MikeyD Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Re the Canadians in Afghanistan photos: WOW!!! :eek: Brand New LAV-IIIs with add-on armor & full-size 2 man 20mm gun turret! ...with coaxial AND roof mounted 7.62 mg! I wonder if the Canadian LAV-III weighs more or less than the U.S. Stryker, even with the turret. Canadians probably didn't go for full 14.5mm hvy mg armor protection. Also about the Stryker in Bagdhad photo - If no new vehicles were shipped over it looks like 1-72nd and 3-2nd Stryker brigades have divvied-up the in-country Strykers between them. [ August 22, 2006, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Why are the guns elevated so high? US ANG in Afghanistan again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Ruddy Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Originally posted by flamingknives: Why are the guns elevated so high? US ANG in Afghanistan again? They're saluting the flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Ruddy Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 More info on CDN LAV's here: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_display.asp?product=64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 25mm guns on the LAVIII - same gun as LAV 25 and Bradley. Here's a video of a Canadian firefight in Afghanistan if anyone's interested: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3984617319865392850&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 What armaments are on that Canadian LAV? I can see a main cannon, a smaller cannon above it, a coax mg and it looks like several mg gun barrels mounted on top of the turret behind the main gun, though I assume there is only one mg there. Must be a weird angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 A 25mm cannon, a coax 7.62mm MG and a pintle mounted 7.62mm MG. The other weapons you're referring to are probably the smoke grenade dischargers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Hoolaman, You're seeing the weapons on two vehicles one behind the other. It looks like it's all on one because of a depth of field issue with the camera used. Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Um, yeah, right, I knew that. Thanks JK that explains what I am seeing, at first glance it looks like one vehicle but there are two or more, which explains the bristling armaments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted August 24, 2006 Author Share Posted August 24, 2006 Two Soldiers with fires platoon, Troop A, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry Regiment, pull security in Al Dora, Aug. 11. Their platoon patrols through the muhallahs, conducting security operations to help rid of sectarian violence. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. James P. Hunter, MNC-I PAO) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted August 30, 2006 Author Share Posted August 30, 2006 HIGH-RES A U.S. Army soldier, assigned to 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment, 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, enters a mosque suspected of being a safe-haven for insurgents in the Adhamiyah district of Baghdad, Iraq, Aug. 27, 2006. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Eli J. Medellin Interesting place for your blood type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gautrek Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Originally posted by akd: Is one of these guys about 7 foot tall or is the other guy a Dwarf? This is one thing i have noticed in a load of photos and footage from Iraq. You yanks seem to be shrinking. There seems to be lot of very short guys in your forces now. Do you any sort of mininum size or is it based on ability to carry stuff and general fittness. Edited cause i can't speel to save my life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Be careful taking camera images at face value. Judging by the warping of the horizon line in the background and other factors, I'd say those pictures were taken with a pretty wide-angle lens, which can skew your perception of height and distance. Guy in the background may well be shorter, but my guess is that the height difference between the two guys is not as extreme as the photo might make you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 Wide-angle lens. They have become increasingly popular with photojournalists over the years, and switching to digital spurred they're use further. Where once a 35mm lense was considered "wide", now a 18mm lens is quite common. A 50mm lense is roughly equivalent to normal eyesight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassh Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 "18mm lens is quite common" 18mm lens is equivalent to 35mm on many digital slr cameras where ccd sensor area is smaller than the actual frame size of traditional 35mm film plate - hence the lens is wider but the focal length remains eqivalent to a longer lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted September 1, 2006 Author Share Posted September 1, 2006 Originally posted by cassh: "18mm lens is quite common" 18mm lens is equivalent to 35mm on many digital slr cameras where ccd sensor area is smaller than the actual frame size of traditional 35mm film plate - hence the lens is wider but the focal length remains eqivalent to a longer lens. Yes, this helped push even wider lenses. A 12-24mm zoom lens on a typical digital format is roughly equivalent to a 18-35mm lens on a 35mm format film camera. 18-35mm lenses were pretty popular with pros before the switch to digital. Using the 18mm end was considered a bit much, but not at all uncommon, especially for news photos. Of course, this is not an issue for the newest "pro" digital cameras with "full-frame" sensors, like the Canon EOS-1D. edit - quick search yields this simple primer: The smaller the format, the shorter the focal length needs to be for any given angle of view. On a a digital SLR like the Canon D60 a standard lens is about 31mm in focal length. Here is the rub. We are attempting to use lenses designed for a bigger format. This is fine up to a point, after all there are plenty of 28mm lenses around to give us an equivalent standard lens. Problems arise when we want to go for a wider angle lens as there simply are none in the range of currently manufactured lenses. There are 14mm lenses around but any wider and they are all fisheye lenses. There is a good reason for this – these lenses were designed for 35mm format cameras! 