Talk:LAV-25

JP-8 diesel fuel?

This article specified that the LAV-25 runs on "diesel fuel (JP-8)". JP-8 is a kerosene-based jet fuel, not a diesel fuel--helicopters, jet aircraft, and turbine-powered vehicles such as the M1 tank use it, but not diesel engines. I find it hard to believe that JP-8 could be used with the diesel engine with which the LAV-25 is equipped; however, I couldn't find any reference confirming or denying such. A search with google pulls up dozens of articles which read exactly the same as this article did...but I think they're all either copied from this article, or from the same source as this article.

Anyway, I removed the link from the article. If I erred in this, please fix it and post a reference in the article and here in the discussion page. Dziban303 01:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

They run on either. --76.227.80.87 Johnny (Cuervo) 03:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

LAV-25A2 Upgrades

Added information on the LAV-25A2 upgrades. Pictures of the new armor package can be found here: http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/Lookup/2006922121058

Question: I have not seen any information on the T/O & T/E for the USMC LAR Bn's. Should this information be included in this article or within each LAR Bn article? It may be redundant to place the information within each separate Bn's article as they are generally the same. I believe that this information should be placed here. Jct0302 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

LOG

I added info on the LAV-LOG. I don't remember which vehicle it's based on (C²?), and my cheat sheet is still packed in my gear somewhere. --Johnny (Cuervo) 17:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the units of measure should be in MPH, instead of or in addition to KPH, considering this is a USMC vehicle. If memory serves, it's 7-9MPH in water, 70-90MPH land (~70MPH is listed in the TMs as top speed, but my instructors back at MOS school say you can get up to 90-something). If I could remember exactly what the TMs said, I'd edit. Maybe another 2147 (or 0313, I assume they get filled in on it) can fill in the blanks. --76.212.167.94 04:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC) (Still Cuervo, different laptop, not logged in.) --Johnny (Cuervo) 04:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when the vehicle is in the water, its speed is measured in knots (remember, the Marine Corps is a part of the U.S. Navy, and we use nautical terms when applicable).

While in 0313 school, we always spoke of the groundspeed as being 60-70 mph and the swim speed as 7-8 knots. 2147's claimed they could get a newly-serviced 25 up to 100 mph on a hard, flat surface with a run-up of about 250 yards. I have never seen, ridden in, nor gotten a 25 up to even 75 mph, so I find the 90-100 mph claim dubious at best. At 70 mph, all it takes is a small groove as wide as one of the tires, and a 14 ton 25 can bend one of the McPherson struts in no time. I know. I did it :) NIS investigates all damage to U.S. Navy and Marine Corps property above $5,000.00. I was told by my CO that the cost of that strut was (in 1990) $30,000.00. And it had to be replaced at a 5th level maintenance depot. Total cost for my error to the Marine Corps - close to $75,000.00! Total cost for me - Extra firewatch for two weeks and loss of a 96. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.208.234 (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding, Crewman! You are right (though I remember it being 7-9 knots, your memory is likely fresher than mine). I am a 2147, and my MOS instructor told me in person 1) that you could get it to over 100mph over sand dunes (after getting to the fleet, I realized how unlikely it was that your speedometer would actually work), and 2) it would achieve freedom from gravity, if you tried hard enough, but didn't specify the circumstances (though he did mention sand dunes). These things will most certainly haul balls at least up to 90, on a flat or downhill surface, especially with the engines they're putting in them now.

Semper Fidelis. --Johnny (Cuervo) 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I know the discussion above is ancient... but I must comment on two assertions contained in the statement: "(remember, the Marine Corps is a part of the U.S. Navy, and we use nautical terms when applicable)."

1) As every recruit soon learns, the USMC is not "part of the U.S. Navy", but rather is a coequal branch of service with the USN, as a member of the dual-service Navy Department. In fact, the USMC is the senior service in the Department of the Navy... "Head of column, right of line" in all naval formations, and the second senior service (to the US Army) in the US military in all joint service formations and color guards. (I fight this battle almost daily with a retired SEABEE and a retired Army combat engineer over coffee and eggs at our local café. This causes me stress and I can't get VA to do anything about it; guess I ought to go see the chaplain... or just have another...)

