LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Webstral

So true! I'm certain that the supply types would be making almost exactly your argument against a 105mm variant of the LAV-75. The maneuver generals will reply in two ways: a) the fighting in the Far East has shown that light forces need stiffening with airmobile armor and b) the supply people are never going to get behind anything that makes their job more difficult, regardless of what that means for the troops actually doing the fighting. The former probably would be true. The latter is cheap shot, although there's a grain of truth in there. The logistics specialists have been a driving force behind commonality of supply since WW2 for good reason. Nonetheless, the "fighting" generals will attempt to discredit the arguments of the supply types if the maneuver commanders become convinced that an FSV variant of the LAV-75 is needed. The real question will be whose voice gets heard.

The real point of the argument is why a 75mm at all?

A lot of this material comes from various Armor Journal articles as well as the Congressional Record.

When Germany decided to introduce the 120mm smoothbore, the US Army did not want to upgun at all. The viewpoint was that the 105mm M68 rifled cannon was the ideal tank weapon. Since it was capable of performing the antitank, direct and indirect support roles, there was no need to upgun as continued development of ammunition and propellent precluded any need to switch to a heavier weapon.

Congress mandated a gunnery trail between the two calibers. Needless to say, the 120mm out performed the 105mm using the standard APDS round. This led to the rushed development of the APFSDS round and the next round of trials had the 105mm out performing the 120mm, that is until the APFSDS 120mm round was developed. Faced with their gun falling behind, the US developed the APFSDSDU round, the first depleted uranium penetrator and the 105mm took bragging rights, right up until the 120mm APFSDSDU was developed. By this time, the object lesson had finally sunk in, 120mm was superior to 105mm in the antitank role.

BUT WAIT! The 105mm was superior in the direct and indirect support roles! Every US tank gunner from WWII on has been carefully taught how to use their cannon to fire support for the infantry; it was the primary purpose in the big war as well as Korea. Vietnam had no documented use of tanks in anything other than direct support, but this was widely believed to have been due to the small numbers of tanks in theater. So the next round of gunnery trials included indirect fire.

The 120mm gun turned out to be a poor performer. But to the shock of the US Army, so did the 105mm! It turned out that the very quality that made for an effective antitank weapons, i.e. high-velocity rounds, also made for major problems with indirect fire, quite simply an "excessive latteral dispersion contributing to impared accuracy", in other words, the HEP rounds landed all over the grid square!

It was shortly after this third round of trails that US tankers saw the withdrawal of HEP, WP and Beehive ammunition as well as the removal of gunner's quadants and azumith indicators from the M-60A1/A3 tanks.

The 105mm/120mm gunnery trials also led to the NATO consenus that the smallest effective caliber for tank armament is 90mm. The need to comply with the "NATO Standardization" provisions of the charter are, almost certainly, what killed off the 75mm cannon development.

My own personal opinion is that the LAV-75 would never have seen service in any capacity. With the need to comply with the minimum of 90mm, and with tens of thousands of 105mm barrels and thousands of tons of ammunition in storage, the US Army would have gone with a 105mm version almost certainly from the start. This version was known as the M-8 AGS.

So, in many ways, the bean counters would have won the argument, but in such a way as to insure the support of the line dogs.

[Adm.Lee]

I seem to recall from reading Suvorov a long time ago, the Soviets had one way to avoid having the wrong kind of ammunition showing up. I think it was the 122mm rockets: they were labelled as 125mm in every instance, so that 122mm howitzer shells wouldn't be sent to the rocket regiments.

So why do we make both 105mm howitzer and tank guns? The howitzers came first-- Why weren't the tank guns 100mm or 110mm? Or 108 or 103?

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I seem to recall from reading Suvorov a long time ago, the Soviets had one way to avoid having the wrong kind of ammunition showing up. I think it was the 122mm rockets: they were labelled as 125mm in every instance, so that 122mm howitzer shells wouldn't be sent to the rocket regiments.

So why do we make both 105mm howitzer and tank guns? The howitzers came first-- Why weren't the tank guns 100mm or 110mm? Or 108 or 103?

But he never explains the use of 7.62T, 7.62S and 7.62L...

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I seem to recall from reading Suvorov a long time ago, the Soviets had one way to avoid having the wrong kind of ammunition showing up. I think it was the 122mm rockets: they were labelled as 125mm in every instance, so that 122mm howitzer shells wouldn't be sent to the rocket regiments.

So why do we make both 105mm howitzer and tank guns? The howitzers came first-- Why weren't the tank guns 100mm or 110mm? Or 108 or 103?

105mm howitzer came first, when the decision was made to upgrade from 90mm to a larger caliber, there were these ammo plants already geared up for a larger caliber and not having to produce much....so they used existing equipment to maufacture, its not the first time.

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The real point of the argument is why a 75mm at all?

A lot of this material comes from various Armor Journal articles as well as the Congressional Record.

When Germany decided to introduce the 120mm smoothbore, the US Army did not want to upgun at all. The viewpoint was that the 105mm M68 rifled cannon was the ideal tank weapon. Since it was capable of performing the antitank, direct and indirect support roles, there was no need to upgun as continued development of ammunition and propellent precluded any need to switch to a heavier weapon.

Congress mandated a gunnery trail between the two calibers. Needless to say, the 120mm out performed the 105mm using the standard APDS round. This led to the rushed development of the APFSDS round and the next round of trials had the 105mm out performing the 120mm, that is until the APFSDS 120mm round was developed. Faced with their gun falling behind, the US developed the APFSDSDU round, the first depleted uranium penetrator and the 105mm took bragging rights, right up until the 120mm APFSDSDU was developed. By this time, the object lesson had finally sunk in, 120mm was superior to 105mm in the antitank role.

