LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[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]

Originally Posted by 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:"

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]

Originally Posted by 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:"

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]

Originally Posted by mpipes

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]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

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.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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?

-

[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.