2) The use of knots has nothing to do with the Navy, per se... it's because it's concerning watercraft. All US military water vessels, including US Army and USAF (yes, both services do operate watercraft) use knots/nautical miles for speed/range/distance navigational purposes, just as do all US military (not just USN, USMC, USCG) and civilian aircraft. It's because nautical and aeronautical charts use them; has nothing to with branch of service. (And yes, I know that some US light aircraft are instrumented in mph, that much of the world's aviation uses kph/kilometers for navigation and meters for altitude vice feet, and that US military tactical aircraft use the same 1:50,000 scale topographic maps, scaled in clicks, that the grunts use. Have used them all, and am now just an old Devil Dog with a lot of memories spending far too much time on Wikipedia. Semper Fi! and CobraDragoon out.) CobraDragoon (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Iraq

How did these do over there? Battle Ready by USMC General Zinni mentioned somewhere that Marine APCs weren't heavy enough for the job I think. AThousandYoung 06:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

         That is the AAV that arn't armored enough. --CnrFallon (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

LAV AD

I do not think that this has been retired. I know that we had several with us when I went to Iraq with the intial invasion. That was four years ago but i doudt they were retired since then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.203.128.28 (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The LAV-AD has been retired for at least a year and a half. I don't know exactly when, but a SSgt basically told me "we don't use 'em anymore". --Johnny (Cuervo) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The LAV-AD's were administratively attached to 4th LAR Bn, although they were manned by active duty Marines. The platoon was piece-mealed out for OIF '03 with det's serving with 1st, 2nd, and 3rd LAR Bn. They returned to the States in the Spring of '03 and soon after the vehicle was retired from service. Certain circuit cards that controlled all aspects of the fire control cost $10k++ each and were a relatively high failure rate item. Once the vehicle was out of warranty, it was no longer cost effective to keep the vehicle in service. I believe the turrets were removed and the hulls reused, but I do not know what for. Sorry, no source to site, just personal conversations with maintenance personnel from 4th LAR Bn. Jct0302 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"C-square" versus "C-two"

I'm a 2147, and I've only ever heard the command/control vehicles referred to as "C-squares" since MOS school, versus the "C-two" I just saw. I corrected the article to read "'C-squares' or 'C-twos'", but I'll be consulting fellow LAV mechs to see what they think. --Johnny (Cuervo) 02:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently, some guys who've been around longer than I have still call them "C-twos". *shrug* Us boots were taught "C-square". --Johnny (Cuervo) 08:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was with 2d LAI/LAR from 90-95 we refered to them as "C-square"...I'm guessing those more elder boots were of the confused sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.80.51 (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

MOWAG

I've added a link to the MOWAG family tree, because it can be a bit confusing...Snori (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Light Armor

Not quite sure why, but when I was looking for light armor as in light tank, I instead got redirected to here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.93.7.34 (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

LAV-25 as is LAV = Light Armored Vehicle. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with other IFVs

Why is it being compared to BTRs? Those are APCs not IFVs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.179.107 (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/blazer/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/piranha/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LAV-25. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060925034106/http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/lookupstoryref/200692212337 to http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/lookupstoryref/200692212337

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LAV-25. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070925182315/https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/warfighter_enc/landcrft/lav.htm to https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/warfighter_enc/landcrft/lav.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LAV-25. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621205052/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20090511/NEWS/905110321/Corps-has-big-plans-to-upgrade-LAV-fleet to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20090511/NEWS/905110321/Corps-has-big-plans-to-upgrade-LAV-fleet

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The Heading should be "LAV-1" not "LAV-25" a Sub-Type

The heading to this section needs to be changed to "LAV-1" since that's what they are re: "LAV-2" and "LAV-3" are follow-on models. Anyone who refers to LAV-1s as "LAV-25s" comes off as uneducated and plain old wrong. The page listing the LAV-1 sub-types as "LAV-AT" and what not further gives away the lie. If GDLS fangirls are vandalizing this page to further corporate greed because LAV-1 looks bad aka old, that's too damn bad because they are LAV-1s since they have made LAV-2s and LAV-3s afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.165.112 (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

82nd Airborne?

Is this vehicle used by the division's recon units, the 73rd? --PaulinSaudi (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)