LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[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:



...

*=locally produced 76mm variant, sorry

[Raellus]

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

[HorseSoldier]

A couple thoughts/questions.

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

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

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

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

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the feedback, Horse.

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

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

[Targan]

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

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

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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

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

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

[The Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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

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