BUT WAIT! The 105mm was superior in the direct and indirect support roles! Every US tank gunner from WWII on has been carefully taught how to use their cannon to fire support for the infantry; it was the primary purpose in the big war as well as Korea. Vietnam had no documented use of tanks in anything other than direct support, but this was widely believed to have been due to the small numbers of tanks in theater. So the next round of gunnery trials included indirect fire.

The 120mm gun turned out to be a poor performer. But to the shock of the US Army, so did the 105mm! It turned out that the very quality that made for an effective antitank weapons, i.e. high-velocity rounds, also made for major problems with indirect fire, quite simply an "excessive latteral dispersion contributing to impared accuracy", in other words, the HEP rounds landed all over the grid square!

It was shortly after this third round of trails that US tankers saw the withdrawal of HEP, WP and Beehive ammunition as well as the removal of gunner's quadants and azumith indicators from the M-60A1/A3 tanks.

The 105mm/120mm gunnery trials also led to the NATO consenus that the smallest effective caliber for tank armament is 90mm. The need to comply with the "NATO Standardization" provisions of the charter are, almost certainly, what killed off the 75mm cannon development.

My own personal opinion is that the LAV-75 would never have seen service in any capacity. With the need to comply with the minimum of 90mm, and with tens of thousands of 105mm barrels and thousands of tons of ammunition in storage, the US Army would have gone with a 105mm version almost certainly from the start. This version was known as the M-8 AGS.

So, in many ways, the bean counters would have won the argument, but in such a way as to insure the support of the line dogs.

really useful info but I'll still stick to 75mm for two reasons:

1. I'm not sure a lightweight 105mm would have made it into production in time.

2. It's cannon.

If I'm honest more 2 than 1.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by James Langham

really useful info but I'll still stick to 75mm for two reasons:

1. I'm not sure a lightweight 105mm would have made it into production in time.

2. It's cannon.

If I'm honest more 2 than 1.

And I play with LAV-75s as well. Its just in real life, doubt that I would want to man one!

The M-8 AGS used the same 105mm M68 cannon, not a lightweight version. You're thinking about the French 105mm smoothbore.

[Targan]

I am not a total stickler for canon but my initial inclination is always that if something (like the LAV-75) is part of canon I try to explain why it was there, not just erase it and pretend it never existed. Before anyone gets defensive I'm not suggesting that anyone in this discussion wants to erase the LAV-75. I'm just saying that, in my T2K universe anyway, the LAV-75 exists in some numbers so I'm more interested in why that would be than why it wouldn't.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Targan

I am not a total stickler for canon but my initial inclination is always that if something (like the LAV-75) is part of canon I try to explain why it was there, not just erase it and pretend it never existed. Before anyone gets defensive I'm not suggesting that anyone in this discussion wants to erase the LAV-75. I'm just saying that, in my T2K universe anyway, the LAV-75 exists in some numbers so I'm more interested in why that would be than why it wouldn't.

Very well put. I try to do the same.

Some folks like to add gear to existing canon. Some like to alter canon to fit RL, removing canonical gear and substituting it with newer RL stuff.

I guess a part of this debate is connected to how one views the T2K timeline.

I like to see T2K as an alternative history/universe, where the Cold War didn't end in 1989-1991 and, instead, the T2K v1.0 timeline occured. Therefore, I like to keep as much gear from canon as I can.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Targan

I am not a total stickler for canon but my initial inclination is always that if something (like the LAV-75) is part of canon I try to explain why it was there, not just erase it and pretend it never existed. Before anyone gets defensive I'm not suggesting that anyone in this discussion wants to erase the LAV-75. I'm just saying that, in my T2K universe anyway, the LAV-75 exists in some numbers so I'm more interested in why that would be than why it wouldn't.

And that's EXACTLY my position which I've tried time and time and time again over the past few years to convey.
Good to see this position is finally being understood WITHOUT the hatred and vitriol displayed previously.
As a community I feel we should try to stick with canon as much as possible so that everyone can share each others work. This isn't to say in the slightest that we shouldn't work on our own projects and publish them. Webstrals excellent work on "Thunder Empire" is an perfect example of this - it may not exactly be canon, but it makes for a damn fine read.

Back on the LAV-75, perhaps the poor performance of the 75mm gun in WWII doomed the newer weapon IRL to the rubbish bin - too many bad feelings about a weapon which wasn't even able to reliably take out a 1940's tank regardless of technical improvements to weapon and ammo (Yes I'm aware they're completely different, but perception is a big thing). However in T2K, I'm in the camp who's for fielding the vehicle, mainly to give lighter units some sort of armoured firepower and also as a stopgap/emergency replacement measure.

[dragoon500ly]

Certainly I don't reject the LAV-75 as long as it is in the T2K multiverse. But I do believe that we got sidetracked as to why the LAV75 went the way of the dodo.

But the strength of T2K is that it can be modified (or is that cut, folded, paperclipped and mutilated?) to fight anyone's view of WWIII.

But I do agree its much more pleasant to have a give-n-take rather than some of the outright hate mail approach that are on other boards.

[Legbreaker]

In V2.x I see the M8 taking on the role the LAV-75 was intended for in V1.0.
There is however no reason why both cannot exist side by side (although perhaps not in the same units).

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

And I play with LAV-75s as well. Its just in real life, doubt that I would want to man one!

The M-8 AGS used the same 105mm M68 cannon, not a lightweight version. You're thinking about the French 105mm smoothbore.

There's a lot of kit that you do wonder why it was put into service - I agree completely!

I'm sure there is a lightweight 105 rifled though, I should have researched the M8 more. As an aside though all its high tech computer ammunition monitoring system and the like will be badly hit by EMP (a little bit of side text for the next edition of the article).