Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

May I subsequently distribute a scenario with modified APC as described above without distributing the modified OOB?

=====

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Any unit, and it's weapons, used in a scenario has to be in the OOB a player is using or you get an error; i.e. a generic unit placeholder and very odd (if any) stats.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Many of these concepts are driven by current problems on the battlefield. IFV's that are used as close support against urban defenses more than anti-vehicle, single shot anti-ambush RPG protection...etc. A Phalanx type anti-artillery defense is probably a Fire Base, fixed point smaller area type of concept. Put it in the center of a FOB and let it worry about the random mortar attack.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

That is what I had thought. So, in designing a scenario, I am left with two alternatives use the USA 25mm M242 with sabot values or load the Bushmaster 30mm and give it sabot ammo.

Using these two options, I can publish a scenario without distributing a modified OOB.

=====

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Don is it safe to assume you have the USA 30mm STRYKER for the game handled for the next patch? First units were to ready by Dec. 2016 according to JANE's. I would personally use Jan. 2017. Haven't seen anything anything to this point to disrupt that time frame. The 30mm version being in limited numbers will also be up armored slightly from the current ones in the OOB as applique armor is to be added. Also they all will be SYRKYER's with V-Hulls so there should be a modifier for crew survival possibly considered.

Also the current in game STRYKER's should reflect the same starting about Jun. 2014 or Jan. 2015 (Same for the USMC for their LAV's were modified as well with V-Hulls I thought around this time frame as well.) if memory serves for a "new/modified" unit to be added to the OOB.

If you've got this one, I'll post all the refs I have for these units and clean out my APC folder//work-list of this unit. Please let me know at your convenience.

ICON looks great!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

NEVER MIND:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem..._12312152.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/general_dynamics_secured_a_$75_million_to_integrat e_a_30mm_cannon_to_the_stryker_program_32001162.ht ml
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/us_army_awarded_general_dynamics_$329_m_contract_f or_the_stryker_infantry_vehicle_upgrade_50905164.h tml

An issue I'll still be tracking for the USA/USMC Light/Heavy Armor:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_..._10906162.html

The USMC LAV-AT new turret:
We had some debate about this vehicle when I submitted info to support it's continued fighting status for the USMC. It appears the newer version (UNIT 018 LAV-ATA2) will need a date modifier based on this next ref. something along the lines of Jun. 2016 but, I think Jan.2017 as a better date to allow for our "swag" based on the completion date of this contract. We do get a better look at the turret though and it has plenty of smoke grenade launchers as well as being better protected then the EMERSON Turret also with a better FCS as well. Also UNIT 027 LAV-ATA1 end date will need to extended out to match the new start date for the above UNIT 018.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/raytheon_won_a_$30mn_contract_to_provide_us_marine _corps_with_anti-tank_variant_turrets_51808161.html

Not as much as I thought, which already means I've posted the rest in this thread.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

By the way, if you look at the 30mm Bushmaster in the USMC OOB it in fact has sabot ratings.

While the dates could be changed it would be cosmetic as in WinSPMBT ATGMs don't use "Fire Control" or "Range Finder" ratings. If they did every infantry ATGM team would need them and become much more expensive.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Nope

MAYBE later 2017...maybe it might get someplace in force. We'll see what we know in March

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

OK I was waiting for someone to suggest the obvious but I see that isn't happening ( everything but....)

Maybe a few others might pay attention as well----you're going to LEARN SOMETHING about the game

Buy your US Army Striker........it won't have the proper Icon until next patch but you seemed determined to add it to a scenario anyway........

Change to USMC...

OK so far ?

Now........go to the editor menu and press the " Change the current units data" button.

Now click on weapon 1.... Now...... remember the game now thinks you are USMC because you changed to USMC.....so it gives you the USMC weapon list ( !! )

Enter 77 for the weapon ( TA Da !! .........30mm Bushmaster complete with sabot pen data ) then add the ammo you want......this thing only carries 2x 75 rounds and with autocannot it's bursts so 12 HE and 13 Sabot is what it gets ( still under review along with how many troops it can carry )


Go back to the purchase screen,,,,,, change back to US army and save and this is what you will see
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1477955942

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

No.......

