LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[Raellus]

I know that the concept of the infantry tank/assault gun has fallen out of fashion, but history has demonstrated that infantry divisions need organic armor. Even in wartime, the M1 system is simply too complex, too expensive, and too slow to produce to both keep up with required combat attrition replacements for the armored and heavy mechanized divisions AND to equip infantry/light mechanized divisions. Therefore, something like the LAV-75 (cheaper, simpler, and faster to produce than the M1 or comparable MBTs), although not ideal as either a tank killer or an infantry support gun platform, would be needed. In my mind, as soon as WWIII starts, LAV-75 production becomes essential.

In WWII, as soon as the PzIV, V, VI were encountered, pretty much everyone from the crewmen to the folks in the DoD knew that the M4 Sherman was an inferior product. But, it was simple, fairly reliable, and could be produced in numbers the Germans could never hope to match. In WWIII, the New Allies would be facing an "armor gap" that could not be closed by producing top-of-the-line M1 variants. Even if, at the outset of the war, every M1 killed 5 Soviet MBTs before succumbing to some sort of attrition (combat loss, mechanical breakdown, etc.), the gap would still not be closed. Only by producing a LAV-type tank could the U.S. (and its allies) hope to close the gap. T2K canon seems to take this viewpoint as well. The LAV-75 aint perfect, but it will have to do.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Webstral

So true! I'm certain that the supply types would be making almost exactly your argument against a 105mm variant of the LAV-75. The maneuver generals will reply in two ways: a) the fighting in the Far East has shown that light forces need stiffening with airmobile armor and b) the supply people are never going to get behind anything that makes their job more difficult, regardless of what that means for the troops actually doing the fighting. The former probably would be true. The latter is cheap shot, although there's a grain of truth in there. The logistics specialists have been a driving force behind commonality of supply since WW2 for good reason. Nonetheless, the "fighting" generals will attempt to discredit the arguments of the supply types if the maneuver commanders become convinced that an FSV variant of the LAV-75 is needed. The real question will be whose voice gets heard.

The real point of the argument is why a 75mm at all?

A lot of this material comes from various Armor Journal articles as well as the Congressional Record.

When Germany decided to introduce the 120mm smoothbore, the US Army did not want to upgun at all. The viewpoint was that the 105mm M68 rifled cannon was the ideal tank weapon. Since it was capable of performing the antitank, direct and indirect support roles, there was no need to upgun as continued development of ammunition and propellent precluded any need to switch to a heavier weapon.

Congress mandated a gunnery trail between the two calibers. Needless to say, the 120mm out performed the 105mm using the standard APDS round. This led to the rushed development of the APFSDS round and the next round of trials had the 105mm out performing the 120mm, that is until the APFSDS 120mm round was developed. Faced with their gun falling behind, the US developed the APFSDSDU round, the first depleted uranium penetrator and the 105mm took bragging rights, right up until the 120mm APFSDSDU was developed. By this time, the object lesson had finally sunk in, 120mm was superior to 105mm in the antitank role.

BUT WAIT! The 105mm was superior in the direct and indirect support roles! Every US tank gunner from WWII on has been carefully taught how to use their cannon to fire support for the infantry; it was the primary purpose in the big war as well as Korea. Vietnam had no documented use of tanks in anything other than direct support, but this was widely believed to have been due to the small numbers of tanks in theater. So the next round of gunnery trials included indirect fire.

The 120mm gun turned out to be a poor performer. But to the shock of the US Army, so did the 105mm! It turned out that the very quality that made for an effective antitank weapons, i.e. high-velocity rounds, also made for major problems with indirect fire, quite simply an "excessive latteral dispersion contributing to impared accuracy", in other words, the HEP rounds landed all over the grid square!

It was shortly after this third round of trails that US tankers saw the withdrawal of HEP, WP and Beehive ammunition as well as the removal of gunner's quadants and azumith indicators from the M-60A1/A3 tanks.

The 105mm/120mm gunnery trials also led to the NATO consenus that the smallest effective caliber for tank armament is 90mm. The need to comply with the "NATO Standardization" provisions of the charter are, almost certainly, what killed off the 75mm cannon development.

My own personal opinion is that the LAV-75 would never have seen service in any capacity. With the need to comply with the minimum of 90mm, and with tens of thousands of 105mm barrels and thousands of tons of ammunition in storage, the US Army would have gone with a 105mm version almost certainly from the start. This version was known as the M-8 AGS.

