M8 AGS now with hybrid drive, 120mm main gun + troop capacity

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I see endless potential for a t2k game, for those with the imagination to use such a vehicle.

[Targan]

Raketenjagdpanzer, you have very much captured my attention. Where is this photo from? Do you have further photos or information? Are there any articles about this that you can link to? I must know more!

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Targan

Raketenjagdpanzer, you have very much captured my attention. Where is this photo from? Do you have further photos or information? Are there any articles about this that you can link to? I must know more!

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index...howtopic=38395

that thread

They don't take new registrations anymore so any further info will have to either be posted or not; my account was deleted there so I can't ask on your behalf.

And before anyone asks, I posted exactly three things: I asked if the French 105 they mount on some wheeled assault vehicles was NATO compatible (politely answered by a few that no, its breach was too short), someone asked what the weight and composition of the explosive in the Sheridan's HE round was (TNT, and I think it was like 4 or 5 lbs?)...and a response (of thanks) and that was about it.

Tried repeatedly to log in a week or so later and my account didn't work. Tried to mail the site owner, never a response.

If I breached some protocol, I wasn't told. The Sheridan ammo thing I found via Google search. The French 105 was a little unclear; I had a book that said it was "NATO standard", Google said otherwise, I asked for clarification.

Anyway, that's the thread; they haven't yet instituted a lockdown on unregistered members reading threads so knock yourself out.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Looking a little closer, it's an interesting compartment. Looks like about 50" of vertical space on the forward bulkhead - but you run out of room before you get to the actual bulkhead anyway with the gun racks. Behind the four M16A2s is what I'd wager is a satchel full of magazines. To the left is a light medkit, likely for the bumps and bruises the passengers are going to get going cross country in there!

I'm not sure what the large cylindrical container strapped to the bulkhead is. Any guesses?

Good stowage area under the seats, too. You could stick a couple of Javelin rounds under there and the CLU under the other seat, or M136s, LAWs, MREs, etc. etc. To the right there appear to be racks behind the heads of those passengers, but, obviously we can't tell what they are.

Forward of those is what looks like a ventilation fan, but I don't know if that's supposed to be an NBC air scrubber or just a recirculation fan. In the middle of the roof there's what looks like an armored light fixture AKA "this is why we wear our covers inside the track, boys".

I don't see any provision for an intercom or phone system, I'd guess a full production vehicle would just about have to have one. At four soldiers wide, side by side in full kit and/or MOPP gear I'm thinking the overall structure is too shallow for an immobilized CASEVAC, likewise laying crossways, but ambulatory wounded could be moved out obviously. Can't tell if there's FPs on the rear door/ramp but, given the shallow depth, likely not. I can't imagine trying to jam a 40" rifle thru a firing port then spilling hot brass into a space that's basically 1/3rd the size of the interior of my Honda Civic, but soldiers do stuff if it means surviving...

I know the batteries/generator system must be somewhere else in the tank; maybe in the space between the fighting compartment/turret of the tank and the passenger space?

[Jason]

Got to be a bouncy ride! I bet those 'oh sh*t' straps hanging from the ceiling will get a real workout from the passengers.

[boogiedowndonovan]

I believe Olefin mentioned the 120mm AGS with hybrid drive back in one of his earlier posts. He used to work for United Defense on the AGS if I recall? There was another dude who wrote his Master's thesis on the AGS, I don't remember his name, but maybe he will chime in.

I thought the 120mm AGS with hybrid drive was a technology demonstrator. But I like the idea and would go with it in game if I could. Just waiting for Paul Mulcahy to whip up some stats.

[Sith]

You are correct that this vehicle is a technology demonstrator.

About the back compartment in the photo. It's pretty much all props, don't read too much into it. The only important thing is the seats. As a demonstrator, the intent was to show that they could put people in the back.

As for the hybrid drive, that is still not mature (militarized) technology yet. Despite the vehicle being around for some time now, there has not been a lot of interest in developing that type of technology. No interested buyers.

[Sith]

Also...

Currently, there would be no interest in a troop carrying version of the AGS in the US Army [my assessment]. The AGS was originally going to be used in two types of units: the Airborne (as a Sheridan replacement) and in a newly designed light cavalry unit with a mix of AGS and M113A3s. The 2nd ACR was going to be that unit and is why all of its heavy armor was stripped away in the 90s.

With the advent of the Stryker the need for an AGS equipped light cavalry regiment is gone. So, that leaves the Airborne. Putting a troop compartment in the back of an AGS is, of course, a mechanized infantry concept and the 82nd does not operate that way. There would not be much call for 54 or so vehicles that could carry four troops each in a unit where thousands are walking. It's the gun they are interested in.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Sith

It's the gun they are interested in.

That's a thought...use the rear space for more ammo...or give it a secondary use to haul ammo for the troops or evacuate wounded under some kind of cover.

I'd have to have a lot more data before I could stat this vehicle, though.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

That's a thought...use the rear space for more ammo...or give it a secondary use to haul ammo for the troops or evacuate wounded under some kind of cover.

I'd have to have a lot more data before I could stat this vehicle, though.

Or, as it would seem to seat around four in the back(I'm guessing), use it to cart around a 4 man scout/sniper team if/when needed?

