LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Oh, and one other thing...I found the above photos at tanknet, and per one of the guys who posted there, the ARES 75mm gun is actually in use*, but on Taiwanese M-41Ds:



...

*=locally produced 76mm variant, sorry

[Raellus]

Here's a piece I wrote up for the fanzine. Constructive feedback is welcome. I want to make sure all of the kinks have been worked out before I submit it for publication.

[HorseSoldier]

A couple thoughts/questions.

A) How would the Dragon external mount work on a LAV-75. With the turret unmanned this would either require the TC to get out and climb up on the turret or if it was hull mounted by his hatch, it would require firing it from turret defilade (or higher profile) position and would probably result in no-fire zones for the 75mm gun and coax machine gun. (And all of the above doesn't even address how inadequate the Dragon was as an ATGM, as well . . .)

The T2K chronology specifically mentions the Tank Breaker ATGM being a big success when provided to the PRC. In light of that, perhaps an upgunned LAV-75 incorporated a single or pair of mounts for Javelins on the top of the turret, with either a Javelin CLU mounted on the turret or even with its function integrated into the LAV's existing optics. At the TC station or gunner's station the CLU's display function either way would probably be an add on screen.

Overall, the Javelin armed LAV-75 would still have had some short comings making it less than optimal -- without a major redesign to allow the missiles and their optic to rotate independent of the turret, you'd have issues with clearance for the gun tube if trying to engage from turret down fighting positions, for instance. And any time you start sticking more electronics inside an AFV you get ergonomic issues.

B) From the known users, I'm guessing 7th and 25th ID(L)'s didn't get the M-20s because the Pacific Theater was a lower priority?

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

A) How would the Dragon external mount work on a LAV-75. With the turret unmanned this would either require the TC to get out and climb up on the turret or if it was hull mounted by his hatch, it would require firing it from turret defilade (or higher profile) position and would probably result in no-fire zones for the 75mm gun and coax machine gun. (And all of the above doesn't even address how inadequate the Dragon was as an ATGM, as well . . .)

The T2K chronology specifically mentions the Tank Breaker ATGM being a big success when provided to the PRC. In light of that, perhaps an upgunned LAV-75 incorporated a single or pair of mounts for Javelins on the top of the turret, with either a Javelin CLU mounted on the turret or even with its function integrated into the LAV's existing optics. At the TC station or gunner's station the CLU's display function either way would probably be an add on screen.

Overall, the Javelin armed LAV-75 would still have had some short comings making it less than optimal -- without a major redesign to allow the missiles and their optic to rotate independent of the turret, you'd have issues with clearance for the gun tube if trying to engage from turret down fighting positions, for instance. And any time you start sticking more electronics inside an AFV you get ergonomic issues.

B) From the known users, I'm guessing 7th and 25th ID(L)'s didn't get the M-20s because the Pacific Theater was a lower priority?

Thanks for the feedback, Horse.

A.) I will change Dragon to Tankbreaker. As for the manner in which it was deployed, my thinking would be that it would have be mounted on the vehicle commander's hatch, requiring him to expose his upper body in order to aim and fire it. Earlier in this thread, Legbreaker posted a diagram of an external turret mount for the Dragon on, IIRC, an M113. That's sort of what I was thinking of. It wouldn't be an ideal set up, but it was added as a somewhat desperate attempt to allow the A1 to defeat the newer Soviet MBTs. I'll think some more on this and address it in the revisions.

B.) I wrote up the list by thumbing through the v1.0 U.S.A.V.G. and looking for users c.2000 and I didn't think to add in users that would have, at an earlier date, still been equiped with the Ridgway- a major oversight, to be sure. I'll add the 7th and 25th to the list.

[Targan]

Pages 5 and 6 of this thread contain much of the previous discussions regarding ATGM-equipped versions. Some good food for thought there.

Nice work on the M20 Ridgway article so far, Rae. Very nice indeed.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

A.) I will change Dragon to Tankbreaker. As for the manner in which it was deployed, my thinking would be that it would have be mounted on the vehicle commander's hatch, requiring him to expose his upper body in order to aim and fire it. Earlier in this thread, Legbreaker posted a diagram of an external turret mount for the Dragon on, IIRC, an M113. That's sort of what I was thinking of. It wouldn't be an ideal set up, but it was added as a somewhat desperate attempt to allow the A1 to defeat the newer Soviet MBTs. I'll think some more on this and address it in the revisions.