So, in many ways, the bean counters would have won the argument, but in such a way as to insure the support of the line dogs.

[Adm.Lee]

I seem to recall from reading Suvorov a long time ago, the Soviets had one way to avoid having the wrong kind of ammunition showing up. I think it was the 122mm rockets: they were labelled as 125mm in every instance, so that 122mm howitzer shells wouldn't be sent to the rocket regiments.

So why do we make both 105mm howitzer and tank guns? The howitzers came first-- Why weren't the tank guns 100mm or 110mm? Or 108 or 103?

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I seem to recall from reading Suvorov a long time ago, the Soviets had one way to avoid having the wrong kind of ammunition showing up. I think it was the 122mm rockets: they were labelled as 125mm in every instance, so that 122mm howitzer shells wouldn't be sent to the rocket regiments.

So why do we make both 105mm howitzer and tank guns? The howitzers came first-- Why weren't the tank guns 100mm or 110mm? Or 108 or 103?

But he never explains the use of 7.62T, 7.62S and 7.62L...

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I know that the concept of the infantry tank/assault gun has fallen out of fashion, but history has demonstrated that infantry divisions need organic armor. Even in wartime, the M1 system is simply too complex, too expensive, and too slow to produce to both keep up with required combat attrition replacements for the armored and heavy mechanized divisions AND to equip infantry/light mechanized divisions. Therefore, something like the LAV-75 (cheaper, simpler, and faster to produce than the M1 or comparable MBTs), although not ideal as either a tank killer or an infantry support gun platform, would be needed. In my mind, as soon as WWIII starts, LAV-75 production becomes essential.

In WWII, as soon as the PzIV, V, VI were encountered, pretty much everyone from the crewmen to the folks in the DoD knew that the M4 Sherman was an inferior product. But, it was simple, fairly reliable, and could be produced in numbers the Germans could never hope to match. In WWIII, the New Allies would be facing an "armor gap" that could not be closed by producing top-of-the-line M1 variants. Even if, at the outset of the war, every M1 killed 5 Soviet MBTs before succumbing to some sort of attrition (combat loss, mechanical breakdown, etc.), the gap would still not be closed. Only by producing a LAV-type tank could the U.S. (and its allies) hope to close the gap. T2K canon seems to take this viewpoint as well. The LAV-75 aint perfect, but it will have to do.

No doubt that a light unit needs armor support of any kind; and this is the only valid arguement for the LAV-75. But I just don't see the US Army at least, going with a 75mm. This was one of the reasons for the development of the M-8 AGS. With a 105mm, it had at least a fighting chance of taking on heavy armor, something that the 75mm couldn't offer.

But the M-8 was "killed off" so that more Strykers could be purchased and THAT was a complete and utter waste! Instead of purchasing an already developed weapon system, let's buy a POS that has trouble with cross country movement, has armor plate that has trouble stopping 14.5mm, and the 105mm version is such a wonderful system! Just don't fire the gun over the side, there is nothing more embrassing than having your vehicle roll over and exposing your belly armor to a T-72!!!

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The real point of the argument is why a 75mm at all?

A lot of this material comes from various Armor Journal articles as well as the Congressional Record.

When Germany decided to introduce the 120mm smoothbore, the US Army did not want to upgun at all. The viewpoint was that the 105mm M68 rifled cannon was the ideal tank weapon. Since it was capable of performing the antitank, direct and indirect support roles, there was no need to upgun as continued development of ammunition and propellent precluded any need to switch to a heavier weapon.

Congress mandated a gunnery trail between the two calibers. Needless to say, the 120mm out performed the 105mm using the standard APDS round. This led to the rushed development of the APFSDS round and the next round of trials had the 105mm out performing the 120mm, that is until the APFSDS 120mm round was developed. Faced with their gun falling behind, the US developed the APFSDSDU round, the first depleted uranium penetrator and the 105mm took bragging rights, right up until the 120mm APFSDSDU was developed. By this time, the object lesson had finally sunk in, 120mm was superior to 105mm in the antitank role.

BUT WAIT! The 105mm was superior in the direct and indirect support roles! Every US tank gunner from WWII on has been carefully taught how to use their cannon to fire support for the infantry; it was the primary purpose in the big war as well as Korea. Vietnam had no documented use of tanks in anything other than direct support, but this was widely believed to have been due to the small numbers of tanks in theater. So the next round of gunnery trials included indirect fire.

