LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Thanks for merging the threads, Targan. For some reason, it doesn't look the two photos of the rusting prototype transferred over. I'd love to have them in here for posterity. It's really a cool little vehicle.

If someone could somehow (Photoshop?) create images/schematics of the LAV-75 hull with a 105mm gun turret like the one the Stryker AGS uses, that would be awesome.

Hold on a second, there's actually pics of one out there. Let me see if I can find them.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

[raketenjagdpanzer]

[raketenjagdpanzer]

[raketenjagdpanzer]

As you can see, in and amongst the LAV-75 or RDF/LT pics there are a few of the LAV-105.

(Somewhere out on the internet, a certain "Mr. Sparks" just had a shudder of extacy as he was updating his "101 reasons why the M113 is better than all vehicles, ever, including Apollo rockets and aircraft carriers and sending anyone out in anything but means you're deliberately murdering US soldiers" youtube page...)

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Now I don't know anything about TWv3, but I would hazard a guess the M8 could easily be pushed into service.

The Twilight War in 2013 was very much a "come as you are" affair due to the accelerated timeline. I doubt M8 production could have been ramped up in time for a substantial number of units to be deployed. It's more likely that Stryker MGS systems would have been rushed into that role.

- C.

[ArmySGT.]

the 105 looks great. Has to be used and supported as a tank destroyer and not as a main battle tank doctrinally.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

the 105 looks great. Has to be used and supported as a tank destroyer and not as a main battle tank doctrinally.

Absolutely, but late in the war, shortages of proper MBTs would likely lead to remaining LAV-AGS's being used as/in lieu of tanks. That's what the Germans ended up having to do with their STUG assault guns in the last year or so of WWII.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

By the by I have got a ton of Stingray pics, too, but as it is a lot more common than the never produced AGS/LAV-75/105/RDF-LT I figure we've all seen them all...?

[ArmySGT.]

If you have them as deployed and not the promotional or prototype pictures.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

If you have them as deployed and not the promotional or prototype pictures.

Yes; they're all "action shots" if you will from Thai army deployments.

[Raellus]

I'm starting to think that the 105mm-armed LAV-"75" would be a pretty ideal PC vehicle.

First off, it's 105mm gun is powerful, but would need to be skillfully used against T-80 and later MBTs. Ammo for a 105mm would be scarce, but not impossible to find. Also, with an autoloader, no PCs crewman would get stuck with that thankless job (and/or you wouldn't need an NPC to do it).

Second, with the same basic drive-train components as the ubiquitous M113, there'd be enough spare parts out there in the game world to keep it running throughout the campaign.

Third, it doesn't have the same type/degree of high-performance composite armor that the M1/Leopard II/ Challenger have, meaning that the PCs will have to avoid risks that having "magic" armor might otherwise encourage them to make.

And lastly, with it's remote turret, a turret hit would not necessarily result in the death/incapacitation of the crew.

Of course, three PCs would be a pretty small group. The LAV-75/105 would work best with another vehicle or two. A companion M113 would be pretty ideal due to the commonality of automotive parts. It's lighter armament would be useful against soft targets, while the LAV-105's big gun could take on armor or harder bunker-type targets.

Thinking about it really makes me want to run/play in a campaign featuring a PC-crewed M-20 Ridgway AGS (i.e. 105mm-armed LAV-75).

[ArmySGT.]

They down side is the electronics.

The gunner is in the hull front. he can see forward with visor blocks but, any damage to the sighting system and I don't know if the TC can take over manually.

Upside M113 drive train, so the rubber track option is there. Speeds up production as any car manufacturer can do that. Doesn't divert material from M113 track production lines.

[Legbreaker]

I could swear I read somewhere that all three of the crew had the ability to lay and fire the main gun of the LAV-75...?

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

They down side is the electronics.

The gunner is in the hull front. he can see forward with visor blocks but, any damage to the sighting system and I don't know if the TC can take over manually.

Ooh. That's a really good point. Well, the upside could be that a PC with computers and/or electronics skill will actually have a task on which to apply it.

@Raketenjagdpanzer- thanks for posting all of those pics. I'd forgotten we actually had one of a 105mm-armed example.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I could swear I read somewhere that all three of the crew had the ability to lay and fire the main gun of the LAV-75...?

From what I have seen - and its been a while since I last read up on it, so I can be wrong - the answer is...


Yeeeeeessssorta.

Yes, the driver and the TC can lay the tube, and fire. But the accuracy (Not to mention the skill level of the shooter should it be the driver) will be awful without all the equipment at the gunners disposal. Enough to get you out of trouble, as long as you are trying to get out of such.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Thanks for merging the threads, Targan. For some reason, it doesn't look the two photos of the rusting prototype transferred over.