I can't see much of a problem with this at all really - the commanders hatch is on the turret deck, some images appear to show a GPMG there, and the stock standard (although I believe rarely issued) Dragon mounting therefore shouldn't be too hard to adapt... http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php...&postcount=158

What about ERA? Anything to improve survivability can only be a good thing.

[HorseSoldier]

So then it's a manned turret on the LAV-75? I was under the impression that the whole crew was down in the hull.

[The Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Here's a piece I wrote up for the fanzine. Constructive feedback is welcome. I want to make sure all of the kinks have been worked out before I submit it for publication.

Fantastically written. I like the way used history to repeat iteself, especially the revivial of the WW2 tank destroyer concept of mobile assualt guns moving with the infantry and using speed and surprise to get kills. I also agree with the analisis (sp) of the performance of both the vehicles and the 3 US army main weapons systems. I agree with the other comments regarding tankbreaker and I would adjust that accordingly. I scanned over it quickly for spelling, grammer and continuity (my own sucks too!) and the only thing I caught was near the bottom of page two, you called it the LAV25 instead of LAV75. Good job!

[Raellus]

Thanks for the kind words, fellas.

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

So then it's a manned turret on the LAV-75? I was under the impression that the whole crew was down in the hull.

On the LAV-75 schematics Rak posted, it looks like the commander sits mostly inside the hull with maybe his head and shoulders in the turret. In most of the photos, the commander's hatch appears to be on top of the turret. My thoughts would be that the Dragon/Tankbreaker would be mounted there, and the commander would have to stick his head and shoulders outside the vehicle to fire it- not an ideal solution to the lack of effectiveness of the 75mm HVG against heavy armor. Desperate times...

@Leg: That's a good idea. I will add something about ERA to the article.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

So then it's a manned turret on the LAV-75? I was under the impression that the whole crew was down in the hull.

Nope. See schematics in post #259 of this thread: http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php...&postcount=259

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

So then it's a manned turret on the LAV-75? I was under the impression that the whole crew was down in the hull.

There were two prototypes of the "LAV75" built, one with a driver and commander/gunner, both in the hull, and one (IIRC) a driver and commander in the hull, and a gunner partially in the turret, but mostly in the hull. (T2K would still call this a "crew-in-hull design," though I've always felt there needs to be a fourth category for turrets that are totally or mostly unmanned.)

I get the feeling that a two man crew on a light tank might lead to information overload on the part of the commander/gunner.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

There were two prototypes of the "LAV75" built, one with a driver and commander/gunner, both in the hull, and one (IIRC) a driver and commander in the hull, and a gunner partially in the turret, but mostly in the hull.

In the schematics I posted a link to in the post above your's, Paul, it pretty clearly has the crew position in the turret as being for the commander. I suspect you may have been writing your post before I posted mine.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Targan

In the schematics I posted a link to in the post above your's, Paul, it pretty clearly has the crew position in the turret as being for the commander. I suspect you may have been writing your post before I posted mine.

You know what would be sort of weird? If we were both writing our posts at roughly the same moment. Just a matter of what direction the electrons fly...

I guess I should have looked in my Jane's first.

[Raellus]

Do these numbers look OK? I basically averaged the M113 and M8 stats and made a few tweaks. I want to make sure I'm not way off on any of this before I publish.

M20 Ridgway Game Statistics (v2.2)

Price: $250,000 (S/R)
Fire Control: +2
Armament: 105mm gun, MAG MG coaxial, M2HB or MAG MG (C)
Stabilization: Good
Ammo: 18x105mm in magazine, 18x105mm in internal storage, 3000X7.62mm, 500x.50 BMG
Fuel Type: D,BD,A
Load: 150kg
Veh Wt: 30 tonnes
Crew: 3
Mnt: 10
Night Vision: passive IR/thermal
Radiological: Shielded

Tr Mov: 150/130
Com Mov: 35/30
Fuel Cap: 600
Fuel Con: 150

Combat Statistics
Config: Veh TF: 12 HF: 20/30
Susp: T4 TS: 10 HS: 6/10
TR: 6 HR: 6/10

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Do these numbers look OK? I basically averaged the M113 and M8 stats and made a few tweaks. I want to make sure I'm not way off on any of this before I publish.