The 120mm gun turned out to be a poor performer. But to the shock of the US Army, so did the 105mm! It turned out that the very quality that made for an effective antitank weapons, i.e. high-velocity rounds, also made for major problems with indirect fire, quite simply an "excessive latteral dispersion contributing to impared accuracy", in other words, the HEP rounds landed all over the grid square!

It was shortly after this third round of trails that US tankers saw the withdrawal of HEP, WP and Beehive ammunition as well as the removal of gunner's quadants and azumith indicators from the M-60A1/A3 tanks.

The 105mm/120mm gunnery trials also led to the NATO consenus that the smallest effective caliber for tank armament is 90mm. The need to comply with the "NATO Standardization" provisions of the charter are, almost certainly, what killed off the 75mm cannon development.

My own personal opinion is that the LAV-75 would never have seen service in any capacity. With the need to comply with the minimum of 90mm, and with tens of thousands of 105mm barrels and thousands of tons of ammunition in storage, the US Army would have gone with a 105mm version almost certainly from the start. This version was known as the M-8 AGS.

So, in many ways, the bean counters would have won the argument, but in such a way as to insure the support of the line dogs.

really useful info but I'll still stick to 75mm for two reasons:

1. I'm not sure a lightweight 105mm would have made it into production in time.

2. It's cannon.

If I'm honest more 2 than 1.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I seem to recall from reading Suvorov a long time ago, the Soviets had one way to avoid having the wrong kind of ammunition showing up. I think it was the 122mm rockets: they were labelled as 125mm in every instance, so that 122mm howitzer shells wouldn't be sent to the rocket regiments.

So why do we make both 105mm howitzer and tank guns? The howitzers came first-- Why weren't the tank guns 100mm or 110mm? Or 108 or 103?

105mm howitzer came first, when the decision was made to upgrade from 90mm to a larger caliber, there were these ammo plants already geared up for a larger caliber and not having to produce much....so they used existing equipment to maufacture, its not the first time.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by James Langham

really useful info but I'll still stick to 75mm for two reasons:

1. I'm not sure a lightweight 105mm would have made it into production in time.

2. It's cannon.

If I'm honest more 2 than 1.

And I play with LAV-75s as well. Its just in real life, doubt that I would want to man one!

The M-8 AGS used the same 105mm M68 cannon, not a lightweight version. You're thinking about the French 105mm smoothbore.

[Targan]

I am not a total stickler for canon but my initial inclination is always that if something (like the LAV-75) is part of canon I try to explain why it was there, not just erase it and pretend it never existed. Before anyone gets defensive I'm not suggesting that anyone in this discussion wants to erase the LAV-75. I'm just saying that, in my T2K universe anyway, the LAV-75 exists in some numbers so I'm more interested in why that would be than why it wouldn't.

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

And I play with LAV-75s as well. Its just in real life, doubt that I would want to man one!

The M-8 AGS used the same 105mm M68 cannon, not a lightweight version. You're thinking about the French 105mm smoothbore.

There's a lot of kit that you do wonder why it was put into service - I agree completely!

I'm sure there is a lightweight 105 rifled though, I should have researched the M8 more. As an aside though all its high tech computer ammunition monitoring system and the like will be badly hit by EMP (a little bit of side text for the next edition of the article).

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Targan

I am not a total stickler for canon but my initial inclination is always that if something (like the LAV-75) is part of canon I try to explain why it was there, not just erase it and pretend it never existed. Before anyone gets defensive I'm not suggesting that anyone in this discussion wants to erase the LAV-75. I'm just saying that, in my T2K universe anyway, the LAV-75 exists in some numbers so I'm more interested in why that would be than why it wouldn't.

Very well put. I try to do the same.

Some folks like to add gear to existing canon. Some like to alter canon to fit RL, removing canonical gear and substituting it with newer RL stuff.

I guess a part of this debate is connected to how one views the T2K timeline.

I like to see T2K as an alternative history/universe, where the Cold War didn't end in 1989-1991 and, instead, the T2K v1.0 timeline occured. Therefore, I like to keep as much gear from canon as I can.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Targan

I am not a total stickler for canon but my initial inclination is always that if something (like the LAV-75) is part of canon I try to explain why it was there, not just erase it and pretend it never existed. Before anyone gets defensive I'm not suggesting that anyone in this discussion wants to erase the LAV-75. I'm just saying that, in my T2K universe anyway, the LAV-75 exists in some numbers so I'm more interested in why that would be than why it wouldn't.

