LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[Sith]

Yeah, I figured you worked for BAE.

Thanks, Something in the back of my head was ringing California. Now I remember that they were using production on the Santa Clara line as a selling point in the early AGS material, changing to York later on.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Per the wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAV_600

...the LAV-600 is used by the US Army. But in what role? I thought the Stryker MGS filled the "thinks-its-a-tank-but-it-isn't" niche.

[ArmySGT.]

I think a few where bought as test beds for the stryker MGS for feasibility studies.

Every Stryker chassis was needed to fill the Brigades and a Lav 600 is somewhat cheaper.

Besides all anybody wanted to know was can you fire a full 105mm SABOT 90 degree off centerline and the vehicles doesn't tip over.

[Olefin]

For Twilight 2000 you may have seen a significant amount of these vehicles going into the late war light infantry divisions along with the AGS to try to give those units some ability to deal with enemy armor. Especially after the LAV-75 light tank turned out to be unable to deal with any enemy armor above an APC or armored car.

The 105mm gun means you actually have a chance to knock out Soviet armor where with the LAV-75 unless you are going for a mobility kill (i.e. shoot for the tracks and the suspension) you basically have no chance against anything more modern than a T-55 - and even then you might not get a real kill.

And it having the same gun as what is on the Stingray light tank would offer benefits as well - i.e. if the barrel was good to go still on a knocked out or out of commission Stingray it could be used for changeout, if necessary, on a LAV 600.

[Olefin]

By the way speaking of the Stingray - the ammo load for it in the game in both the V1 and V2 versions is incorrect

In the game it says it has 36 round of main gun ammo

Its actually only 32, with 8 ready rounds and 24 stowed in hull

And its only sales were to Thailand so for those playing the Bangkok module the tank should be added to the Bangkok Cesspool of the Orient lineup of available tanks for the Thais.

[ArmySGT.]

The 75mm on the LAV -75 should be penetrating hull side and turret side on t-72s and t-80s.

It is a hyper velocity kinetic penetrator.

[Raellus]

The LAV-300, upon which the LAV-600 is based, was used by the Panamanian defense forces (armed with a 90mm gun) and may have seen combat against U.S. forces during the intervention in 1989.

I read through the LAV-75, Stingray, M8 AGS thread again today and I think it was really cool how a bunch of us collaborated to create something kind of new and very cool for T2K- the M20 (LAV-75A1) Ridgway LAV/AGS: the LAV-25 chasis with an unmanned 105mm gun turret.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The LAV-300, upon which the LAV-600 is based, was used by the Panamanian defense forces (armed with a 90mm gun) and may have seen combat against U.S. forces during the intervention in 1989.

I read through the LAV-75, Stingray, M8 AGS thread again today and I think it was really cool how a bunch of us collaborated to create something kind of new and very cool for T2K- the M20 (LAV-75A1) Ridgway LAV/AGS: the LAV-25 chasis with an unmanned 105mm gun turret.

Agreed! tho I rather like my LAV-105 (LAV-75 with a remote 105 turret - was actually one of the RDF/LT proposals) too :D

[ArmySGT.]

LAV-75

http://newsgenocide.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/hstv06.jpg

http://newsgenocide.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/hstv05.jpg

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThX0j_Hg05skklCFyWp2EMw0cvd248X rpRND60yD8IL5f7CZ7xQ0yBDFhr

TankNet thread on the LAV-75 (http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=22918)

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/2559/hstvic8.jpg

http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/HSTVLFront-Right2.jpg

http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/tanks_09/aberdeen/Lot%20A/a5.jpg

[schnickelfritz]

Where were the pictures of the prototype taken again?
Thanks-
Dave

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Where were the pictures of the prototype taken again?
Thanks-
Dave

Probably in the Aberdeen motor pool, waiting prep for display.

[Targan]

So sad to see it out in the open and rusting :(

[Legbreaker]

So sad to see it out in the open and rusting :(

I got the same feeling :(

[schnickelfritz]

Indeed...that would also explain the German Pzkpfw Ausf N sitting next to it.
-Dave

[Panther Al]

You know, I still think the LAV75 (with family) would have made a great Cav Light AFV. Better than the M1/M2 mix that the Heavy Cav use(d).

[ArmySGT.]

Since our current technology has gotten the Airburst programmable munitions working this could be a viable system as intended.

Add fixed TOW launchers or fixed Javelin launchers to each side of the turret.

[Olefin]

Personally I prefer the BAE M8 AGS to the LAV-75 - especially since I had the chance to get up close and personal with it the last time we put it in our "garage" to work on it for potential customers.

[Targan]

Personally I prefer the BAE M8 AGS to the LAV-75

The M8 AGS is an impressive system and it's, what, a decade and a half ahead of the LAV-75, technologically speaking? I'm surprised it wasn't fielded by US forces IRL.

[Panther Al]

Agreed: The M8 is *much* better than the LAV75: but in the 80's, the LAV was what we had when we was playing around with how to equip an Armoured Cavalry unit.

Honestly, with the scenario that TW2K (V1 or V2), I don't see the M8 ever being developed. I feel with the Cold War staying on the front burner, they would have gone with the horse they had: the LAV75.

Now I don't know anything about TWv3, but I would hazard a guess the M8 could easily be pushed into service.

[Raellus]

Thanks for merging the threads, Targan. For some reason, it doesn't look the two photos of the rusting prototype transferred over. I'd love to have them in here for posterity. It's really a cool little vehicle.

If someone could somehow (Photoshop?) create images/schematics of the LAV-75 hull with a 105mm gun turret like the one the Stryker AGS uses, that would be awesome.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Thanks for merging the threads, Targan. For some reason, it doesn't look the two photos of the rusting prototype transferred over. I'd love to have them in here for posterity. It's really a cool little vehicle.

If someone could somehow (Photoshop?) create images/schematics of the LAV-75 hull with a 105mm gun turret like the one the Stryker AGS uses, that would be awesome.

Hold on a second, there's actually pics of one out there. Let me see if I can find them.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

[raketenjagdpanzer]

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

[raketenjagdpanzer]

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

2040

2041

[raketenjagdpanzer]

As you can see, in and amongst the LAV-75 or RDF/LT pics there are a few of the LAV-105.