What's wrong with using Pauls stats? http://www.pmulcahy.com/best_stuff_t...never_were.htm

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

What's wrong with using Pauls stats? http://www.pmulcahy.com/best_stuff_t...never_were.htm

Nothing at all. I just thought I'd try to come up with my own. In most cases, I like his better. He's given me permission to use his stats but I see a couple of things a little differently, though, and I'm not sure how he feels about tweaks. I figured that it might be better to just go with my own stats than to bastardize Paul's. It'd be great if he weighed in.

Here are Paul's stats for comparison:

M20 Ridgway Game Statistics (v2.2) [on Paul's site, it is called the LAV-75A4]

Price: $392,600 (S/R)
Fire Control: +4
Armament: 105mm gun, MAG MG coaxial, M2HB or MAG MG (C)
Stabilization: Good
Ammo: 18x105mm in magazine, 18x105mm in internal storage, 3000X7.62mm, 500x.50 BMG
Fuel Type: D,BD,A
Load: 500kg
Veh Wt: 14.01 tonnes
Crew: 3
Mnt: 9
Night Vision: FLIR (G, C), Image Intensification (G, C), Passive IR (D)
Radiological: Shielded

Tr Mov: 170/119
Com Mov: 43/30
Fuel Cap: 409
Fuel Con: 202

Combat Statistics
Config: Veh TF: 10 HF: 19
Susp: T4 TS: 8 HS: 10
TR: 4 HR: 4


I think that the hull front armor would be thicker. It's very sloped and I think that would make it hard to penetrate with AP or HEAT ammo. In the BYB, the Marder II has a HF armor rating of 25. I also think that the vehicle weight is a little light. It's only 4 tonnes more than a standard M113; the Marder II is 29 tonnes, and the AGS with supplemental armor is 49.5 tonnes. I think the Ridgway should be somewhere in between those two figures.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I figured that it might be better to just go with my own stats than to bastardize Paul's. It'd be great if he weighed in.

A collaboration between two greatly respected members of the forum? Sounds good to me!

Originally Posted by Raellus

I think that the hull front armor would be thicker. It's very sloped and I think that would make it hard to penetrate with AP or HEAT ammo. In the BYB, the Marder II has a HF armor rating of 25. I also think that the vehicle weight is a little light. It's only 4 tonnes more than a standard M113; the Marder II is 29 tonnes, and the AGS with supplemental armor is 49.5 tonnes. I think the Ridgway should be somewhere in between those two figures.

The weight difference between the two versions is significant (yours is basically double that of Paul's, Rae). That would have to be more than just armour, I'm thinking powerplant and drivetrain differences as well. I'd love to see you guys brainstorm a version you were both happy with.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Targan

A collaboration between two greatly respected members of the forum? Sounds good to me!

The weight difference between the two versions is significant (yours is basically double that of Paul's, Rae). That would have to be more than just armour, I'm thinking powerplant and drivetrain differences as well. I'd love to see you guys brainstorm a version you were both happy with.

I'd be happy to split the difference. I figure that because of the extra armor and the 105mm main-gun system, the M20 would be heavier than a standard M113, but without a conventional armored turret, it would be lighter than the AGS. The Marder seems like the best match, chasis-wise, but its turret/gun is smaller than the Ridgway's so I figure that the latter would be heavier still.

How does 25 tonnes sound?

[Legbreaker]

The armour doesn't need to be heavy. The Marder, and virtually all APCs, tanks, etc, have to have armour strong enough to withstand a few hits now and then. By their very nature they're going into harms way just to carry out their job of transporting troops across the fire-swept battlefield, or bully their way over the top of the enemy (I know it's more complicated than that, but I think you get the point).

The LAV-75, etc is another beast entirely. A light armoured vehicle, it's primary mission is to put fire down upon the enemy (as well as scouting, etc of course). Stealth, concealment, and above all, fighting from hull down positions is where it's all at for this class of vehicle. If it needs to expose it's hull to observation, let alone enemy fire, it's mission is already a bust.

Therefore, I'd say a thin armour rated/hoped to protect against shrapnel and the occasional small arms fire should be more than sufficient for it's intended role. Optional add on armour packages and ERA may be available, but only issued in extremis.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The armour doesn't need to be heavy. The Marder, and virtually all APCs, tanks, etc, have to have armour strong enough to withstand a few hits now and then. By their very nature they're going into harms way just to carry out their job of transporting troops across the fire-swept battlefield, or bully their way over the top of the enemy (I know it's more complicated than that, but I think you get the point).