If you did it that way you COULD give it sabot ammo.,,,,,,,,,,useless sabot ammo with zero for pen because as I said the US 30mm Bushmaster was set up as an air use weapon and air use weapons don't use sabot ammo so it has no sabot pen set up so you could give it 200 rounds of sabot and every one would have the same effect as firing marshmallows at the enemy

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Voila. Excellent tutorial. Only thing I used the Modify the Current Unit's Data.

Now, in the Editor when I right click on the unit, and select Information, the 50 cal TMG not the Bushmaster is loaded in weapon slot 1.

=====

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

The information screen is reading the original unit data in the OOB not the modified unit you created..........it's always been that way

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Don my apologies but, now I realize why Jan. 2017 was stuck in my head, should've reread it before posting. However I think (Post #168) might be useful and the ones before it as well. Mostly to ensure we're using the right TOW II for those units. As noted then as being tested (3 yrs ago.) the TOW2 ITAS and AERO is now in use on the LAV-ATA1 for at least a year or more now from I can gather.

This next I've been tracking for over 8 yrs. now([b]Post #259[and the UK chose an APC that it turned down under the FRES Program. The BOXER is back however this will still require some additional tracking. FRES collapsed in 2008 when the final contract between the UK and GD for the PIRANHA 5 couldn't be settled upon. The BOXER was "rumored" to have a close second at the time. The new program was decided upon in Sep. 2015 and here it's only a year later and we as noted above, the BOXER wins. With BREXIT in play and Germany being seen as the "De Facto" leader of the EU and the UK wanting out of the EU on favorable terms and buying 800 units, it would seem some accommodation might be made in the UK's favor-but that's just "Conspiracy Theory" stuff!?! Anyway...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/octob..._11710161.html

If you think I was good in picking the BOXER back in the day when FRES was starting up, wait until you see what gets posted in the MBT Thread in a day or two!?! And right on time as well. ;)

Anyway have a good night!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Slick workaround for an OOB that has filled weapon slots AND allows people to use the default OOBs!

Who said Canuks weren't smart?

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

That little trick has been known for a couple of decades, apparently not as commonly as I assumed. It was more useful to scenario designers in the original SSI game with it's much smaller unit pool to draw from. Our expanded OOB's don't require SD's be quite as creative

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Interesting. Somewhere on here I posted a link to the whole sorry (and hugely expensive) FRES story. A vast amount of money indeed for the rather large and heavy, but otherwise underwhelming Ajax and the more or less off the shelf Boxer.

Someone still needs to tell me exactly what Ajax can do that Warrior 2000 cannot (both are about the same size and weight and have the same weapons system, although I think Ajax can swim). About the only thing I can think of is that Ajax can be crewed by the Royal Armoured Corps (Cavalry and Royal Tank Regt) thus adding tone to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl...

One factual error in the link. The UK Pound Sterling has not "collapsed", or anything like it, since Brexit, despite the wishful thinking of assorted remaniacs and remoaners.

The largest British services website was about 80% in favour of leaving the EU on a site poll the day before the vote.


I'm also a little puzzled why a 60,000 man British Army that will have 250-300 Warrior 2000 really needs 800 of these Boxer 8x8's. Given the constraints in the UK Defence budget, and the need for more spending in other areas, especially the Royal Navy, I would have thought an order for 400 would have been enough for now. Boxer should be air portable for the British, but Ajax is not unless the RAF C-17 Globemaster's can carry one, but even if it can the RAF has only eight or nine of those aircraft.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Well the ability to swim would be awfully handy for river crossings.

Besides the Ajax has undoubtedly has some basic tech upgrades over the Warrior 2000. Probably things like computerized fuel injection and such. And there is something of a need to keep the defense industry, and it's workers, employed. No need to feed it with both hands mind you, but you really don't want it to wither away completely because you will need it in the future.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

In the case of the Ajax, most of that Defence Industry work is not in the UK.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Ah so ...

