LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[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