Yeah, I know, probably doesn't fit the doctrine, but they do have capability to haul small numbers of troops in the Israeli Merkava tanks, though they're in a bit of a more unique situation there.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

Yeah, I know, probably doesn't fit the doctrine, but they do have capability to haul small numbers of troops in the Israeli Merkava tanks, though they're in a bit of a more unique situation there.

Actually I think the conditions the Israeli military faces is the future face of modern warfare. And I believe the US military realises this. In fact IIRC there was a link in a recent thread to an article discussing the fact that modern militaries need to be proficient in urban and urban-interface operations.

[Sith]

The US does realize that urban warfare is a big part of tactical operations moving forward. However, the US has to be careful which lessons it takes from the IMI.

The IMI does not necessarily face the future of modern warfare; they face a tactical scenario that the US will find a lot of commonality with in the future (urban environment). The difference is, from a ground force perspective, the Israelis do not require a lot of strategic mobility. Hence, the IMI is heavy armor centric. This will produce an experience that will be fundamentally different from what the US will face. Because the US needs a high degree of strategic mobility, most of the BCTs will be Infantry and Stryker of which the tactics will differ greatly.

If the US buys the AGS, it will simply be the current product with a digital package. The Army is in no mood to spend money developing hybrid engines. The AGS right now is cheap, it gives the early entry force a good punch, it’s ready to go, and it keeps the Bradley production line up and running. Additionally, the AGS is conducive to the US’s strategic shift to the Pacific. Something that the Army likes because they are taking a big budget hit because of it (any reason to get a bigger piece of the pie).

I hope this makes sense because I’m really tired right now.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Sith

I hope this makes sense because I’m really tired right now.

I think that was a good summary. So for the US it's all about mobility, in terms of being able to deploy globally?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I always thought the casevac capability the Merkava had was for other nearby tank crews that'd lost their vehicle and/or had non-ambulatory wounded that needed a "hard" extract off the battlefield, but hey, whatever works.

[Sith]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

I always thought the casevac capability the Merkava had was for other nearby tank crews that'd lost their vehicle and/or had non-ambulatory wounded that needed a "hard" extract off the battlefield, but hey, whatever works.

Israel places a high value on its soldiers. I would venture to say probably more so than most other nations (they have launched invasions over missing soldiers). So, casevac is one of the primary intentions.

[Sith]

Originally Posted by Targan

I think that was a good summary. So for the US it's all about mobility, in terms of being able to deploy globally?

Mostly about strategic mobility ("all" is a definitive term), tactical combat power is still quite important.

There was a quote that was attributed to Confederate General Forest that went something like "Get there first with the most." The US armor community through the 70s, 80s, and 90s used this quote as a lynch pin of sorts around which they argued about heavy and light armor. Light armor supporters argued the quote at face value - get there fast with lots troops and equipment. Combat power through numbers and speed. Heavy armor supporters surrendered the first point about getting there first, but defined "most" in terms of armor thickness. They stated that it was not worth getting there first if all your vehicles get destroyed - you have to be able to take a hit.

For some time the heavy force advocates continued to win the argument. Two events forced a change though: Desert Storm and Kosovo. After Desert Storm ended the Army took a look at what it had done. In the early weeks of Desert Shield the only US combat unit on the ground was the 82nd Airborne. The consensus was that had Saddam's troops come across the Saudi border those troops would have been rolled. Hence, the AGS program picked up a little more steam only to stop dead on the eve of production five years later (I'm glossing over a lot in this sentence). In 1999 the idea of adopting medium armor (Strykers) was beginning to take hold again, but it had not lifted off yet. When the Kosovo war ended the US and NATO were all set to waltz in and unilaterally dictate terms. That was until the Russians dropped an armored airborne division into Serbia and the US had no answer (the heavy force could not get there fast enough to impact diplomacy). Hence, the SBCT.

Being able to deploy fast with enough combat power is essential to holding the proverbial beach head for follow-on forces or impacting diplomacy. But you also need light armor with those early entry forces so that you don't risk them being rolled by a local mechanized force.

Clear as mud?

[James1978]

Originally Posted by Sith

In 1999 the idea of adopting medium armor (Strykers) was beginning to take hold again, but it had not lifted off yet. When the Kosovo war ended the US and NATO were all set to waltz in and unilaterally dictate terms. That was until the Russians dropped an armored airborne division into Serbia and the US had no answer (the heavy force could not get there fast enough to impact diplomacy). Hence, the SBCT.

You mean the 200 Russians serving as peacekeepers in Bosnia who drove to Kosovo in their BTRs and trucks?

[Sith]

Originally Posted by James1978

You mean the 200 Russians serving as peacekeepers in Bosnia who drove to Kosovo in their BTRs and trucks?

Yes you are correct, those 200 paratroopers were the first. The rest flew in later.

I was using broad brush stokes in my description, but I will say that I can't remember the final size of the Russian deployment, so I wrote "division" for brevity.

[Sith]

After rereading my post I want to clarify my comment on the Russians a little more.

I was commenting more on the strategic mobility of the American armor force; not the Russian's. In reality, could the 82nd Airborne beat up on the Russian contingent? Yes. However, at that point the shooting was over and the US was not about to fight the Russians. The fight had become diplomatic and the Russians had armor on the ground. In a diplomatic fight it does not matter as much what kind of armor, or even so much to quantity, what is needed is some kind of parity. Had the US been able to rapidly plant some form of armor on the ground the outcome might have shifted a little. As it was the Russians had diplomatic leverage on the US. Hence, the comment on impacting diplomacy.