, you should know as well as I what that means.

Heck we even had a couple rockets who were sure a 155 version was and is on the way. Maybe in concept, but the only country to ever field a proper wheeled 155 was South Africa, and for a period some of the Warsaw Pact had a nice one (it has since faded into oblivion).

GM is busting it‘s hump to try and ram a square peg into every field application known with the LAV, some are good, some are not. I have a feeling this 105 LAV is one of them. Time will tell.

UBIQUE :cdn:
 

Zoomie

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
26
Points
530
The question that is plaguing me (and probably Recce O too) is why are we even talking about the M-109 SPG. The Lav-105 isn‘t an artillery piece at all, it provides the US army with the ability to apply direct fire against personnel, fortifications, vehicles and aircraft. If you want a little more info on the system Recce O, try out this URL:
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/lav-105.htm
Now was that so hard?
 
H

Harry

Guest
Bingo Zoomie.

As a Herbie Officer, why the fascination? It is a direct fire, not indirect. Hence my comments about spades. Someone is paying attention.

My other concern, in war, I question this vehicles survivability capabilities. But time will tell. Historically, there have been a lot of wheeled tanks (and I use this loosely) fielded. And historically, they do not have a great survival rate when they get into shooting matches. I have a bunch of pictures of some French made stuff that never stood a chance in assorted African conflicts.

Comes done to what it is designed to do and what types of targets it will be matched against. Like sending the midget to the bar fight. Works great if you have a couple of lurches outside to even the odds, but if the midget is all you got, invest in Nortel. The odds are better.

As for the indirect, there is a little camp of folks who would like to see this POS applied to the Indirect role. I would feel better with a 120mm mortar firing out of a roof hatch.

:tank:
 
4

49thrca

Guest
I did some more research and was able to find out the the Strykers are being used for peacetime operations. (Peacekeeping, Police Work, Aid to Civil Power etc.)

I figured a forum like this would be one of the more educated places to ask about military equipment that may be a bit on the unusual side.

And yes, no trails = no indirect fire.
It makes sense that this is a direct fire weapon, the concept of putting a 105 on a LAV for indirect fire sounds good initially, but the maintenance costs would be very high. I found that any attempts to put a 105 (for indirect fire) on a mobile platform resulted in the unit being to large to fit in some of the places the towed guns are placed. (Urban operations are out of the question)

Thanks for the link Zoomie, it cleared the questions up!
 

Recce41

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well
The Lav 105, is or was the Leo replacment. The socalled new look for the Canadian and US Army. For Canada it was for their light BGEs ie Petawawa,and Valcartier. Because this summer all tanks will be out west, the RCD/ 12RBC maybe down to two sabre Sqns and a HQ sqn. The RCD have been confermed to be a full Recce Regt.
We sent Soldiers to Ft Knox to view the Lav 105 trial, it sucked. For all misfires, the CC must get out clear the misfire then get in (maybe). If the auto loader is down he sits out and must load by hand. it can only fire at the 45 to each side. It cannot really fire on the more due to the gun and sight have a hard time alining into quintsance (alinement of sight and gun MRS).
 
H

Harry

Guest
And that Recce is why I get my back up over the LAV.

It is a well-designed lightly armored-wheeled vehicle. It is NOT in any form a true APC. It has very distinct weaknesses and with a lot of current generation Anti-Armor weapons on the market, the vulnerabilities of the top of the hull are only that much more prevalent.

The LAV program is much like the 113‘s when they came out. All kinds of turreted systems, weapons etc. It has proven its worth as a battlefield taxi and ancillary carrier for the TOW and other such weapons both free standing and turret mounted. But it is not a medium capacity vehicle and large bore weapons and payload projects failed miserably. Mainly out of the pounding the hulls and chassis took.

In the same vein ask any Bird Gunner who has worked on the ADATS what they think of the set up.

So too the LAV, GM and a lot of bean counting mandarins in various militaries see the LAV as the next great capability savior. There are lots of projects in the works to modify, adapt and implement programs that will be cost effective.

Stryker is one that really bothers me, as does the engineer clearance vehicle. Nice conceptual proposal, but in application it will be anything but. The Stryker is extremely limited in its abilities, performance and user operability. The misfire is a big issue, especially in the heat of battle.

Unfortunately there are a large number of individuals who are completely engrossed with the concept of buying a TANK for a mere fraction of what a REAL tank costs. Same for a lot of the assorted fire support and ancillary roles. The money saved up front will ultimately be paid out to maintain a fleet that will be prone to system failures, fatigue and god forbid, short comings in operational employment (I.E. combat ineffective).

The LAV as designed, is a great battlefield taxi, but take any taxi and make it into something different and you will have a product that when issued doesn‘t do what it was expected too nor successfully do what it was designed to do.

And that is why I get my back up, to many project managers see cost as the Holy Grail and push a concept forward. By the time it is discovered that it is a POS, too late.

Sound like any other projects in recent times.
 
S

Sharpey

Guest
Hmmm...can we say LSVW? A fine example of "Lets replace a perfeclty good vehicle, even though it just needed a little TLC to keep it going for another ten years. Replacement failed the trials? OK, lower the standard...good to go...put it into production!"

Sorry, slipped off topic there :confused:
 
R

riddleofsteel

Guest
Something else to keep in mind about the Stryker is that it is intended to be part of the US Army‘s rapid deployment forces, yet it cannot be carried by a C130 while carrying a full combat load. The vehicles size and weight requires that they leave most of their ammunition behind, especially the belted 40mm grenades. There are quite a few shortcomings in the new LAV based platforms. Actually they would have been somewhat better off delveloping their upgraded M113 variants instead of buying new and expensive ("What is good for GM is good for America" :rolleyes: ) vehicles. I think they should have converted their upgraded M113s to the ACAV concept they put by the wayside years ago. Look at what the Israelis have done with it, especially with the anti-RPG armour and whatnot.
 

Recce41

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If people don‘t know we have upgrade our M113s also, its the TLAV. As for loading a Lav Stryker in a 130. It can be done. It is not over weight, its just the US Airforce Tamms dudes that say it is.
If it was a real war they would load them.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
3
Points
410
So what do you Gunners think of the GD/Denel LAV 105mm SPH?


http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v293/tanker_karl/South_African_105mm_LEO_Self-Propelled_LAVIII_jpg_pic006.jpg
http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v293/tanker_karl/South_African_105mm_LEO_Self-Propelled_LAVIII_jpg_pic005.jpg
http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v293/tanker_karl/South_African_105mm_LEO_Self-Propelled_LAVIII_jpg_pic004.jpg
http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v293/tanker_karl/South_African_105mm_LEO_Self-Propelled_LAVIII_jpg_pic003.jpg
http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v293/tanker_karl/South_African_105mm_LEO_Self-Propelled_LAVIII_jpg_pic002.jpg
http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v293/tanker_karl/South_African_105mm_LEO_Self-Propelled_LAVIII_jpg_pic001.jpg

GW
 

CDNBlackhawk

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Very sweet

Since we are phasing out the Leopards
is this what will replace our leopards?
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Or was explained to me many moons ago one is for area fire and the other is a direct fire weapon. Two different roles.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
3
Points
410
Although I hate to see the M109s and 155mm disappear, I do think that this would be a much better platform for the Artillery than the Truck mounted 105 that is to be the Interim vehicle.

I do not believe that 105mm is in anyway able to replace the 155mm on the Battlefield.  I do not agree with removing the 155 SP capability from our inventory.  It is just another instance of the Gov't neutering the Army.

GW
 
Top