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

The +'s and -'s of the UK AJAX Program. This very simply breaks downs the issues associated with the AJAX as discussed elsewhere, while still providing and confirming other data we're seeing on the type. Most useful here are the pictures that show AJAX in it's different armored configurations, a nice plus for this somewhat controversial piece of equipment.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/aj...ance-tank-apc/

Taking the World view...Things I'm watching
Czech Republic: BMP-2 coming out, CV-90 coming in.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/...gramme-4893442
http://www.defence24.com/367643,cv-9...bmp-2-platform

Denmark: Increasing interoperability of it's CV 9035 fleet.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/octob..._72510161.html

France: The venerable Renault VAB has just celebrated 40 years of service. :birthday: (C'mon you thought I wouldn't do it!?!)
http://www.armyrecognition.com/octob..._12010162.html

Indonesia: The Marines want a new toy and the Ukraine might just have the one they want.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe..._12409162.html

Got rid of a couple and keeping a couple. Have a great morning or evening based on your sith-e-ation (Work with me here and just say it fast!?!)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Yes I thought it was too heavy for Atlas, but, perhaps, C-17 could carry one. Cool, UK could, perhaps, move eight of them a day. Much of the size and weight seem to have been about surviving IED/mines. (Although I would be interested to know how many Scimitar were actually lost to mines, and how many crew)?

Ajax is very large and tall for a recce tank and it does need an ATGM...

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Well again official, USA received it's first prototype European theatre AOR STRYKER with 30mm. The video link at the end of the article is interesting also on the couple of other systems it talks about. Like DID this is another reason I like this site as it provides links (As highlighted.) with the articles.
Their is some insight as you listen and LOOK at the video on the topic at hand and about the future BRADLEY.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/novem..._50211161.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

What is the infantry carry capacity of the proposed Dragoon?

=====

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

What they've done was basically cut the old roof off and replaced it with a slightly higher welded roof one, to minimize the adding on of the turret and two, not to impact troop capacity of 9 armed and equipped troops. And they even have air conditioning not for the troops but for the advanced FCS and associated electronics suite (Effective range @ 3000yds vs. just under 1900yds w/12.7mm.) plus the mechanical systems for the drive unit of the turret.
One of many...
http://www.macombdaily.com/article/M...NEWS/161029617


Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

And to further confuse things apparently the USMC wants to replace the AAV series vehicles with an ACV1.2, a larger variant (13 passengers, better armor, possibly a LAV-25 type turret) of the ACV1.1. The problem is that while the ACV1.1 can handle rivers it can't handle ocean surf, the ACV1.2 will be able to.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R42723.pdf
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/b...e-for-marines/

As I mentioned elsewhere one of the problems with replacing the AAV series vehicles with ACV's is the USMC will require apx. 25% more sealift then an equivalent sized MEU equipped with AAVs. But more ships will at least make the Gator Navy (the popular term for the amphibious warfare branch of the US Navy) happy.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

What does it take to build a new Amphibious capable APC when you don't really already a "modern" one to work with? Well Poland is doing just that now. You'll find (If you've followed the discussion a few years back.) a couple of old programs mentioned that were somewhat contested as they have them or not. It was established as - not. A very good read on the thinking, planning and how to we get there to the final options (Maybe.) Gotta get ready for work so here you go...
http://www.defence24.com/501697,poli...he-new-vehicle

Well it has a name so that's always a good start-well again maybe. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Yeah, amphibious APCs take the age old tank problem of balancing armor, weapons, and speed to a whole new level because in spite of some manufacturers "cheating" by floating totally unloaded vehicles they have to be able to float with a combat load and passengers to be of any practical use.