The LAV-75, etc is another beast entirely. A light armoured vehicle, it's primary mission is to put fire down upon the enemy (as well as scouting, etc of course). Stealth, concealment, and above all, fighting from hull down positions is where it's all at for this class of vehicle. If it needs to expose it's hull to observation, let alone enemy fire, it's mission is already a bust.

Therefore, I'd say a thin armour rated/hoped to protect against shrapnel and the occasional small arms fire should be more than sufficient for it's intended role. Optional add on armour packages and ERA may be available, but only issued in extremis.

I agree with your statement regarding tactical doctrine when operating in the anti-armor role. Still, the Chinese, using the LAV-75 primarily as a a tank destroyers and MBT stand-in, found that it would not survive long on the modern battlefield without additional armor protection. The U.S., much more casualty conscious than the PLA, would have concurred and insisted on adding hull armor to the upgunned version. As an assault gun (the primary role of the LAV-75, as per the v1.0 USAVG), the Ridgway would be advancing in support of dismounted infantry, and would not have the luxury of operating from the hull down position. Therefore, it would need additional armor in order to survive attacks from enemy AT weapons and/or the occasional enemy AFV. When pressed into service as a tank, this would be doubly so. Therefore, supplemental armor is a must.

[DigTw0Grav3s]

What's the difference between FLIR and passive IR?

[Legbreaker]

Given the heavier 105mm version is basically just an upgunned 75, why not use hull stats and appliqué armour/ERA? The turret, as stated earlier, shouldn't add too much weight on top since it's little larger than the gun it contains.

Anyone know how much a 105mm gun weighs anyway compared to a 75mm?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Given the heavier 105mm version is basically just an upgunned 75, why not use hull stats and appliqué armour/ERA? The turret, as stated earlier, shouldn't add too much weight on top since it's little larger than the gun it contains.

Anyone know how much a 105mm gun weighs anyway compared to a 75mm?

The Royal Ordinance L7/M68 105mm weighs 1282 Kg.

I have emailed Ares regarding the XM274 automatic cannon.

Speaking of Ares, take a gander at the third image to the right:

[Raellus]

Thanks, Rak.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

...why not use hull stats and appliqué armour/ERA?

That's what I've done. I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Please clarify.

[Targan]

Rae, I think your approx. 25 tonnes compromise weight with ERA sounds reasonable, and with the highest level bolt-on armor package it might be getting up towards the weight Paul has on his site. That seems like a rational solution to me.

I'd love to see the calculations/musings you and Paul each used to arrive at your respective travel movement/combat movement/fuel consumption numbers. I know from my own vehicle generation experiences that they're hard to nail down.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Targan

Rae, I think your approx. 25 tonnes compromise weight with ERA sounds reasonable, and with the highest level bolt-on armor package it might be getting up towards the weight Paul has on his site. That seems like a rational solution to me.

I'd love to see the calculations/musings you and Paul each used to arrive at your respective travel movement/combat movement/fuel consumption numbers. I know from my own vehicle generation experiences that they're hard to nail down.

I just adjusted some of the figures from the M113 and M8 entries in the BYB, basically averaging them out. I trust Paul's judgement, though, and am happy to use his figures for movement and fuel consumption.

As for armor, the add-ons that I have in mind are passive, composite bolt-on stuff. I added a brief bit about ERA in my revised write up but I wrote that ERA proved unpopular with the infantry tasked to work in concert with the Ridgway in its assault gun role, so passive composite panels were made standard instead. It's composite ally-ceramic armor, meant to be relatively light yet still increase protection when acting in concert with the vehicle's original standard armor.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I added a brief bit about ERA in my revised write up but I wrote that ERA proved unpopular with the infantry tasked to work in concert with the Ridgway in its assault gun role...

Oh yeah, I can totally see why the infantry wouldn't be super happy about blocks of explosive detonating on the exterior hull of a nearby friendly vehicle that was supposed to be supporting them. In any case, ERA blocks are yet another finite resource, albeit easier to manufacture than ATGMs.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Targan

Oh yeah, I can totally see why the infantry wouldn't be super happy about blocks of explosive detonating on the exterior hull of a nearby friendly vehicle that was supposed to be supporting them.