(Somewhere out on the internet, a certain "Mr. Sparks" just had a shudder of extacy as he was updating his "101 reasons why the M113 is better than all vehicles, ever, including Apollo rockets and aircraft carriers and sending anyone out in anything but means you're deliberately murdering US soldiers" youtube page...)

[Tegyrius]

Now I don't know anything about TWv3, but I would hazard a guess the M8 could easily be pushed into service.

The Twilight War in 2013 was very much a "come as you are" affair due to the accelerated timeline. I doubt M8 production could have been ramped up in time for a substantial number of units to be deployed. It's more likely that Stryker MGS systems would have been rushed into that role.

- C.

[ArmySGT.]

the 105 looks great. Has to be used and supported as a tank destroyer and not as a main battle tank doctrinally.

[Raellus]

the 105 looks great. Has to be used and supported as a tank destroyer and not as a main battle tank doctrinally.

Absolutely, but late in the war, shortages of proper MBTs would likely lead to remaining LAV-AGS's being used as/in lieu of tanks. That's what the Germans ended up having to do with their STUG assault guns in the last year or so of WWII.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

By the by I have got a ton of Stingray pics, too, but as it is a lot more common than the never produced AGS/LAV-75/105/RDF-LT I figure we've all seen them all...?

[ArmySGT.]

If you have them as deployed and not the promotional or prototype pictures.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

If you have them as deployed and not the promotional or prototype pictures.


Yes; they're all "action shots" if you will from Thai army deployments.

[Raellus]

I'm starting to think that the 105mm-armed LAV-"75" would be a pretty ideal PC vehicle.

First off, it's 105mm gun is powerful, but would need to be skillfully used against T-80 and later MBTs. Ammo for a 105mm would be scarce, but not impossible to find. Also, with an autoloader, no PCs crewman would get stuck with that thankless job (and/or you wouldn't need an NPC to do it).

Second, with the same basic drive-train components as the ubiquitous M113, there'd be enough spare parts out there in the game world to keep it running throughout the campaign.

Third, it doesn't have the same type/degree of high-performance composite armor that the M1/Leopard II/ Challenger have, meaning that the PCs will have to avoid risks that having "magic" armor might otherwise encourage them to make.

And lastly, with it's remote turret, a turret hit would not necessarily result in the death/incapacitation of the crew.

Of course, three PCs would be a pretty small group. The LAV-75/105 would work best with another vehicle or two. A companion M113 would be pretty ideal due to the commonality of automotive parts. It's lighter armament would be useful against soft targets, while the LAV-105's big gun could take on armor or harder bunker-type targets.

Thinking about it really makes me want to run/play in a campaign featuring a PC-crewed M-20 Ridgway AGS (i.e. 105mm-armed LAV-75). :cool:

[ArmySGT.]

They down side is the electronics.

The gunner is in the hull front. he can see forward with visor blocks but, any damage to the sighting system and I don't know if the TC can take over manually.

Upside M113 drive train, so the rubber track option is there. Speeds up production as any car manufacturer can do that. Doesn't divert material from M113 track production lines.

[Legbreaker]

I could swear I read somewhere that all three of the crew had the ability to lay and fire the main gun of the LAV-75...? :confused:

[Raellus]

They down side is the electronics.

The gunner is in the hull front. he can see forward with visor blocks but, any damage to the sighting system and I don't know if the TC can take over manually.


Ooh. That's a really good point. Well, the upside could be that a PC with computers and/or electronics skill will actually have a task on which to apply it.

@Raketenjagdpanzer- thanks for posting all of those pics. I'd forgotten we actually had one of a 105mm-armed example.

[Panther Al]

I could swear I read somewhere that all three of the crew had the ability to lay and fire the main gun of the LAV-75...? :confused:

From what I have seen - and its been a while since I last read up on it, so I can be wrong - the answer is...


Yeeeeeessssorta.

Yes, the driver and the TC can lay the tube, and fire. But the accuracy (Not to mention the skill level of the shooter should it be the driver) will be awful without all the equipment at the gunners disposal. Enough to get you out of trouble, as long as you are trying to get out of such.

[Targan]

Thanks for merging the threads, Targan. For some reason, it doesn't look the two photos of the rusting prototype transferred over.

Those rusting prototype photos are still there when I look. Strange. I sometimes find that photos won't show up for me when other people are commenting on them and others can obviously see them. I know virtually nothing about how the inner workings of forum software like ours work so I've no idea why that happens :confused:

[Targan]

I could swear I read somewhere that all three of the crew had the ability to lay and fire the main gun of the LAV-75...? :confused:

Correct, it's in some of the posted material from earlier in this thread.

[pmulcahy11b]

I could swear I read somewhere that all three of the crew had the ability to lay and fire the main gun of the LAV-75...? :confused:

That's also true of the Swedish S-103 "S-Tank." In addition, on the S-103, any crewmember can drive the tank.

I imagine it slows up the works, though, if you're controlling the systems from a less-then-optimum crew position. Anyone know if that's true?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Ooh. That's a really good point. Well, the upside could be that a PC with computers and/or electronics skill will actually have a task on which to apply it.

@Raketenjagdpanzer- thanks for posting all of those pics. I'd forgotten we actually had one of a 105mm-armed example.

Not a problem. Like I said, I got lotsa action shots of the Stingray if anyone wants to see them.

[HorseSoldier]

As you can see, in and amongst the LAV-75 or RDF/LT pics there are a few of the LAV-105.

(Somewhere out on the internet, a certain "Mr. Sparks" just had a shudder of extacy as he was updating his "101 reasons why the M113 is better than all vehicles, ever, including Apollo rockets and aircraft carriers and sending anyone out in anything but means you're deliberately murdering US soldiers" youtube page...)

That guy. I'm always impressed that he is not institionalized, based on his websites.

Some of the SF team guys I used to work with met him at a briefing where he was trying to convince someone at Group (or maybe battalion) level to spend some money on his folding, jumpable assault bicycle idea. They reported he was at least as weird in person as his website(s) would lead you to believe.

[Webstral]

Just saw all those gorgeous pictures of the LAV-75, including the LAV-105/LAV-75A. Oh, my. I'll come back and comment more after I tidy up a bit.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

That guy. I'm always impressed that he is not institionalized, based on his websites.

Some of the SF team guys I used to work with met him at a briefing where he was trying to convince someone at Group (or maybe battalion) level to spend some money on his folding, jumpable assault bicycle idea. They reported he was at least as weird in person as his website(s) would lead you to believe.

Yeah; I brought up a thread about him and the obsession he has with the 113 a while back. Best let sleeping dogs lie (him getting shouted down here would be hilarious but tedious).

[Rockwolf66]

Yeah; I brought up a thread about him and the obsession he has with the 113 a while back. Best let sleeping dogs lie (him getting shouted down here would be hilarious but tedious).

I wonder if he's the guy who made a series of videos claiming the Bradley fighting Vehicle is an overpriced deathtrap that couldn't have done what it's actual users claim it could do?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I wonder if he's the guy who made a series of videos claiming the Bradley fighting Vehicle is an overpriced deathtrap that couldn't have done what it's actual users claim it could do?

Yes.

He uses clips of jihadi/insurgent attacks in Iraq to show that any other vehicle is an overpriced deathtrap. M1 hits a stacked IED? Deathtrap - an M113 wouldn't have had the weight to trigger it/wouldn't have been as inviting a target. Two Marine amphib vehicles burned to the treads when hit by RPGs in the opening days of the war? Deathtraps - the Israelis put special anti-RPG armor on their M113s that the US should, and therefore the M113 would have been invulnerable and a better vehicle (it's called Slat Armor, the Stryker uses it, but of course he ignores that, plus the fact that it would make the 113 non-amphibious, and non-airdroppable). It just goes on and on. He's certifiable.

[Webstral]

111th Brigade out of Ft. Huachuca uses the LAV-75A/LAV-105 much as anyone else uses anything with a gun and armor throughout most of CONUS—as an MBT. Obviously, a Ridgway cannot fill the shoes of an MBT anywhere opposing MBT and/or heavy AT weapons are available in numbers. But in many locations throughout the American Southwest the relative paucity of fighting vehicles and ATGM gives the Ridgway an opportunity to fill a variety of roles. In Arizona, the Samadi never face what tanks the Mexican Army possesses, as these are sent to the primary fronts in California and Texas. Ridgways based out of Huachuca face Mexican Lynxes and VAB, against which the 105mm gun is gratuitously overpowered. Of course, the 90mm gun of the Lynx is gratuitously overpowered against the armor of the Ridgway. Given that one of the hallmarks of the MBT is (supposedly) its ability to play the role of the assault gun, and given that assault guns were supposed to be better armored than MBT, there’s justification for identifying the Ridgway (and the Lynx) as cum-light tanks/tank destroyers.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I dug up a few more pictures. I wish I could find a good 3-plan view.

[Webstral]

I think I'm in love.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

It's very hard to see the return wheel assy. in the rear; as I'm trying to do a paper model of one, I'd like to see it...

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Found a few more, all of the prototype LAV-75 (RDF/LT) in pretty sad shape. I think there's other shots from this same armor park upthread.

Funny how it's mint green...anyway, enjoy!

[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:

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/9021/m41dtaiwan1.jpg

...

*=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]

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]

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?p=13615&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]

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.

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]

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?p=50528&postcount=259

[pmulcahy11b]

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]

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]

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...:p

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]

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_that_never_was/best_lcv_that_never_were.htm

[Raellus]

What's wrong with using Pauls stats? http://www.pmulcahy.com/best_stuff_that_never_was/best_lcv_that_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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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:

http://www.aresinc.net/images/logo1.jpg

[Raellus]

Thanks, Rak.

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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/j35/abegubler/hstv01.jpg

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/hstv02.jpg
HSTV(L) undergoing stabilisation/fire-control testing on Motion Base Simulator, TACOM, Warren, Michigan (US Army)

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/hstv03.jpg
Above: Typical target engagement by HSTV(L)

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/hstv04.jpg
HSTV(L) with all hatches closed and armoured track skirts fitted

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/hstv05.jpg
Cutaway drawing of HSTV(L) showing position of main components of Texas Instruments fire-control system

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/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/j35/abegubler/rdflt01.jpg
Powerpack of AAI RDF/LT slides out for ease of maintenance and field replacement

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/rdflt02.jpg
Prototype of AAI Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/rdflt03.jpg
Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank fitted with Universal One-Man turret armed with 75 mm ARES gun

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/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/j35/abegubler/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/j35/abegubler/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/j35/abegubler/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/j35/abegubler/13rdflt03.jpg
Cutaway drawing of 13.2 tonne Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank showing crew positions and ammunition stowage
An interesting idea....
2066

2067

2068

2069

[Raellus]

Thanks, Leg. I'll have to take a closer look at the numbers tomorrow. The pic you posted at the bottom left looks most like the M20 Ridgway. The caption says "30 ton configuration with skirst and applique". That's pretty darn close to the weight I listed in my stat block. Lucky guess!

[Targan]

The pic you posted at the bottom left looks most like the M20 Ridgway. The caption says "30 ton configuration with skirst and applique". That's pretty darn close to the weight I listed in my stat block. Lucky guess!

Well the caption says ton and 30 short tons = 27.2155 tonnes so actually it's eerily similar to the compromise weight of 25 tonnes you suggested. So either way you choose to interpret it they're good guesses indeed.

[Raellus]

Thanks for all of the feedback. I could probably continue to tweak it for weeks but I'm pretty happy with this version so I think I'll call it a day. Here's the final draft.

[Tegyrius]

I summon this thread to rise from the grave!

Ahem.

While looking for some unrelated miniatures information, I stumbled across an offering of a metal and resin Stingray kit in 1/48th scale (should be an acceptable, albeit not perfect, fit with 25mm/28mm miniatures):

http://www.hlbs.co.uk/images/catalogue/UV01.png

http://www.hlbs.co.uk/product.php?id=725

Take note of the paint scheme. :)

- C.

[Raellus]

That is B2 from the v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide! :cool:

[Matt Wiser]

It is, indeed!

[robert.munsey]

Passive IR uses artificial illumination to see in low light conditions. Note that I said low light conditions.

FLIR is a common term used for what others call a 'thermal' sight. This type of sight allows the users to see via the heat radiated by the objects. It is much better than passive sights as FLIR does not require illumination and can allow the operator to see through smoke and fog.
Here is a very good history on the subject, plus a kewl army video!
http://www.nvl.army.mil/history.html

HEre is another website for history on NODS;
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/nvg.htm

and a couple more that explain the difference with pictures;
http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/night-vision-vs-thermal-vision-what-you-cant-see-can-hurt-you/
http://www.infrared1.com/ANIR.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision


What's the difference between FLIR and passive IR?

[Targan]

Yay M-8 AGS! Maybe coming back from the dead?

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/10/russia-mind-bae-revives-light-tank-90s/122731/

[swaghauler]

There is still a "near 75mm" option for the LAV-75. Considering how "Anti-Aircraft Weapons light" both the Army and the Marines are; One can easily see them adopting "off the shelf" alternatives to fill the AA and light AT gaps in the inventory. That "off the shelf" alternative would be the OTO Melara 76/62mm Compact Rapid Fire Cannon. Originally built as a compact self contained naval cannon; OTO Melara designed a special turret to fit on armored vehicles in the 90's but saw no real sales. I could see both the Army and Marines buying the turrets and fitting them to either a tracked or LAV chassis (the original Italian design was mounted on a MOWAG chassis). This would give such a force both a heavy AA capability AND a light AT capability in one gun. The only disadvantage I could see, is that the gun turret is very high/tall. It was fitted with a radar as well. This means that you could use this vehicle as a "picket" for your forces. The only target it couldn't engage is an MTB.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

I'm sure somewhere, Tim, "TR" Walker is very happy about this if it goes through. IIRC, he was a big supporter of the M-8 Buford in the 1990's.

[pmulcahy11b]

Yay M-8 AGS! Maybe coming back from the dead?

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/10/russia-mind-bae-revives-light-tank-90s/122731/

I like the article along the sidebar: "Don't chase Putin out of Syria; let him fail on his own." That may be a valid strategy!

[swaghauler]

Doesn't the STRYKER already come in a variant with the 105mm low recoil gun?

[Matt Wiser]

No doubt. I liked the vehicle since I saw it in Tom Clancy's Armored Cav. Clancy never forgave the Clinton Administration for canceling the vehicle to pay for the Bosnia Peacekeeping Force.

[pmulcahy11b]

Doesn't the STRYKER already come in a variant with the 105mm low recoil gun?

It's also a taller vehicle that is much more difficult to airdrop.

[LT. Ox]

It's also a taller vehicle that is much more difficult to airdrop.
Sorry, I am not used to the idea but why is it harder to kick out?
Is it the Center of g or is it because of the height at the door?

[Olefin]

The M8 is the perfect weapon for the 82nd and any light infantry forces - gives you a real weapons system that can take on enemy tanks and armored vehicles if need be and light enough to be easily air-dropped - and its a lot more surviveable than a TOW equipped light vehicle or a Stryker

and with the different armor packages you have the ability to tailor the vehicle for the mission

[pmulcahy11b]

Sorry, I am not used to the idea but why is it harder to kick out?
Is it the Center of g or is it because of the height at the door?

The big problem comes not when you send it out the door, but in rigging it up before the mission -- vehicles in general need their suspensions lowered to prevent damaging them upon hitting the ground, and with a wheeled vehicle it is much more difficult to immobilize the suspension. You don't want the suspension to spring -- creates too many funny bounces that may make the vehicle upend, tailstand, or overturn.

It's also a little dicey when you're dropping something that's not much bigger than the rampway door. More space between the cargo and the doorway is better. Murphy's always there, waiting for you.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The M8 is the perfect weapon for the 82nd and any light infantry forces - gives you a real weapons system that can take on enemy tanks and armored vehicles if need be and light enough to be easily air-dropped - and its a lot more surviveable than a TOW equipped light vehicle or a Stryker

and with the different armor packages you have the ability to tailor the vehicle for the mission

As I said on the afv forum (yes, finally got 'em to fix my account a while back! :) ) it'd be a great match for LAHAT.

[Targan]

The quote below is from the following article:

Innovative, Feasible, Formidable: What I saw at AUSA 2015 (http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/10/20/innovative_feasible_formidable_what_i_saw_at_ausa_ 2015_108592.html)

"The Army, however, is paying attention. At the battalion or brigade level, the service wants to further redress its lack of firepower with not just missiles, but a new light tank, or “mobile protected firepower vehicle”. BAE Systems brought to the show an M8 Buford, the 17-ton air-droppable tank that the Army had ordered in the mid-1990s. A whole battalion were supposed to replace the M551 Sheridan tanks in the 82nd Airborne Division, but only six examples were built before budget priorities and a queasiness about MOOTWA led to the program’s cancellation in 1996. Still, this is no warmed-over concept. With a new engine, the electronics of the CV90 Mark III or the latest Bradley, suspension components from either, BAE's transparent armor, one of those active protection systems, and perhaps the turret from the CV90-105—the vehicle could be more than innovative. It could be formidable."

[StainlessSteelCynic]

“mobile protected firepower vehicle”
OMG-WTF! A vehicle that's, wait for it... MOBILE! MOBILE! VEHICLE!
A mobile vehicle!? Who woulda thought! It's a vehicle that can actually move!!!!!! ZOMGBBQ!!!!!!!

What the hell is it with naming conventions these days when they start to incorporate completely redundant terms into a phrase?
Or is it just me overreacting to this stupidity in language?

Keep in mind that I am defining the word vehicle as it is typically understood and as it's typically listed in a dictionary, example as follows: -
"any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport:"

[swaghauler]

“mobile protected firepower vehicle”
OMG-WTF! A vehicle that's, wait for it... MOBILE! MOBILE! VEHICLE!
A mobile vehicle!? Who woulda thought! It's a vehicle that can actually move!!!!!! ZOMGBBQ!!!!!!!

What the hell is it with naming conventions these days when they start to incorporate completely redundant terms into a phrase?
Or is it just me overreacting to this stupidity in language?

Keep in mind that I am defining the word vehicle as it is typically understood and as it's typically listed in a dictionary, example as follows: -
"any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport:"

It only gets better. I met a freelance writer working for Janes Defense Weekly at the Pittsburgh PA NRA Convention who claimed to be a "Weapons Expert" and had never fired a gun (he just researched them online). He was an American too (I could forgive someone from a "pro-gun control state")!

I also had a classroom instructor at my Truck Driving School who didn't have a CDL and had NEVER driven a big rig. It's hard to take someone seriously who's never done the job.

[Sith]

“mobile protected firepower vehicle”
OMG-WTF! A vehicle that's, wait for it... MOBILE! MOBILE! VEHICLE!
A mobile vehicle!? Who woulda thought! It's a vehicle that can actually move!!!!!! ZOMGBBQ!!!!!!!

What the hell is it with naming conventions these days when they start to incorporate completely redundant terms into a phrase?
Or is it just me overreacting to this stupidity in language?

Keep in mind that I am defining the word vehicle as it is typically understood and as it's typically listed in a dictionary, example as follows: -
"any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport:"

I agree that naming conventions can get pretty stupid. But, being familiar with how they work, in this case the "mobile" refers to the "firepower." The term "vehicle" defines the "mobile." You can have "mobile protected firepower" that is not a vehicle.

Also, there is a lot of grumbling going on in the Army right now about the MGS. It seems that they are not too happy with it. But, that could be translated a multitude of ways with even more outcomes.

[Raellus]

So, we've pretty much established that a 105mm gun-armed LAV light tank would be superior in pretty much every way to the 75mm version introduced in the US Army Vehicle Guides but I've thought of a reason to keep the original LAV-75 in US Army service.

The LAV-75A2 (or M20 Ridgway, if you will) proved unsuitable for air-dropping. Its remote turret was easily knocked out of whack by the shock, and it was difficult to repair in the field. The LAV-75's turret, however, was immune to this defect, meaning that it was kept for use by US airborne forces.

Sound plausible/reasonable?

[mpipes]

Plausible. But the fact the 105 version was introduced later also works.

[Raellus]

Plausible. But the fact the 105 version was introduced later also works.

True, but in the timeline we came up with for it a few years back (document earlier in this thread), US LAV-75s were up-gunned after combat testing in China demonstrated that its 75mm high velocity gun was unable to defeat modern Soviet MBTs' frontal armor at anything beyond medium-short range. That's why I wanted to come up with a reason for the US to still field the LAV-75 in my T2kU. I realize that folks that don't want to include the LAV-75A2/M20 Ridgway, or prefer the M8 as their light tank for US forces, don't have this problem, so this is admittedly a bit niche.

[Tegyrius]

Without taking a look at the numbers... the LAV-75 was originally intended for RDF deployment to the Middle East. Would it have had to deal with modern Soviet MBT frontal armor or would the 75mm have been sufficient to deal with the obsolete/export models that were its intended prey there?

- C.

[Olefin]

The LAV-75 would have most likely been hopelessly inadequate against any Soviet armor other than the T-54/T-55 and possibly not even against that tank if they had to take on its frontal armor.

And there was better armor than that in the Middle East on both sides by the time the original edition was released. The Syrians and the Iraqis had T-72 tanks as did Ethiopia.

Now against the side or rear armor of those tanks it probably had a real chance but good luck with penetrating the frontal armor.

[Sith]

Without taking a look at the numbers... the LAV-75 was originally intended for RDF deployment to the Middle East.

This is correct. It was created to satisfy requirements from the RDF initiated under the Carter administration, in response to the Iranian revolution. The RDF was primarily intended, of course, to operate in the Middle East.

The LAV-75 was never really intended to fight MBTs, it was more of an assault gun kind of thing. But could be used against other armored vehicles if needed. Now this is where my memory is a little sketchy, but I believe most folks referred to it as a “light tank,” which brings a connotation that is was intended to fight other tanks. This was why the Army made great efforts to say the M8 was not a light tank during its development. They did not want future M8 crews, or unit commanders, thinking they could go after MBTs.

[Olefin]

The M8 could take out enemy tanks - its gun was similiar to the one on the original M1 tank - but it definitely was not a stand toe to toe and slug it out tank. What it could do was have a real chance to take out a modern MBT and survive - notice I didnt say participate in a stand up tank battle like 73 Easting.

Used to work at BAE and actually got a chance to ride in an M8 on our test track when we did a maintenance cycle on one of the ones we had there.

[swaghauler]

True, but in the timeline we came up with for it a few years back (document earlier in this thread), US LAV-75s were up-gunned after combat testing in China demonstrated that its 75mm high velocity gun was unable to defeat modern Soviet MBTs' frontal armor at anything beyond medium-short range. That's why I wanted to come up with a reason for the US to still field the LAV-75 in my T2kU. I realize that folks that don't want to include the LAV-75A2/M20 Ridgway, or prefer the M8 as their light tank for US forces, don't have this problem, so this is admittedly a bit niche.

Ok, let's go "real-world Franken tank" here. There isn't a modern 75mm in the US inventory that was mass-produced in the '80s or '90s. There IS (was?) however, a 76mm RAPID FIRE dual-purpose cannon available to mount on a vehicle... The OTO-Melara 76mm NAVAL gun. The US had several ships equipped with this cannon and a version of a heavy AA SPAAG was considered by Leonardo mounting a 76mm cannon, radar, imaging sight, and IR sight on a leopard I tank chasis. The gun fed from a 10-round hopper and had 60 added rounds on the mount. Leonardo then developed a light-weight turret using the 90 round-per-minute ROF 76mm Cannon on a powered mount with optical targeting system and the ability to link into a separate radar director system. It was fully powered with 70 rounds on the mount but the turret could be fitted to a Marder or LAV chasis. Range was 12km against aircraft, 8km against helicopters, and 5km against ground targets. The system never sold but it did exist. Maybe the US would take surplus 76mm Naval cannon and adapt them to such a mission. The justification would be that it was PRIMARILY a clear-weather heavy AA system with a SECONDARY anti-vehicle role.

[Raellus]

Thats a really interesting concept, Swag. I wonder how 76mm AP rounds- if such a thing existed*- would perform against armor.

*I'm assuming here that not all 76mm rounds and 76mm guns are interoperable. Like, you couldn't take a 76mm AP round from a WW2-era Sherman tank and use it an an OM DP gun could you?

-

[swaghauler]

Thats a really interesting concept, Swag. I wonder how 76mm AP rounds- if such a thing existed*- would perform against armor.

*I'm assuming here that not all 76mm rounds/guns are interoperable. Like, you couldn't take a 76mm AP round from a Sherman tank and use it an an OM DP gun could you?

-

If you GOOGLE the Leonardo system built on the Leopard 1 chassis, It did spec an APFSDS round because it was equipped with a high-pressure barrel. I believe the Turret developed for the APC chassis had to ditch the high-pressure barrel in order to save weight. That doesn't mean the US wouldn't field such a round.

The 76mm OTO-Melara Gun's ammo is NOT interchangeable with Tank rounds BUT there is an ENTIRE RANGE of rounds developed for it. Remember that the 76mm is the MOST USED NAVAL GUN [on Frigates] in the western world. In the US, EVERY modern Perry-class Frigate used it as did the Coast Guard, The Pegasus Hydrofoils, the Ashville Class PC, Several Support vessels like the Command Ships, LST, LPDs all used a 76mm Dual-Purpose Gun mount. It has been rumored that even Soviet Naval 76mm ammo can be used. The US bought a former East German PC named the HiddenSee that had a Russian 76mm Cannon on it and the ammunition COULD be interchanged but reliability was spotty due to minor design differences betwen the Western and Soviet ammunition.

If you go to Leonardo's website and search for the OTO-Melara 76mm Rapido ammo, you will see just how big the list is.

[Sith]

The M8 could take out enemy tanks - its gun was similiar to the one on the original M1 tank - but it definitely was not a stand toe to toe and slug it out tank. What it could do was have a real chance to take out a modern MBT and survive - notice I didnt say participate in a stand up tank battle like 73 Easting.

Used to work at BAE and actually got a chance to ride in an M8 on our test track when we did a maintenance cycle on one of the ones we had there.

Yes, as a 105mm, the cannon could kill a tank. What they did not want was to foster the notion that it was a tank. Since it looked like, had a gun like, sounded like, smelled like, and tasted like a tank; they did not want the units and crews acting like it was. I was a tanker at the time and Armor School was beginning to put stuff out to us on the M8 with the intention of recruiting us to it. Additionally, I was at the Platform Performance Demo at Fort Knox when the M8 went up against the MGS, and got some time on it.

As a side note: the M8 smoked the MGS in every tested category except road speed. MGS was only adopted because it was a part of the Striker family.

[swaghauler]

If you want to see a MODERN version of the 76mm Cannon on a light-weight carriage, just GOOGLE the LEONARDO DRACO SPAAG system. It now uses a 12-round rotary drum, sports both optical and radar systems, and is mounted on what looks like a MOWAG Piranha chassis.

[Vespers War]

Thats a really interesting concept, Swag. I wonder how 76mm AP rounds- if such a thing existed*- would perform against armor.

*I'm assuming here that not all 76mm rounds and 76mm guns are interoperable. Like, you couldn't take a 76mm AP round from a WW2-era Sherman tank and use it an an OM DP gun could you?

-

No more than you could fire 7.62mm Soviet from an unmodified M14. The Sherman's round is a 76.2x539mm, while the OTO Melara is 76x636mm.

The South African Rooikat's Denel GT4 gun has the same chamber dimensions and can use the same ammunition as the OTO Melara naval gun with different primers. It has an APFSDS-T round fired from a 62-caliber barrel, said to be capable of penetrating a T-62's frontal armor at 2 kilometers. There was talk of upgunning it to a 105mm NATO-compatible gun to defeat T-72 frontal armor, but that ended up being considered unnecessary.

[Legbreaker]

The LAV-75, as others have already mentioned, is not a tank. It is not even a tank destroyer. It's a fire support vehicle with moderate anti armour capability.
Any commander who tries using it as a tank is firstly a fool and secondly going to get everyone killed in short order.
Used as a heavy reconnaissance and fire support vehicle (similar to the Australian 75mm armed M113s) and I'm sure it would shine. Putting a 105mm on it without doing anything to increase protection would only encourage commanders to misuse them.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The LAV-75, as others have already mentioned, is not a tank. It is not even a tank destroyer. It's a fire support vehicle with moderate anti armour capability.
Any commander who tries using it as a tank is firstly a fool and secondly going to get everyone killed in short order.
Used as a heavy reconnaissance and fire support vehicle (similar to the Australian 75mm armed M113s) and I'm sure it would shine. Putting a 105mm on it without doing anything to increase protection would only encourage commanders to misuse them.
And it's probably worth noting that the Australian M113s armed with the 76mm were specifically called either a Fire Support Vehicle (M113 with Saladin turret) or a Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle (M113 with Scorpion turret), probably to reinforce the idea that they were not tanks and were not to be used as tanks.

[Raellus]

Guys, thanks for pointing out that the LAV-75 isn't a tank again, but I'm not sure anyone here called it one. I know it's been a while, but the whole point of this thread was to rationalize how a "tweener" vehicle such as the LAV-75 makes it into US service in first place, and the LAV-75's lack of tank-killing power is addressed at length in the attached 7-page document on the genesis of the up-gunned, 105mm version of the LAV-75, the apocryphal M20 Ridgway.

To muddy the the point a bit, though, a high-velocity 75mm gun is an odd weapon for an infantry support vehicle. WW2 assault guns were either armed with short-barreled, low velocity guns or big honking artillery pieces (not to mention the Sturmtiger's massive, canon-fired rocket assisted demolition projectiles). When the Germans replaced the short-barreled 75mm gun Sturmgeschütz assault guns with a long-barreled, high velocity 75mm gun, they became ersatz tank destroyers. To destroy typical battlefield fortifications, you don't need a high velocity gun; to kill AFVs, you do.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I suppose part of the problem is that the vehicle itself is labelled a "light tank" so we've made some statements with that in mind.
Given that the initial idea of the LAV-75 was as a light armoured vehicle for use by rapid deployment forces (apparently as per the specification of the US Army in 1980 for light tanks), I can see a "quick & easy" reason why it would be fielded - US Army RDF units needed an air-deployed fire support vehicle to do exactly what that term implies, fire support.

As for the 75mm gun it used, as I understand it, it was capable of burst fire, apparently to defeat Soviet armour so that probably lead to the thinking that it would be used as a general purpose tank, rather than a fire support vehicle. As a side note, it also used caseless ammunition.
I believe the vehicle lost points with the US Army because it used a unique gun and not one that was already in the US logistics system.

[CDAT]

What I remember being told about the M8 was that it was a light tank, with its 105 it had more or less the same firepower as the M60 and M1/IPM1. What it did not have was armor, however what it was designed to do (or at least what the Airborne that I talked with) was be dropped and then they could add additional armor on after they had secured the landing zone, that would give it armor of around the same as the M60.

[Legbreaker]

Technically speaking, a towed 105mm gun has the same firepower.... All the M8 does is throw that firepower onto a mobile platform with a small measure of survivability. If a commander views it more in that light they're (in my opinion at least) more likely to utilise it better.

[Vespers War]

What I remember being told about the M8 was that it was a light tank, with its 105 it had more or less the same firepower as the M60 and M1/IPM1. What it did not have was armor, however what it was designed to do (or at least what the Airborne that I talked with) was be dropped and then they could add additional armor on after they had secured the landing zone, that would give it armor of around the same as the M60.

An M8 was designed to be airdroppable with Level I armor, airlifted in a C-130 (but ro-ro rather than dropped) with Level II armor, and able to be fitted with Level III armor once deployed on the ground (but not carried by a C-130 with that armor). Estimated GVWs were 18,052 kg, 20,820 kg, and 23,586 kg respectively. Level III was intended to be proof against 30mm cannon fire. The armor boxes look like they're designed to give better resistance against HEAT warheads, likely due to the proliferation of man-portable anti-tank rockets, but I haven't seen comparisons of its effectiveness against HEAT vs KE. Level II was roughly the same armor as the M551 Sheridan, while I'd put Level III as being more like an AMX-30 than an M-60.

To me, it seems more of an infantry support vehicle with a secondary role as a tank destroyer. If deployed, it would have been intended to spend more time destroying bunkers or other infantry hard points rather than facing other armored vehicles. Whether that is what would have actually happened is unknowable, but even with Level III armor it would be an eggshell with a sledgehammer compared to MBTs.

[pmulcahy11b]

When I was at the 82nd, 3/73 really wanted the M8 (which was the XM8 at the time.) From what I've heard lately from 82nd members who recently got out (in the last 15 years ago or less), they would really like 3/73 to get the Stryker MGS. And us infantrymen always wanted something with more firepower backing us up than an up-armored HMMWV with a TOW launcher.

[cawest]

okay I am going to be odd man out on this idea about the lav75. The 75mm shooting a silver bullet/or heat should be able to handle up to T62s front on or even t72s from the side. the old WW2 75(pak 75 and the french copy) could NOT handle IS3 an T55 from the front but they could handle giving them a body shot (not turret). Also the LAV75 would be a great long shooter to counter BMPs or other targets that a 120 was to much for. Also what about the HE or canister rounds to counter INF. the 120mm on the m1 does not have a straight HE and the M1028 did not come out until 2005.

[Olefin]

the LAV-75 against armor that wasnt a tank would have been very effective - against anything tank newer than a T-34/85 I would not want to be a member of that crew for sure

[chico20854]

The LAV-75, as others have already mentioned, is not a tank. It is not even a tank destroyer. It's a fire support vehicle with moderate anti armour capability.
Any commander who tries using it as a tank is firstly a fool and secondly going to get everyone killed in short order.
Used as a heavy reconnaissance and fire support vehicle (similar to the Australian 75mm armed M113s) and I'm sure it would shine. Putting a 105mm on it without doing anything to increase protection would only encourage commanders to misuse them.

From my history of the Norwegian-Kola campaign:

"To its south, 10th Mountain Division faced off against the crack 45th Guards, and its LAV-75 battalion tried to use its superior offroad mobility to counter the more numerous T-90s. Outnumbered nearly six to one and inferior in firepower and armor, 3rd Battalion, 22nd Infantry proved in blood the limitations of the LAV-75 and the wisdom of the US Army’s doctrine, which called for the light vehicle to be used by screening forces and as a fire support vehicle for light infantry rather than an anti-tank system. However, because it looked like a tank and it was the heaviest armored vehicle in the division with the biggest gun, it was used as a tank, with disastrous results. Within an hour, the 75th Guards Tank Regiment had torn 3-22 Infantry apart, destroying 37 American vehicles. Only the appearance of American attack helicopters from the divisional attack helicopter battalion halted the 75th GTR’s rampage."

[Olefin]

From my history of the Norwegian-Kola campaign:

"To its south, 10th Mountain Division faced off against the crack 45th Guards, and its LAV-75 battalion tried to use its superior offroad mobility to counter the more numerous T-90s. Outnumbered nearly six to one and inferior in firepower and armor, 3rd Battalion, 22nd Infantry proved in blood the limitations of the LAV-75 and the wisdom of the US Army’s doctrine, which called for the light vehicle to be used by screening forces and as a fire support vehicle for light infantry rather than an anti-tank system. However, because it looked like a tank and it was the heaviest armored vehicle in the division with the biggest gun, it was used as a tank, with disastrous results. Within an hour, the 75th Guards Tank Regiment had torn 3-22 Infantry apart, destroying 37 American vehicles. Only the appearance of American attack helicopters from the divisional attack helicopter battalion halted the 75th GTR’s rampage."

nice to see you back on the board again Chico!

[chico20854]

nice to see you back on the board again Chico!

Thanks! I'm going to try to divert some time from writing to come over here more frequently than when I finish something up.

[Louied]

I guess Flames of War pays attention to this page...,,

https://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=7015

[Jason Weiser]

Because every wargamer wants to be the first on their block to have a LAV-75! Now if they just made them in 20mm? Sniff...

[mpipes]

Admit it....you want a real one to drive around the neighborhood!!

[Jason Weiser]

Admit it....you want a real one to drive around the neighborhood!!

Well, yeah! Who in their right mind doesn't?

[Panther Al]

Well, yeah! Who in their right mind doesn't?

Well you can always play War Thunder...

https://warthunder.com/en/news/6711-development-hstv-l-view-of-tomorrow-en

They have it as well.

https://static.warthunder.com/upload/image/!%202020%20NEWS/05%20May/HSTV/hstv_l_01_1280h720_af0a6040d629c32a192ddfedbf0a732 e.jpg

[StainlessSteelCynic]

If you wanted to have the concept of a light airmobile tank but not necessarily having to shoehorn the M8 or the LAV-75 into the system, there's always the T92 Light Tank.
This was another project in the same vein but originates in the 1950s. Apparently a significant part of it's non-adoption for service was because it was not amphibious capable and couldn't be modified to be so. Other than that, it fulfilled many of the same requirements that the M8 and LAV-75 were designed for.
The project was cancelled in 1958 but the vehicle was by all accounts ready for service so, theoretically, it would have been on strength from the 1960s on and quite possibly still in service into the 1980s-90s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T92_Light_Tank
http://warfaretech.blogspot.com/2014/07/t-92-light-tank.html
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/76mm-gun-tank-t92

T92
https://i.imgur.com/517GiCM.jpg

T92 in front of M41
https://i.imgur.com/VQISl8W.png


And if you want to drive one, then WarThunder's chief rival World Of Tanks, has it!
Or even Armoured Warfare: - https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-t92-light-tank

Or you could just stay with WarThunder because they also have it available.

[ChalkLine]

I also love the LAV-75 but I really think you'd only see them as Rae has said with the Stingray's M35 LRF 105mm (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3639.html).

However I don't think they'd make any more of the vehicle because the "Expeditionary Tank" (http://www.military-today.com/tanks/expeditionary_tank.htm) is almost exactly the same and it uses the same turret as the Stryker. They'd probably build those if they needed that specialist vehicle.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/expeditionary_tank.jpg

I can still see legacy LAV-75 vehicles being put into a Stingray unit though if they suffered losses. In that case divisional workshops simply rebuilt the existing LAV-75s to M35 spec.

In fact it'd be appealing to have a whole Stingray Brigade with rebuilt M551 hulls in one unit and LAV-75s in another.

One thing that might appeal to desperate commanders when pondering whether it was worth the resources to activate this mishmash (the Nazis did worse late in The Second World War) is that the very light vehicles would use far less fuel than a normal tank brigade.

[Raellus]

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/expeditionary_tank.jpg

This pic was the genesis for the M20 Ridgway article (there's an attachment to the full piece somewhere in this thread). To sum up for those who don't wish to go searching for it, the Americans sent LAV-75s to China, where they were misused as TDs/light tanks due to heavy PLA armor losses. Based on combat reports from China indicating that the LAV-75 was unable to kill current Soviet MBTs with frontal shots, the US decided to up-gun its LAV-75s with 105mm rifled guns, and sent the first batch of upgraded LAV-75A2s to the PRC where they performed much better against Soviet armor. The LAV-75A2 became known as the M20 Ridgway, in US service.

-

[pmulcahy11b]

If you wanted to have the concept of a light airmobile tank but not necessarily having to shoehorn the M8 or the LAV-75 into the system, there's always the T92 Light Tank.
This was another project in the same vein but originates in the 1950s. Apparently a significant part of it's non-adoption for service was because it was not amphibious capable and couldn't be modified to be so. Other than that, it fulfilled many of the same requirements that the M8 and LAV-75 were designed for.


The T92 is a decent idea; I say decent because it's way out of date and would need a host of upgrades to make it viable on the modern battlefield. Fire control system, new, heavier-caliber gun (90mm would be a good compromise between weight and firepower) with gun stabilization, GPS/land navigation, BFT, Vehicle State, and perhaps some MEXAS applique armor tiles on the front and sides of the turret and hull, along with a thickened floor. And maybe a suspension upgrade. Somewhat more powerful and more compact engine to cope with what would be increased weight. New electrical system to cope with increased electronics. Better night vision. We may need something along the lines of the T92, perhaps even using the T92 as a base, but not the T92 itself.

I'll give you kudos for a good idea, though.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The T92 is a decent idea; I say decent because it's way out of date and would need a host of upgrades to make it viable on the modern battlefield. Fire control system, new, heavier-caliber gun (90mm would be a good compromise between weight and firepower) with gun stabilization, GPS/land navigation, BFT, Vehicle State, and perhaps some MEXAS applique armor tiles on the front and sides of the turret and hull, along with a thickened floor. And maybe a suspension upgrade. Somewhat more powerful and more compact engine to cope with what would be increased weight. New electrical system to cope with increased electronics. Better night vision. We may need something along the lines of the T92, perhaps even using the T92 as a base, but not the T92 itself.

I'll give you kudos for a good idea, though.
I have no disagreement with what you're saying - if it was to be put into service in the 1990s.

However I was working from the idea that the T92 would be taken into service in the 1960s and then through the usual armoured vehicle improvements, kept in service into the 1980s or even the 1990s.
That way the T92 would have been part of the US roster for a reasonable amount of time just like the M113, with all the expected upgrades keeping it a viable vehicle over that time and thus it would be a well established part of US airborne forces for the Twilight War.

[pmulcahy11b]

Hmmm...I wonder...

[Panther Al]

And if you want to drive one, then WarThunder's chief rival World Of Tanks, has it!
Or even Armoured Warfare: - https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-t92-light-tank

Or you could just stay with WarThunder because they also have it available.

Ah, but you want to stay with War Thunder - clearly the better game in all regards...

Admittedly... I am biased since I do work for them after a fashion...

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Ah, but you want to stay with War Thunder - clearly the better game in all regards...

Admittedly... I am biased since I do work for them after a fashion...
I play both :D
I like each one for different reasons so I can't place one above the other... although admittedly I'm spending more time on World of Tanks at the moment (because I'm in a clan).

[ChalkLine]

The Chieftain talks about the ARES cannon on the ELKE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pEgP3dYXSA) (LAV-75) at about 37:00+

This is fascinating, I recommend you guys watch it.