You also have to take into account the total volume and mass of the vehicles required to move a given size landing force because without ships to get them where you need them while useful for river crossings they're useless as an amphibious asset.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Algeria in 2016 has fielded BMP2 Berezokh

http://www.armyrecognition.com/april..._31404162.html

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Don,
Don't have much time here's what I have on the Japanese Prototype 8x8 APC. Crew and carry same as the TYPE 96.
http://www.janes.com/article/66989/j...-apc-prototype
http://www.armyrecognition.com/janua..._11601173.html
http://www.military-today.com/apc/ne...se_8x8_apc.htm

And they just posted an update (Within the last 2hrs.) on the EITAN and yes we finally have the dimensions for it!!
http://www.military-today.com/apc/eitan.htm

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I put it in simply because in this case, it was simple. The basic design for APC's these days follows a predictable pattern and I have three years to get the details right but for now, it's a Patria clone

Still kinda general but I'll do the math and see how close I was

EDIT......one pixel in length and 2 in width ( now corrected )

the Eitan looks tiny compared to the Namer but the Namer is HUGE ( unless they put the smallest troopers they could find for that photo )
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1485121997

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Japan: You're right it looks very similar to the PATRIA.

Israel: What I knew already - The NAMER is based on the MERKAVA IV chassis. What we didn't know is the difference between the two in dimensions, I'm using the NAMER as the reference point for the following...

1)It's 15 tons heavier than the maximum weight of the EITAN with the add on armor package (20 tons w/o it.).

2) L: ~.5m shorter, W: 1 - .8M wider and H: .5 - 1m shorter. The difference again is depending on the add on armor package being added or not for the EITAN.

And really it all makes sense for a tank hull versus an APC one. Following for progression and maintaining a "clean package" if you will.

http://www.military-today.com/apc/namera.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/namer.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/eitan.htm

I'm done playing, time to enjoy my weekend a little bit.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

If you want to save one OOB slot for Russia, I have a candidate for elimination: BRDM3 Scout Vehicle.

It is not in service in Russia ( in Kenya instead)

http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi...res_video.html

"This vehicle is not in service with Russian army, but a contract was signed with Kenya for 88 vehicles. In the sale agreement, Kenya approved the delivery of these vehicles by the end of the year 2011"

http://www.deagel.com/Wheeled-Armore...000348007.aspx


BRDM3 was a proposed BTR80 modification as a recon vehicle. But BRDM2 was to be replaced so...

Digging and digging I discovered that GAZ3937 Vodnik was cancelled (only limited service), replaced by GAZ Tigr that is in full production now from 2011 ( it's the jeep of the Crimean Little Green Men!)

It seems that the latest recon vehicle in the Russian real life OOB is the GAZ Tigr!!

http://www.military-today.com/trucks/gaz_tigr.htm

http://www.military-today.com/trucks/vodnik.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAZ_Vodnik#cite_note-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAZ_Tiger


http://www.army-technology.com/proje...oured-vehicle/

"ther variants include GAZ-233014-0000186 and GAZ-233014-0000184 armoured personnel carriers, MK-BLA-01 UAV carrier, Kornet-EM multi-purpose missile system, TIGR SCOUT VEHICLE and Tigr-M mobile electronic warfare vehicle."
"Production of this military vehicle ceased in 2013 due to lack of orders. Russian Army preferred Tirg vehicles from the same automaker. The Tigr is broadly similar vehicle, however it is cheaper to produce and is more versatile."

So I propose to add in the Recon vehicle category GAZ Tigr (it's already in game with the kornet variant). In Russian OOB it's complementing BRDM2s as recon vehicle.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201...vehicle-syria/

In the linked photos you can see the standard weapon of Gaz Tigr, PKP Pecheneg I think but I'm not sure.

Here is the most complete russian OOB Source.

http://www.russiadefence.net/t5271-r...nd-rearmaments

You can see GAZ Tigr as recoissennance vehicle.

IN SHORT I propose: DELETE BRDM3 ( not in service)

Recon Formations: ADD GAZ Tigr with PKP Pecheneg, Kord or AGS30 Grenade Launcher

Net slot result = ZERO, not saving one like i was saying at the start :angel

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Obviously GAZ Tigr is not only RECON vehicle but UTILITY vehicle too, it's the russian humvee from 2011 on, it will replace older UAZ variants.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

???