And that's EXACTLY my position which I've tried time and time and time again over the past few years to convey.
Good to see this position is finally being understood WITHOUT the hatred and vitriol displayed previously.
As a community I feel we should try to stick with canon as much as possible so that everyone can share each others work. This isn't to say in the slightest that we shouldn't work on our own projects and publish them. Webstrals excellent work on "Thunder Empire" is an perfect example of this - it may not exactly be canon, but it makes for a damn fine read.

Back on the LAV-75, perhaps the poor performance of the 75mm gun in WWII doomed the newer weapon IRL to the rubbish bin - too many bad feelings about a weapon which wasn't even able to reliably take out a 1940's tank regardless of technical improvements to weapon and ammo (Yes I'm aware they're completely different, but perception is a big thing). However in T2K, I'm in the camp who's for fielding the vehicle, mainly to give lighter units some sort of armoured firepower and also as a stopgap/emergency replacement measure.

[dragoon500ly]

Certainly I don't reject the LAV-75 as long as it is in the T2K multiverse. But I do believe that we got sidetracked as to why the LAV75 went the way of the dodo.

But the strength of T2K is that it can be modified (or is that cut, folded, paperclipped and mutilated?) to fight anyone's view of WWIII.

But I do agree its much more pleasant to have a give-n-take rather than some of the outright hate mail approach that are on other boards.

[Legbreaker]

In V2.x I see the M8 taking on the role the LAV-75 was intended for in V1.0.
There is however no reason why both cannot exist side by side (although perhaps not in the same units).

[schnickelfritz]

The irony is that while the US 75mm in the M3/M4 Medium Tanks was a low velocity weapon that was not suited to tank vs. tank combat, Germany made TWO excellent 75mm weapons, the 7.5cm PAK 40 (and its vehicle borne versions) and the 7.5cm KwK 42 carried by the Mark 5 Panther. The Kwk 42 would probably tie the UK's 17-pounder OQF for best tank gun orf WW2 and both had similar throw weight and penetration as the early 8.8cm in the Tiger 1.

The great thing about the LAV-75 vs M-8 Buford thing is that you can use either and make a good case for both to coexist.

-Dave

[dragoon500ly]

The sad thing in the great debate over WWII US tank armament is just how much influence that misunderstanding of the use of armor had on it.

Like a lot of military powers, the US was shocked by the speed of the German Blitzkrieg and like a lot of military powers, they drew the wrong conclusions.
The major misobservation was that armor was capable of overrunning everything and that there would be little, if any tank vs tank action (I am aware that there was actually major tank battles in the 1940 French campaign, but this was what US observers reported back...).

Faced with the prospect of tanks breaking through at will and tearing into the rear areas to spread fear and chaos, the US adopted three major changes.

First, tanks vs tanks will seldom occur on a battlefield, therefore tanks do not need a high-velocity cannon, but rather one that was capable of firing a large HE round (This is what led to the develop of the M-2 and M-3 75mm cannons).

Second, that due to fact that tanks will acheive breakthroughs at will, rear echelon units will need antitank protection (this led to the appearance of 37mm towed antitank guns and later bazookas).

And third, that specific vehicles designed for antitank use needed to be fielded (the birth of the Tank Destroyer Corps).

This misconception is what led to the Lee/Grant being armed with the short barreled M-2 75mm (later replaced by the M-3 75mm) as well as the Sherman being outfitted with the M-3 75mm and being issued with the AP and APC rounds. Almost as soon as the Sherman saw its first combat at El Alemain, the tankers started asking for a better cannon. There was never any problem with the HE round, but the AP round lacked decent penetration over its entire effective range. The development of the APC round helped, but the 75mm still lagged behind the Germans 75mm. It was not until the Normandy Campaign that the Ordnance Department allowed the fighting of the M-1 76mm cannon, and even then, its scale of issue was one tank in a platoon. The British were able to field the 17-pounder in time for Normandy, but again, the scale of issue was one troop out of a squadron.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The sad thing in the great debate over WWII US tank armament is just how much influence that misunderstanding of the use of armor had on it.

There was a neat book by a WW2 Ordnance officer (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8327745-death-traps) that stated that the tank 75mm suffered from design by committee. Ordnance and Artillery wanted the gun to be made to their standards, meaning it could be fired 1,000-plus times without significant barrel wear. That meant a lower muzzle velocity.

I understood that the M8 or LAV-75 was to be using a much higher-velocity 75mm, like the Panther or even the Scorpion(?), so the muzzle bore itself wasn't a problem.

