LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

-

[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.

[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.

[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