Yes, Russian troops found that out in Chechnya the hard way. In addition, if a tank got knocked out, the Chechens found a way to remove remaining ERA blocks and use them as IEDs.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Targan

I'd love to see the calculations/musings you and Paul each used to arrive at your respective travel movement/combat movement/fuel consumption numbers. I know from my own vehicle generation experiences that they're hard to nail down.

I use a spreadsheet, but I also fudge (sometimes in total error, I'll admit).

[Legbreaker]

Found the following info just through googling "XM274"

Jane’s Light Tanks and Armoured Cars 1984 by Christopher F. Foss. It is posted here for educational purposes:

High Survivability Test Vehicle (Lightweight)

Development
The High Survivability Test Vehicle – Lightweight (HSTV-L) was developed under the direction of the TACOM project manager for Armored Combat Vehicle Technology at the US Army Tank-Automotive Command, Warren, Michigan.
Following the field testing, the HSTV(L) is being used for experiments in fire-control and stabilisation. Stabilisation processing has been converted from analogue to digital. Various stabilization control algorithms are being tried along with different combinations of transducers to determine effects on gun pointing performance and the possibility of eliminating some of the expensive sensors such as gyros. The TACOM Motion Base Simulator, a huge shaker table, is being used to provide terrain input. These tests began in September 1982 and are to continue for a year or more.

Description
The high survivability of this vehicle is derived from the low silhouette, high horsepower per ton, duplication of sights, improved night vision capabilities, and the lack of specific driver and gunner controls. Any crewman can shoot and both hull crewmen can drive.
Although a test vehicle, the HSTV(L) is not a variable parameter test bed but an exercise in system realism for the three-man crew, hunter/killer fire control concept and low silhouette.
Armament for the HSTV(L) consists of a 7.62 mm M240 machine gun for both commander and coaxial position and a 75 mm smooth bore cannon. The cannon employs a revolving breech and telescoping ammunition which enables the automatic loader to load one round per 11/2 seconds. The in battery-firing recoil mechanism has a fixed piston that allows the greater mass of recoil cylinder and breech mechanism parts to recoil during firing. The 75 mm gun and automatic ammunition feeder are designed and made by ARES Inc, Port Clinton, Ohio.
Texas Instruments supplies the fire-control system which uses the hunter/killer concept. The commander uses a stabilised hunter sight that revolves independently of the turret. Once a target is selected on this sight, the turret and killer sight can be aligned with it. The gunner can then destroy the selected target while the commander returns to search with his hunter sight. Both direct vision and FLIR (Forward Looking Infra-red) optics are available for either sight. The commander can use either a binocular direct view optic eyepiece for improved clarity and reduced power drain, or a video screen. In the hull, a video screen visible to both gunner and driver receives transmissions from hunter and killer sights.
The electronic fire control processor uses inputs from the sights, crosswind sensor, muzzle reference, vertical reference system, and an eye-safe CO2 laser rangefinder to compute proper gun pointing. The laser rangefinder is supplied by Raytheon. Automatic tracking and rate aid tracking can also be accomplished by the fire control processor.
Both elevation and azimuth stabilisation is provided for the 75 mm gun with a slaved killer sight and an indepen¬dently stabilised hunter sight. Fire-on-the-move capabilities are improved by decoupling the yaw motion of the hull from the turret. Cadillac Gage supplies the gun control and stabilisation system for HSTV(L).
Propulsion for the HSTV(L) comes from a gas turbine engine mounted beside the transmission with a cross-drive gearbox connecting the two. Avco Lycoming supplies the nonregenerative 650 horsepower modified helicopter gas turbine. The transmission is an X-300 Detroit Diesel Allison automatic four-speed with lock-up torque converter. Auxili¬ary power is provided by two 250 amp generators and a 60 gpm hydraulic pump. The hydraulic pump supplies power for the engine compartment mounted oil cooler fan and through a hydraulic slip ring; it also supplies power to the gun control system and automatic ammunition loader in the turret.
Teledyne supply the fixed height hydro-pneumatic sus¬pension system. A 355.6 mm jounce and 127 mm rebound travel is possible due to the small 558.8 mm diameter road wheels. The track is an improved version of the type found on the M551 Sheridan.
The man-machine interface for the HSTV(L) is of prime importance. The use of the hunter/killer concept allows both the gunner and the commander to contribute as much information as possible towards the neutralisation of the enemy. The use of pressure sensitive isometric rate controller thumb switches allows for more precise gun control while firing on the move. The driver and gunner seating positions are semi-reclined for maximum comfort in a minimum space. The tv screens considerably improve fire-on-the-move sighting clarity.

SPECIFICATIONS

CREW 3
TEST VEHICLE WEIGHT (with instrumentation and partial applique armour) 20 450 kg
POWER-TO-WEIGHT RATIO 31 78 hp/tonne
GROUND PRESSURE 0.7 kg/cm2
LENGTH GUN FORWARDS 8.528 m
LENGTH HULL 5 918 m
WIDTH 2.794 m
HEIGHT (overall) 2.414 m (to turret top) 1.994 m (to hull top) 1.422 m
GROUND CLEARANCE 0.508 m
TRACK 2.349 m
TRACK WIDTH 445 mm
MAX SPEED (road) 83.68 km/h
ACCELERATION (0 to 48 km/h) 11.8 sec
FUEL CAPACITY 409 litres
MAX CRUISING RANGE 160 km
FORDING 1.0 m
GRADIENT 60%
SIDE SLOPE 30%
TURNING RADIUS pivot to infinity
ENGINE Avco-Lycoming 650 turboshaft developing 650hp
TRANSMISSION GMC Detroit Diesel Allison Division cross drive model X-300-4A with 4 forward and 1 reverse gears, single-stage, multiple-phase torque converter with automatic lock up

STEERING hydrostatically controlled differential, pivot steer in neutral
BRAKES multiple wet plate, service and parking, hydrostatically applied with mechanical backup
SUSPENSION hydro-pneumatic
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 24 V
BATTERIES 6 × 12 V, 300 Ah
ARMAMENT (main) 1 × 75 mm (coaxial) 1 × 7.62 mm MG (anti-aircraft) 1 × 7.62 mm MG
AMMUNITION (main) 26 (MG) 3200
FIRE-CONTROL SYSTEM powered/manual
By commander yes
By gunner yes
Gun elevation/ depression +45°/-17° front, +45°/-6° rear, +45°/-30° side
Max rate (power) elevation/depression 1.0 rad/sec
Max rate (manual) elevation/depression 10 mils/crank
Min rate (power) elevation/depression 0.2 mils/sec
Max traverse rate (power) 1.0 rad/sec
Max traverse rate (manual) 10 mils/crank
Min traverse rate (power) 0.2 mils/sec
Periscopes driver 3 (×1), gunner 3 (×1), commander 8 (×1)
Primary engagement sight (turret) stabilised head, FLIR CO2 laser rangefinder, tv, 2 FOV linked to all three crew members
Hunter sight (turret) stabilised head, rotates independently of turret; FLIR; direct view optics, tv, 2 FOV linked to all three crew members
Gunner’s sight (hull) slaved to weapon, direct view optics, 2 FOV gunner’s use only

Status: Undergoing stabilisation/fire control testing on the Motion Base Simulator, Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Michigan.

Manufacturer: AAI Corporation, Box 6767, Baltimore. Maryland 21204, USA.

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...ler/hstv01.jpg

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...ler/hstv02.jpg
HSTV(L) undergoing stabilisation/fire-control testing on Motion Base Simulator, TACOM, Warren, Michigan (US Army)

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...ler/hstv03.jpg
Above: Typical target engagement by HSTV(L)

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...ler/hstv04.jpg
HSTV(L) with all hatches closed and armoured track skirts fitted

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...ler/hstv05.jpg
Cutaway drawing of HSTV(L) showing position of main components of Texas Instruments fire-control system

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...ler/hstv06.jpg
Three-view drawing of HSTV(L)

Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank (RDF/LT)

Development
The Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank (RDF/LT) has been designed as a private venture by AAI Corporation which has already built the prototype of the High Survivability Test Vehicle (Lightweight) under contract to the United States Army Tank-Automotive Command.
The prototype was shown for the first time in October 1980 when it was said by the company that it could be in service by 1984, if a decision on production was taken in the immediate future.
The vehicle is airportable: the Lockheed C-5B transport aircraft can carry eight RDF/LTs, the C-130 and C-141 could each carry two and the Navy/Marine Corps CH-53E helicopter can carry one slung under its fuselage.
This vehicle, with some changes and improvements in armour protection, is AAl’s entry in the MPGS competition.

Description
The hull of the RDF/LT is made of all-welded aluminium armour with the driver sitting at the front of the hull on the left and the commander/gunner to his right. Both crew members have a single-piece hatch cover that opens outwards and has three integrated periscopes. Between the driver and commander/gunner, in the upper part of the glacis plate, is the hull-mounted auxiliary sight.
The main armament consists of a 75 mm ARES cannon mounted in the centre of the hull behind the crew. The 75 mm ARES cannon is fed from an automatic magazine holding 60 rounds of APFSDS and multi-purpose ammunition and when used for indirect fire has a maximum range of 12 000 metres. To the right of the main armament there is a coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun.
Mounted above and behind the main armament is the stabilised rotary head which is the primary sight. The main armament is fully stabilised and the fire-control system includes a digital computer. The fire-control system is similar to that of the HSTV(L) and is fully described in that entry.
The engine and transmission are mounted at the rear of the hull and the complete powerpack is on extensible rails to facilitate maintenance in the field.
The torsion bar suspension consists of five dual rubbertyred road wheels with a drive sprocket at the rear, idler at the front and one return roller.
Appliqué steel armour can be fitted to the RDF/LT for increased protection. As an alternative to the 75 mm ARES cannon which is mounted in an unmanned turret and fitted to the prototype vehicle, an AAI Universal One-Man Turret which is also armed with a 75 mm ARES cannon, fed from an automatic loader, can be fitted.

Variants
In 1982 AAI announced a new version of this vehicle fitted with a new one-man turret also armed with the ARES 75 mm automatic cannon. This has a single-piece hatch cover opening to the rear, six periscopes for all round observation and forward and to the right of the hatch is a stabilised sight for target acquisition/firing.

SPECIFICATIONS
(RDF/LT with three man crew and turret mentioned above)

CREW 3
WEIGHT (combat) 13 426 kg (unloaded) 12 247 kg
POWER TO WEIGHT RATIO 26.07 hp/tonne
GROUND PRESSURE 0.49 kg/cm2
LENGTH GUN FORWARDS 8.235 m
LENGTH HULL 5.569 m
WIDTH 2.54 m
HEIGHT (top of sight) 2.286 m
AXIS OF FIRE 1.562 m
GROUND CLEARANCE 0.50 m
MAX ROAD SPEED 64 km/h
FUEL CAPACITY 378 litres
MAX CRUISING RANGE 500 km
FORDING 1 m
ENGINE General Motors 6V53T, turbo-charged, 6-cylinder diesel developing 350 hp
TRANSMISSION General Motors, Allison Division, X-200 cross drive, automatic
SUSPENSION torsion bar
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 24 V
BATTERIES 6 × 12 V. 190 Ah
ARMAMENT (main) 1 × 75 mm (coaxial) 1 × 7.62 mm MG
AMMUNITION (main) 60 (coaxial) 2600
FIRE-CONTROL
turret power control hydraulic/manual
by commander yes
by gunner yes
Gun elevation/ depression +40°/-15°
Turret traverse 360°
Turret slew rate 60°/s
Gun elevation rate 60°/s

Status: Prototype. This vehicle has been designed to meet the US requirement for a Mobile Protected Gun System.

Manufacturer: AAI Corporation, PO Box 6767, Baltimore, Maryland, 21204, USA.

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...er/rdflt01.jpg
Powerpack of AAI RDF/LT slides out for ease of maintenance and field replacement

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...er/rdflt02.jpg
Prototype of AAI Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...er/rdflt03.jpg
Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank fitted with Universal One-Man turret armed with 75 mm ARES gun

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...er/rdflt04.jpg
75 mm ARES automatic gun as fitted to the HSTV-L, RDF Light Tank and the High Mobility Agility Test Vehicle (HIMAG)

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...er/rdflt05.jpg
AAI Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank prototype fitted with new one-man all-cast turret armed with 75 mm ARES automatic gun undergoing trials in 1982

The following idea seems to be a good option for T2K. The M32 76mm gun (pulled from reserve stores) with updated ammo should be enough to give the Chinese a fighting chance against the Soviets...

13.2 Tonne Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank (RDF/LT)

Development
The original AAI Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank (RDF/T), described in the preceding entry, cannot be exported at present as the ARES 75 mm automatic cannon has not yet completed its US Army funded development.
In 1982 AAI announced that they had built the prototype of a 13.2 tonne RDF/LT fitted with a new two-man turret armed with the same 76 mm M32 gun as the M41 light tank’s. This was phased out of US Army service some years ago, although it remains in service with many other countries. The prototype uses the chassis of the original RDF/LT but production vehicles would have a slightly different hull and the description below relates to this. A Lockheed C-130H aircraft can carry two 13.2 tonne RDF/LTs.

Description
The hull of the RDF/LT is of all-welded aluminium construction. The driver is seated at the front of the hull on the left with 30 rounds of 76 mm ammunition stowed horizon¬tally to his right. The driver has a single-piece hatch cover that opens to the left, in the forward part of this are three periscopes the centre one of which can be replaced by a passive periscope for night driving.
The all-welded turret is in the centre of the vehicle with the commander seated on the left and the gunner on the right. Both have a single-piece hatch cover, six periscopes for all round observation and an M32 periscope for aiming the armament. The gunner’s M32 periscope incorporates a laser rangefinder.
Main armament consists of a 76 min high velocity M32 gun which is installed in the M41 tank. In addition to the range of ammunition originally developed for this weapon, and fully described in the entry for the M41 light tank, AAI have developed a new round of APFSDS-T ammunition based on their experience in developing ammunition for the ARES 75 mm automatic. This has already been tested in Denmark during trials with an M41 light tank. According to AAI, this projectile has three times the probability of killing a T-62 tank at a normal combat range of 1500 metres than the 105 mm M456 HEAT-T round and only slightly less kill probability at a similar range to the 105 men M735 APFSDS-T round. A 7.62 mm M240 machine gun is mounted coaxially with the main armament.
A Cadillac Gage stabilisation and weapons control system is fitted as standard enabling the vehicle to fire on the move with a high probability of a first round hit. Optional fire-control systems include an M32 sight with an AN/VSG-2 Tank Thermal Sight or a digital tank fire-control system with the AN/VSG-2 Tank Thermal Sight, AN/GVS-5 laser rangefinder and a digital ballistic computer.
The engine and transmission are mounted at the rear of the hull and the complete powerpack is on extensible rails to facilitate maintenance in the field.
The torsion bar suspension consists of five dual rubber tyred road wheels with the drive sprocket at the rear, idler at the front and one return roller which is positioned above the second and third roadwheel stations. Track is the M113.

SPECIFICATIONS

CREW 3
WEIGHT (combat) 13 200 kg (unloaded) 11 800 kg
POWER TO WEIGHT RATIO 26.5 hp/tonne
GROUND PRESSURE 0.48 kg/cm2
LENGTH GUN FORWARDS 7.34 m
LENGTH HULL 5.569 m
WIDTH 2.54 m
HEIGHT (overall, M32 sight) 2.235 m (hull top) 1.562 m
GROUND CLEARANCE 0.50 m
MAX ROAD SPEED 64 km/h
FUEL CAPACITY 378 litres
MAX CRUISING RANGE 500 km
FORDING 1 m
GRADIENT 60%
ENGINE General Motors 6V-53T, turbo-charged, 6-cylinder diesel developing 350 hp
TRANSMISSION General Motors, Allison Division, X-200 crossdrive, automatic
SUSPENSION torsion bar
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 24 V
BATTERIES 6 × 12 V, 190 Ah
ARMAMENT (main) 1 × 76 mm (coaxial) 1 × 7.62 mm MG
AMMUNITION (main) 50 (coaxial) 2600
FIRE-CONTROL
turret power control hydraulic/manual
by commander yes
by gunner yes
GUN ELEVATION/DEPRESSION +22°/-10°
TURRET TRAVERSE 360°

Status: Prototype.

Manufacturer: AAI Corporation, Box 6767, Baltimore, Maryland 21204, USA.

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3.../13rdflt01.jpg
Prototype of AAI 13.2 tonne Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank undergoing initial cross-country trials in 1982

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3.../13rdflt02.jpg
AAI 13.2 tonne Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank prototype showing new turret armed with 76 mm M32 gun which can fire a new APFSDS-T projectile developed by AAI

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3.../13rdflt03.jpg
Cutaway drawing of 13.2 tonne Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank showing crew positions and ammunition stowage

An interesting idea....
Attachment 2066

Attachment 2067

Attachment 2068

Attachment 2069