[schnickelfritz]

Death Traps is an excellent read....the author has even been on the history or military channel to discuss his experiences. He tol of sending new infantry recruits off in M-4 Shermans as replacements in France...because that's what his orders were....to find that all or all but one were knocked out at the end OF THAT DAY. That mn sat there and cried about it 60 years later...one of the toughest things I've ever seen.

Another good one is "Death By Design" by Peter Boyle, a member of the UK's Armored Forces in WW2. It gives more than a little perspective at the challenges faced by Commonwealth tankers. I wanted to throw it at the wall repeatedly out of horror and anger at the REMF's back in England who sent gallant men out to die in tanks that were more metal coffin than a machine of war.

The horror's faced by American and Commonwealth tankers in WW2 Europe can be traced to incompetent cowards who sat well out of harm's way.

-Dave

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by schnickelfritz

The horror's faced by American and Commonwealth tankers in WW2 Europe can be traced to incompetent cowards who sat well out of harm's way.

If only it had stopped there.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

And that's EXACTLY my position which I've tried time and time and time again over the past few years to convey.
Good to see this position is finally being understood WITHOUT the hatred and vitriol displayed previously.

Point taken. Regarding past vitriol, I suggest that delivery has something to do with how the message is received.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Webstrals excellent work on "Thunder Empire" is an perfect example of this - it may not exactly be canon, but it makes for a damn fine read.

I appreciate the kudos.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I guess a part of this debate is connected to how one views the T2K timeline.

I like to see T2K as an alternative history/universe, where the Cold War didn't end in 1989-1991 and, instead, the T2K v1.0 timeline occured. Therefore, I like to keep as much gear from canon as I can.

As a dedicated v1 type, I wholeheartedly agree.

[dragoon500ly]

The defentive source on the Sherman is the book "Sherman" by R.P. Hunnicutt, this massive tome traces the history of US tank developement starting in 1919. Its the best researched book that I've found on the subject and he has a lot of useful information on the development of the 75mm. I'm paraphasing a lot of the info!

The first US tank to mount a 75mm was the T-1 development tank in 1926, its turret was fitted with a 75mm pack howitzer firing a reduced powder charge, it quickly proved its HE ammo to be very effective against the older WWI light tanks. However the T-1 had mechanical problems so it became a non-starter and thus ended development of the 75mm for the next few years.

Next up was the T-2 fitted with a 47mm cannon (ala the Vickers medium tank). There were developmental problems (lack of money), so the US started work on the 37mm.

The next series of test vehicles, the T-3 thru T-5 focused on the 37mm cannon as the best weapon. The 75mm pack howitzer came back with the T-5 in a sponson mount once again it showed promise, but the T-5 was never approved for series production.

The M-2 and M-2A1 were the first production tank since the Mark VIII Liberty tank of 1918. Main armament was the 37mm cannon. Entering service in 1940, events in Europe rapidly overtook the vehicle.

With the news from Europe, crash development of a more modern vehicle took place. The 37mm cannon was already considered to be inadequate and a need for a larger caliber was apparant, even to the Ordnance Department. The M-3 medium tank was a crash development to mount a larger caliber gun. There difficulties in casting a turret large enough to mount a 75mm cannon, so the decision was made to mount a 37mm gun and fit a 75mm gun in a sponson mount. Another factor in the decision was that the T-5 had worked out most of the problems in a sponson mount. The M-3 entered service in March of 1941.

Needless to say, a sponson mount was not ideal, it was known early on that having to expose most of the tank in order to fire was not a good thing. But until more industrial capacity could be freed up, the M-3 Lee/Grant was the only way to get a 75mm cannon into the hands of the troops.

[dragoon500ly]

The Sherman started out as the T-6 developmental tank of April, 1941. With a new casting process allowing for a larger turret, the 75mm sponson mount could be safely deleted. The turret was also designed with a removable front plate to permit the fitting of different armament combinations. Initially, the T-6 was fitted with a 75mm M-2 (the short 75); but a twin 37mm; a 105mm howitzer and British 6-pounder mounts were all designed.

It quickly became apparant that the 75mm version would be the preferred mount, but there were problems with the 75mm M-2 gun. The new M-3 75mm gun (the long 75), now entering service with the M-3 Lee was selected as the new main armament.

The 75mm M-2 and M-3 tank cannons were developments of the original 75mm pack howitzer, being fitted with semiautomatic breeches and longer barrels. The M-2 is a 75mm/31.1 (barrel length 91.75-inches) and the M-3 is a 75mm/40.1 (barrel length 118.38-inches).

The standard armor piercing round was the APC round. I found a comparsion of the armor penetration of the various calibers to be of intrest:

These are the Aberdeen PG test results against Homogeneous armor at 30 degrees obliquity:

37mm at 500yds (53mm); at 1000yds (46mm); at 1500yds (40mm); at 2000yds (35mm)

2 pounder at 500yds (58mm); at 1000yds (52mm); at 1500yds (46mm); at 2000yds (40mm)

6 pounder at 500yds (81mm); at 1000yds (74mm); at 1500yds (63mm); at 2000yds (56mm)

75mm M-3 at 500yds (66mm); at 1000yds (60mm); at 1500yds (55mm); at 2000yds (50mm)

3-inch at 500yds (93mm); at 1000yds (88mm); at 1500yds (82mm); at 2000yds (75mm)

76mm at 500yds (93mm); at 1000yds (88mm); at 1500yds (82mm); at 2000yds (75mm)

17 pounder at 500yds (140mm); at 1000yds (130mm); at 1500yds (120mm); at 2000yds (111mm)

90mm at 500yds (129mm); at 1000yds (122mm); at 1500yds (114mm); at 2000yds (106mm)

Again, a big thanks to "Sherman"!!!!

[ArmySGT.]

[James Langham]

I know the German Army was short of troops by 1945 but even so...

My money would be on Peter Rabbit, Tank Killer by Sven Hassel and Beatrix Potter if they went head to head though...

[Brit]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The LAV-75 was based, I believe, on the chasis of the M113 APC. I was looking at a Osprey book on the M151 Sheridan when I came across an actual photograph of what GDW called the LAV-75. I had to do a double-take. I read up on it and I'm pretty sure it said it was based on the M113 chasis. If I was a millionaire, I would have bought the book just for that one photo and paragraph.

On a cool little side note, I just Googled LAV-75 to see if I could find a pic of the actual LAV-75 (I can't remember the official designation of the prototype) to prove to Mo that it was real and the first two things that popped up were our forum threads!

Posted on the old board. Long time stalker on this... I hope this link works but if it does you photo is on p. 43...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55508944/M...anks-1941-2001

There's loads of other stuff too. (It takes a while to load...)

[raketenjagdpanzer]

This is what I myself would do (not suggest to anyone else, just do) about the LAV-75:

Way early on in the war the LAV75 was brought into the European theater in limited numbers. It'd had a lot of success in the middle-east against T55s and Soviet light armored vehicles, but was now being put in a new theater using new blitzkrieg style tactics against heavy Soviet armor and consequently was getting whalloped. AAI went back to the drawing board and produced the LAV-105-E (Europe) and a majority got quickly retrofitted. The balance of non-refitted LAV75s were kept back as rear area security.

When things went nuclear, and reinforcements were short, the '75 was pressed back into frontline service as an "MBT" and as standard M1s (mostly in the hands of National Guard units) began to run short of M68 ammunition, with lots and lots of 75mm HV ammo and turret kits for the LAVs available, as some were pulled back for maintenance they were re-converted back to the LAV-75 standard, especially those with damaged 105 turrets, rather than repaired as LAV-105s.

So circa summer 2000, there's plenty of LAV-75s still in the mix, as well as LAV-105s.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Brit

Posted on the old board. Long time stalker on this... I hope this link works but if it does you photo is on p. 43...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55508944/M...anks-1941-2001

There's loads of other stuff too. (It takes a while to load...)

I was always reminded of this...

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Couple things that the 80s GI-Joe cartoon/toy line had were "real life" based - Grumman and NASA flew an FSW (the X-29) that bore a strong resemblance to the Joes' catch-all fighter plane, and obviously their tank was based very much on AAI's RDF/LT offering.

Sadly we had no V-TOL A10s (the Cobra "Rattler")

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Sadly we had no V-TOL A10s (the Cobra "Rattler")

Give it time...

[Brit]

Not wanting to start a new thread but there should be some useful stuff here. It's downloadable copies of 'Armoured Car', a magazine seemingly published between 1990 and 1996, i.e. just the right period. There might even be something on the LAV-75, etc! (There's an index to five years of them available).

http://www.warwheels.net/ACJwwINDEX.html

[boogiedowndonovan]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

I was always reminded of this...

lol

and now you know and knowing is half the battle!