![]() |
![]() |
#361
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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? -
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module Last edited by Raellus; 07-24-2020 at 08:20 PM. |
#362
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. |
#363
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum |
#364
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.
|
#365
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
The poster formerly known as The Dark The Vespers War - Ninety years before the Twilight War, there was the Vespers War. |
#366
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#367
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#368
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module |
#369
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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. |
#370
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.
|
#371
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#372
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
The poster formerly known as The Dark The Vespers War - Ninety years before the Twilight War, there was the Vespers War. |
#373
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com Last edited by pmulcahy11b; 07-26-2020 at 11:53 AM. |
#374
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.
|
#375
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
#376
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
"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."
__________________
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end... |
#377
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#378
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Thanks! I'm going to try to divert some time from writing to come over here more frequently than when I finish something up.
__________________
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end... |
#379
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I guess Flames of War pays attention to this page...,,
https://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=7015 |
#380
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Because every wargamer wants to be the first on their block to have a LAV-75! Now if they just made them in 20mm? Sniff...
__________________
Author of "Distant Winds of a Forgotten World" available now as part of the Cannon Publishing Military Sci-Fi / Fantasy Anthology: Spring 2019 (Cannon Publishing Military Anthology Book 1) "Red Star, Burning Streets" by Cavalier Books, 2020 https://epochxp.tumblr.com/ - EpochXperience - Contributing Blogger since October 2020. (A Division of SJR Consulting). |
#381
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Admit it....you want a real one to drive around the neighborhood!!
|
#382
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Well, yeah! Who in their right mind doesn't?
__________________
Author of "Distant Winds of a Forgotten World" available now as part of the Cannon Publishing Military Sci-Fi / Fantasy Anthology: Spring 2019 (Cannon Publishing Military Anthology Book 1) "Red Star, Burning Streets" by Cavalier Books, 2020 https://epochxp.tumblr.com/ - EpochXperience - Contributing Blogger since October 2020. (A Division of SJR Consulting). |
#383
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Well you can always play War Thunder...
https://warthunder.com/en/news/6711-...of-tomorrow-en They have it as well. ![]()
__________________
Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon. Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series. |
#384
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
If you wanted to have the concept of a light airmobile tank but not necessarily having to shoehorn the M8 or the LAV-75 into the system, there's always the T92 Light Tank.
This was another project in the same vein but originates in the 1950s. Apparently a significant part of it's non-adoption for service was because it was not amphibious capable and couldn't be modified to be so. Other than that, it fulfilled many of the same requirements that the M8 and LAV-75 were designed for. The project was cancelled in 1958 but the vehicle was by all accounts ready for service so, theoretically, it would have been on strength from the 1960s on and quite possibly still in service into the 1980s-90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T92_Light_Tank http://warfaretech.blogspot.com/2014...ight-tank.html https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldw...m-gun-tank-t92 T92 ![]() T92 in front of M41 ![]() And if you want to drive one, then WarThunder's chief rival World Of Tanks, has it! Or even Armoured Warfare: - https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/...t92-light-tank Or you could just stay with WarThunder because they also have it available. Last edited by StainlessSteelCynic; 08-13-2020 at 07:57 AM. Reason: correcting "... were designed." to "... were designed for." |
#385
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I also love the LAV-75 but I really think you'd only see them as Rae has said with the Stingray's M35 LRF 105mm.
However I don't think they'd make any more of the vehicle because the "Expeditionary Tank" is almost exactly the same and it uses the same turret as the Stryker. They'd probably build those if they needed that specialist vehicle. ![]() I can still see legacy LAV-75 vehicles being put into a Stingray unit though if they suffered losses. In that case divisional workshops simply rebuilt the existing LAV-75s to M35 spec. In fact it'd be appealing to have a whole Stingray Brigade with rebuilt M551 hulls in one unit and LAV-75s in another. One thing that might appeal to desperate commanders when pondering whether it was worth the resources to activate this mishmash (the Nazis did worse late in The Second World War) is that the very light vehicles would use far less fuel than a normal tank brigade. |
#386
|
||||
|
||||
![]() ![]() This pic was the genesis for the M20 Ridgway article (there's an attachment to the full piece somewhere in this thread). To sum up for those who don't wish to go searching for it, the Americans sent LAV-75s to China, where they were misused as TDs/light tanks due to heavy PLA armor losses. Based on combat reports from China indicating that the LAV-75 was unable to kill current Soviet MBTs with frontal shots, the US decided to up-gun its LAV-75s with 105mm rifled guns, and sent the first batch of upgraded LAV-75A2s to the PRC where they performed much better against Soviet armor. The LAV-75A2 became known as the M20 Ridgway, in US service. -
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module Last edited by Raellus; 08-13-2020 at 09:52 AM. |
#387
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I'll give you kudos for a good idea, though.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com Last edited by pmulcahy11b; 08-13-2020 at 10:21 AM. Reason: Thought of several other things after I first posted |
#388
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
However I was working from the idea that the T92 would be taken into service in the 1960s and then through the usual armoured vehicle improvements, kept in service into the 1980s or even the 1990s. That way the T92 would have been part of the US roster for a reasonable amount of time just like the M113, with all the expected upgrades keeping it a viable vehicle over that time and thus it would be a well established part of US airborne forces for the Twilight War. |
#389
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Hmmm...I wonder...
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#390
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Admittedly... I am biased since I do work for them after a fashion...
__________________
Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon. Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series. |
![]() |
Tags |
ground vehicles, vehicles |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
|
|