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

In game there is only GAZ Tigr Kornet ATGM, not general purpose -Recon GAZ Tigr

Tigr in Sevastopol
https://informnapalm.org/en/russian-...136th-brigade/

Some photos.. I recognize Pecheneg and AGS 30 Grenade Launcher

https://informnapalm.org/en/russian-...136th-brigade/

https://img2.goodfon.ru/original/168...ya-oruzhie.jpg

http://www3.do.ru/upload/of-paper/20...tigr%5Ejpg.jpg

http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/Ap...oscow-01-M.jpg


Sorry for my bad english

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Got it.....it was in with the wrong photo as Tiger Kvartet ------unit numbers are always helpful for clarity......

I have corrected the photo and am building Icons now

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Ok in the future if needed I will insert unit numbers in my posts. Seems that this Tigr vehicle fits in a lot of different formations

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Like american Avenger Humvee..

http://armyrecognition.com/weapons_d..._12401175.html

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Don I know Andy and you are very busy smoothing out any lingering or last minute issues however, would you consider one for your country? One of my first go to sites just posted this today the LAV 6.0 and it looks impressive. This is a stand alone vehicle and not an LAV III model per say. I estimate it will enter service in Jan./Jun 2018 based on the issues raised in the below refs. and it looks like a LAV III on steriodes. Protection level to include calibers noted. I would put TI/GSR out to at least 45. As compared to the LAV III the LAV 6.0 is 9 tons heavier with the add on armor pkg. and w/o still 3.5 tons heavier.

As quoted from Ref. 1 "Currently the LAV 6.0 is one of the most protected armored personnel carrier in the world."

And if that's not incentive enough...Those "Hosers" Bob and Doug McKenzie might feature you on their show or better yet drink a case (or 2 or 3...) of their favorite Canadian brew in your honor!?!

Here's what I got...
http://www.military-today.com/apc/kodiak.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/lav_6_0.htm
http://www.gdlscanada.com/products/l...les/lav-up.php
http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2015/0...uite-selected/
http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2015/0...-as-monuments/
http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/e...piece/iietdrqv
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-rep...e-summary.page

Something else lurks up in Canada...an ALLIGATOR! :shock:
http://www.army-technology.com/proje...oured-vehicle/

If not I'll keep my eye on it! ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Good catch.. Now in both as the "basic" LAVUP but also the LAVUP LRSS

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I knew the Bob and Doug McKenzie brothers would do the trick!?! :p

But THANKS and I'll consider the matter closed once we get a firmer idea of when they come into service as the Canadian Army website still doesn't list them yet. We'll be close though I believe.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

They started being delivered in 2015 and I assume they are the beginnings of Coyote replacements

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

https://scontent-mxp1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...72&oe=5943ECB9

Are these smoke launchers for GAZ Tigr?

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Yes. 2x2 per vehicle. Not unusual for this class of vehicle anymore.
http://www.military-today.com/apc/shorland_s55.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/ka...69_vystrel.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/vn3.htm

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

When Post 338 was completed I felt a little unsettled about the LAV-UP/or 6.0 date that it was fielded. I came up with 1/2018 based on the fact that upgrades were still being continued and that the operational dates had a spread in them covering a couple of years.

I called upon an old friend of mine who has had successful results with the Australian, Austrian, German (Military Armor Museum MOD's dealing with the same general issues as we are now. The French MOD however wasn't so helpful.

Anyway, here's the email I sent with reply (On top.) that'll pretty much show nobodies possible date was correct...

"Greetings Pat Conklin.

Thank you for writing to us at Public Inquiries Desk at the Department of National Defence (DND) with your query.

For information on the LAV UP, please consult the following website (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-...I-upgrade.page) where you can find the released information on the LAV UP program.

There is generic information on (http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/e...les/index.page).

I hope this proves useful.