Those rusting prototype photos are still there when I look. Strange. I sometimes find that photos won't show up for me when other people are commenting on them and others can obviously see them. I know virtually nothing about how the inner workings of forum software like ours work so I've no idea why that happens

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I could swear I read somewhere that all three of the crew had the ability to lay and fire the main gun of the LAV-75...?

Correct, it's in some of the posted material from earlier in this thread.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I could swear I read somewhere that all three of the crew had the ability to lay and fire the main gun of the LAV-75...?

That's also true of the Swedish S-103 "S-Tank." In addition, on the S-103, any crewmember can drive the tank.

I imagine it slows up the works, though, if you're controlling the systems from a less-then-optimum crew position. Anyone know if that's true?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Ooh. That's a really good point. Well, the upside could be that a PC with computers and/or electronics skill will actually have a task on which to apply it.

@Raketenjagdpanzer- thanks for posting all of those pics. I'd forgotten we actually had one of a 105mm-armed example.

Not a problem. Like I said, I got lotsa action shots of the Stingray if anyone wants to see them.

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

As you can see, in and amongst the LAV-75 or RDF/LT pics there are a few of the LAV-105.

(Somewhere out on the internet, a certain "Mr. Sparks" just had a shudder of extacy as he was updating his "101 reasons why the M113 is better than all vehicles, ever, including Apollo rockets and aircraft carriers and sending anyone out in anything but means you're deliberately murdering US soldiers" youtube page...)

That guy. I'm always impressed that he is not institionalized, based on his websites.

Some of the SF team guys I used to work with met him at a briefing where he was trying to convince someone at Group (or maybe battalion) level to spend some money on his folding, jumpable assault bicycle idea. They reported he was at least as weird in person as his website(s) would lead you to believe.

[Webstral]

Just saw all those gorgeous pictures of the LAV-75, including the LAV-105/LAV-75A. Oh, my. I'll come back and comment more after I tidy up a bit.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

That guy. I'm always impressed that he is not institionalized, based on his websites.

Some of the SF team guys I used to work with met him at a briefing where he was trying to convince someone at Group (or maybe battalion) level to spend some money on his folding, jumpable assault bicycle idea. They reported he was at least as weird in person as his website(s) would lead you to believe.

Yeah; I brought up a thread about him and the obsession he has with the 113 a while back. Best let sleeping dogs lie (him getting shouted down here would be hilarious but tedious).

[Rockwolf66]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Yeah; I brought up a thread about him and the obsession he has with the 113 a while back. Best let sleeping dogs lie (him getting shouted down here would be hilarious but tedious).

I wonder if he's the guy who made a series of videos claiming the Bradley fighting Vehicle is an overpriced deathtrap that couldn't have done what it's actual users claim it could do?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Rockwolf66

I wonder if he's the guy who made a series of videos claiming the Bradley fighting Vehicle is an overpriced deathtrap that couldn't have done what it's actual users claim it could do?

Yes.

He uses clips of jihadi/insurgent attacks in Iraq to show that any other vehicle is an overpriced deathtrap. M1 hits a stacked IED? Deathtrap - an M113 wouldn't have had the weight to trigger it/wouldn't have been as inviting a target. Two Marine amphib vehicles burned to the treads when hit by RPGs in the opening days of the war? Deathtraps - the Israelis put special anti-RPG armor on their M113s that the US should, and therefore the M113 would have been invulnerable and a better vehicle (it's called Slat Armor, the Stryker uses it, but of course he ignores that, plus the fact that it would make the 113 non-amphibious, and non-airdroppable). It just goes on and on. He's certifiable.

[Webstral]

111th Brigade out of Ft. Huachuca uses the LAV-75A/LAV-105 much as anyone else uses anything with a gun and armor throughout most of CONUS—as an MBT. Obviously, a Ridgway cannot fill the shoes of an MBT anywhere opposing MBT and/or heavy AT weapons are available in numbers. But in many locations throughout the American Southwest the relative paucity of fighting vehicles and ATGM gives the Ridgway an opportunity to fill a variety of roles. In Arizona, the Samadi never face what tanks the Mexican Army possesses, as these are sent to the primary fronts in California and Texas. Ridgways based out of Huachuca face Mexican Lynxes and VAB, against which the 105mm gun is gratuitously overpowered. Of course, the 90mm gun of the Lynx is gratuitously overpowered against the armor of the Ridgway. Given that one of the hallmarks of the MBT is (supposedly) its ability to play the role of the assault gun, and given that assault guns were supposed to be better armored than MBT, there’s justification for identifying the Ridgway (and the Lynx) as cum-light tanks/tank destroyers.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I dug up a few more pictures. I wish I could find a good 3-plan view.

[Webstral]

I think I'm in love.

[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!