14mm is superwide in that format and very expensive to make as well. People complain that they have to spend many thousands of dollars to get a half decent wide lens. This is true, but the real reason is that it is hard to make a lens of such a short focal length that allows the mirror clearance of a normal 35mm body. The established design of ‘normal’ 35mm bodies has imposed a huge limitation optically and that is the crux of the issue. Camera manufacturers have produced DSLRs that can utilize the existing lenses of photographers – this is a good thing. However there is a price to pay for this convenience and that it the range of angles of view of the lenses has shifted UP towards the telephoto end. That is purely a consequence of the SMALLER format – nothing else has changed. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml [ August 31, 2006, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: akd ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gautrek Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Originally posted by YankeeDog: Be careful taking camera images at face value. Judging by the warping of the horizon line in the background and other factors, I'd say those pictures were taken with a pretty wide-angle lens, which can skew your perception of height and distance. Guy in the background may well be shorter, but my guess is that the height difference between the two guys is not as extreme as the photo might make you think. I don't think the lens comes into this at all.The guy in the background is standing slightly behind the tall one.Look at the shadows to see how far away he is. Its not just this photo any way. I have seen many images from iraq and the like where you seem to be recruiting a load of short arses for you forces. Is there not a minimum size now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted September 1, 2006 Author Share Posted September 1, 2006 Originally posted by gautrek: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by YankeeDog: Be careful taking camera images at face value. Judging by the warping of the horizon line in the background and other factors, I'd say those pictures were taken with a pretty wide-angle lens, which can skew your perception of height and distance. Guy in the background may well be shorter, but my guess is that the height difference between the two guys is not as extreme as the photo might make you think. I don't think the lens comes into this at all.The guy in the background is standing slightly behind the tall one.Look at the shadows to see how far away he is. Its not just this photo any way. I have seen many images from iraq and the like where you seem to be recruiting a load of short arses for you forces. Is there not a minimum size now. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted September 5, 2006 Author Share Posted September 5, 2006 HIGH-RES U.S. Army Capt. Ed Matthaidess, commander of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, provides security outside a mosque as Iraqi army soldiers search the inside in the Adhamiyah neighborhood in Baghdad, Iraq, Aug. 31, 2006. The Iraqi army soldiers were the only soldiers allowed to search the mosque. U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Adrian Cadiz HIGH-RES U.S. Army Staff Sgt. David A. Hershberger, assigned to Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, stands guard on top of an infantry carrier vehicle outside a mosque in the Ad Hamyah district of Baghdad, Sept. 2, 2006, so Iraqi army soldiers from the 9th Iraqi Army can search it for ammunition caches. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Eli J. Medellin HIGH-RES U.S. Army Spc. Samuel Dumas secures the entrance of an Adhamiyah neighborhood apartment complex in Baghdad, Iraq, Aug. 31, 2006. Dumas' fellow soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, are searching the apartments for weapons and other contraband items during a joint cordon and search mission by U.S. and Iraqi Army soldiers. U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Adrian Cadiz [ September 05, 2006, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: akd ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carbon-14 Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 don't know if people are interested but a couple more videos of Canadians in Afghanistan have popped up. They are much more intense then the one posted here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2r3C0PJ1LM This is actually the same battle as the previous posting but a different camera. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_S9P1kMNuM Dawn raid on a Taliban compound http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaC-w2dIxZc Canadians get ambushed. There aren't many good shots of the LAV III but you definately hear them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 Wow. Intense. Those lads are from my home town. Hope they all get to come back. Gpig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carbon-14 Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 You're from Edmonton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Originally. I'm currently in Oakland, CA. Now I'm moving back to Canada. (But not Edmonton. Brrrrrr . . .) GPig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Originally posted by J Ruddy: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives: Why are the guns elevated so high? US ANG in Afghanistan again? They're saluting the flag. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I did post it more than two weeks ago, so it's not that prescient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts