LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[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]

Originally Posted by 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/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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

-

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by chico20854

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]

Originally Posted by Olefin

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]

Originally Posted by mpipes

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

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

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Jason Weiser

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

Well you can always play War Thunder...

https://warthunder.com/en/news/6711-...of-tomorrow-en

They have it as well.

[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...ight-tank.html
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldw...m-gun-tank-t92

T92


T92 in front of M41



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/...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.

However I don't think they'd make any more of the vehicle because the "Expeditionary Tank" 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.



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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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/...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...