LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[pmulcahy11b]

For what it's worth, my Janes Armor & Artillery 1983-1984 edition says that ARES was working on a 90mm version of the same autocannon on the LAV-75, but abandoned it after producing two working prototypes, to concentrate on the 75mm version. It doesn't say why they did, however.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

For what it's worth, my Janes Armor & Artillery 1983-1984 edition says that ARES was working on a 90mm version of the same autocannon on the LAV-75, but abandoned it after producing two working prototypes, to concentrate on the 75mm version. It doesn't say why they did, however.

Wan't that about the same time that Cockerill displayed their lightweight 90mm?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Wan't that about the same time that Cockerill displayed their lightweight 90mm?

Maybe ARES got a wind of it, but it's not in that issue of Janes.

[Webstral]

I'm reluctant to throw my support behind eliminating the LAV-75 from the lineup because the established body of material includes the LAV-75 rather prominently. Grendal posted some excellent material effectively debunking the idea that the 75mm ARES gun had problems with killing power vis-à-vis a 105mm low-recoil gun. If cost was a primary reason for not pursuing the LAV-75, then the fact that the Cold War didn’t end in 1989 may give us all the reason we need to imagine the LAV-75 being placed into service.

We can imagine, though, that in the climate of 1996 and certainly 1997 every AFV that can be cobbled together of available parts will be assembled and given to somebody. The US Army Vehicle Guide features a number of interesting items. I’m sure we can devise many, many more. I would expect to see units in CONUS supported by a veritable flying circus above and beyond the heavier AFV listed in the Guide in formations like the 40th Infantry Division. I’d include some in the TO&E for 111th Brigade but for the inconvenient fact that SAMAD is physically isolated from the rest of the US after mid-1998. However, formations in Fifth and Sixth US Armies might make use of all sorts of non-standardized light AFV.

I’m fond of armored TOW launchers, but they don’t do the job of an assault gun, light tank, or tank destroyer. The whole purpose of creating a vehicle like the LAV-75, M-8, or other such system was to create a mobile gun system. If the 82nd Airborne and other divisions like it had wanted armored TOW launchers in the 1980’s, no one would have bothered trying to create a replacement for the Sheridan. Sometimes a gun is the best tool for the job.