Bruce70 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 What's the difference between an auslav and a stryker. AFAIK the ADF has been pretty happy with the performance of the auslavs in Iraq, although I guess they haven't seen much action. Could we see an Aussie mod? (although I agree that we probably wouldn't get involved in another middle east war - but I guess it's no less likely than the US getting involved in another war in 2007) [Yeah I know I could probably wade through the miriad of links already posted, but I'm lazy. Besides, maybe there is someone with first hand experience that can comment...] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Here is AUSLAV: Here is STRYKER: See the difference? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 AUSLAVs are based on the Prianha II - the Stryker is based off the Piranha III. That's mostly aesthetics and drivetrain, though, methinks. The big difference is the electronics within the Stryker. Stuff like BFT, Battlefield Internet, Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I was thinking of the AUSLAV-PC: The ASLAV-25 is almost identical to the USMC's LAV-25. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalgiris 1410 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 WTF our Aussie Army is actually properly equipt, bugger me stupid! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Thge first picture is of a 12' model and the second is a real vehicle, Easy really, where would you lot be without us Scots to sort these difficult questions out for you. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 IIRC The Stryker is one generation further out in the development path that started with the Canadian Bison. Auslav is 2nd generation. Also I believe the Infantry carrier version of the Stryker is slightly larger than the Auslav and can carry more troops (9 men, as opposed to 6, latter to be confirmed). As for an Aussie Mod, I guess if we can convince Rob, who works for the Australian Defence Simulation Office, that its development is worth taxpayer's money and a benefit to Army training then we may get to see an Aussie module. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Comparison of ASLAV and NZLAV here. [ October 10, 2005, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrcar Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Its ASLAV not AUSLAV The ASLAVPC (Personnel carrier variant) equipped with a Remote Weapons Station (RWS) is externally similar to the Stryker PC variant. There are significant differences, which have been noted above. The link Jon posted is a reasonable comparison, except the ASLAV is still amphibious, whereas the LAVIII (just checked with my Kiwi Major) and Stryker is not. The ASLAV25 is a recon vehicle and normally doesn't carry dismounts (but it can), the ASLAVPC carries 8-10 dismounts, but only has a 50 cal MG (Pintle mounted or in an RWS). The new SteelBeasts will have the ASLAV25 and PC, and VBS1 also has them, including a RWS version. Like the rest of you I'm waiting for the first version of CMSF to come out so that it can be properly evaluated. Providing Steve doesn't need to buy a second Lear Jet then a version may be done for the Australian Army in the future. The key for this is meeting an identified user requirement with some appropriate technology, we are in the business of delivering Defence capability, not playing games (although you CAN still have fun). Cheers Rob Carpenter Deputy Director, Simulation Development Army Simulation Wing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I found this on the NZ Army site. It's a little flash game about the LAV III and it's actually really cool. Pretty similar to a Stryker fight, I imagine. http://www.force9.co.nz/default.aspx?bid=ws001 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melb_will Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 I think the answer is pretty clear. What is the difference between and ASLAV and a stryker? A Stryker can fit down the street. Cheers Will 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrcar Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Are you referring to the removal of the BAR armour? The standard Stryker is wider than the standard ASLAV, and both are about the same with the BAR armour fitted. I've heard that our troops removed theirs for a number of reasons, including a lower threat environment, it sent a "signal" to the local population, like the Brits decision to wear berets vs helmets, to differentiate the ASLAV from the Stryker. The removal of the BAR armour also allows our vehicles to go into narrower locations than the BAR equipped Stryker... not the other way around. So in fact you have it the wrong way round, the ASLAV can fit where the Stryker can't. The above is my opinion, not official comment. Cheers Rob 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melb_will Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 hmm, it was just my ill informed view. There was some newspaper story that picked up on the fact. As I understand it the deployment of the ASLAV's to Iraq was slightly delayed to allow the fitting of the BAR armour. Yet when they got there the streets were not wide enough to fit. Agree with the 'signal' argument from a policy perspective but not sure it it would have that much support on the ground. Yes if the insurgents really wanted to take out an ASLAV they could regardless of the armour so therefore you are better off having none and sending a positive message to the rest of the population. But the individual soldier that dies when an RPG hits or a sniper fires might have something to say Rob you might be able to clarify my understanding a little. The plan for the new bushmasters is for them not to be combat vehicles? So the troops would deploy forward in Bushmasters and then either fight on foot or deploy further forward in the PC version of the ASLAV? cheers Will 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Originally posted by Mace: IIRC The Stryker is one generation further out in the development path that started with the Canadian Bison. Yes, and I believe we call it the LAV III. We have some interesting variants, including the Coyote Reconnaissance vehicle, which has been doing yeoman work in the Mid-East for the past couple of years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrcar Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Melb_will, yes the media are very poor at times Fitting the BAR armour certainly caused problems in narrow streets, but that is true of the Stryker too. But that was not the only, or even the main reason for its removal. IMHO the Bushmasters are good for this type of environment, they are well protected against IED/Mines and will withstand small arms fire. Again IMHO the limitation is not having a weapon to fire while under armour, which is why the ASLAV provide escourt. They are designed to be "taxi's" that get you to the battlefield in airconditioned comfort, over long distances. You dismout to fight, hopefully well out of enemy weapon range. Again this is all my opinion. Cheers Rob 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.