Regards,
Mr. A. Tom

Public Inquiries Desk / Bureau des demandes de renseignements du public

ADM(PA) / SMA(AP) DND / MDN
Tel. / tél : 613-995-2534 Fax / télécopieur : 613-996-8330
E-mail / courriel : information@forces.gc.ca
Web / Toile : www.forces.gc.ca

From: patrick conklin [mailto:@hotmail.com]
Sent: 9-Feb-17 02:33
To: +ADM(PA) Info@ADM(PA)@Ottawa-Hull
Subject: Service entry date of the LAV-UP/or 6.0

Sir or Ma'am,
Good Morning! I am curious as to whether or not the LAV-UP/or LAV 6.0 is currently in active service with your Army. What prompted this is that about this time yesterday I checked the military-today website and they were featuring the above mentioned APC. I dug a little deeper and came across information from VANGUARD, your site and some others and concluded that I believe the LAV-UP would enter operational service by Jan./or Jun. 2018. Military-Today has it having entered service in "2015 (?)". My date is based upon the fact it seems like the LAV-UP is still in development. Can you shed some light on this, and provide me with the actual month and year it entered service or is projected to enter service? My purpose is to maintain accuracy of the LAV-UP as I submitted it, and has been entered into the combined arms equipment data base for the PC war-game WinSPMBT. As a disclaimer I am in no way related to the game seller or developers of the game. I am simply a military equipment contributor to the Forum for the game. I can provide further information you may need concerning this request or about me as required.

Thank you for your valuable time in considering this matter.

Regards,
Pat Conklin USN/SS Ret."

Now here are those pages broken down...
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-...I-upgrade.page
Note the following sections from the ref.
1) Under "Project phases" it shows...Currently in
Phase 4: Implementation" and

2) 4. Implementation

Project approval: October 2011
Contract award: October 2011
First delivery: December 2012
Initial operational capability: June 2014
Full operational capability: Spring 2020


Next under...

Additional information

August 2016
380 vehicles are delivered to Canada. The Canadian Army conducted operator and driver training across the various units located in Gagetown, Valcartier, Petawawa, Edmonton, and Shilo. The upgraded LAV is ready for operational deployments.

So now we're looking at something just after August 2016 as they're training with them at that point or you use Spring 2020 when again, Full Operational Capability (FOC) is achieved.

I really think you have to go with the latter here. This is no different than the F-35B issue is for the USMC. NAVAIR announced IOC last May, yet as we all know (Or should.) the F-35B still hasn't reached FOC with many issues to be rectified yet and the plane is still receiving many upgrades along with the fact it's not fully combat ready.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Panhard Crab.

Sounds great, except for the part about replacing heavy armor. Very enthusiastic review.
This:
"The US Army and even the USMC may also be wise to drop their heavy-weight armor obsession and take a good look at this low-slung armored chariot."

and this:

"Depending on the ammo used, the M242 can knock out main battle tanks at relevant ranges (Bradley Fighting Vehicles equipped with same cannon were known to knock out T-72s during operations in Iraq)."

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pan...t-v-1581746120

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Interesting.....

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

My understanding was that the CRAB and its big brother the SPHINX (a much better vehicle with the 40mm CTWS) had been dismissed in favour of the Jaguar EBRC & Griffon as part of the French Scorpion EBMR program.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I've seen reference to the Griffon reconnaissance vehicle but it appears to be larger than the CRAB. So far I'm unable too find much recent news Your guess is as good as mine.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I can't speak for the US Army, but the USMC has little use for a non-amphibious scout vehicle that can't carry passengers. It's a matter of their intended use. The LAI (Light Armored Infantry) battalions in the USMC perform two roles, recon and mounted infantry. Given the cargo limitations of shipping they can't afford many specialized single-function vehicles. Why they don't use SP artillery etc.

They guys I spoke to that actually shot at a T62 (not 72) during Gulf I said that while they were certain they could have eventually chiseled thru with their 25mm it would have taken long enough they didn't want to hang around for it to fire back.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Perhaps the author was a fan of "The Rat Patrol" television series from the late 60s and still wonders why we don't replace tanks with jeeps carrying machine guns.