LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[cavtroop]

It has occurred to me that another possibility for improving the anti-armour capability of the LAV-75 could be to bolt one or two ATGM launchers to the outside of the turrets. Thats what they did with the cavalry versions of the Bradley didn't they

No, the M3 has the same launcher as the M2. Only difference, is the M3 carries more missiles in storage (no need for dismounts, so more room for ammo).

[Raellus]

It makes sense for the U.S. to send its surplus Dragons and early-model TOWs before sending Tank-Breaker (Javelin) but I can see the U.S. sending the the latest ATGMs as China appears to be at the breaking point- "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that.

There is precedent both ways- holding back and providing the top of the line. In a time of emergent world war, I can see the U.S. sending current gen gear- maybe not big ticket items like the M1A1 or top-of-the-line F-16 models (hence the LAV-75 shipments). But an ATGM that could thin out the most modern Soviet MBTs Hells yeah!

In WWII, Lend Lease saw the Soviets (never on very good terms with the Western Allies) receiving both crap M3 Lees (the Russians called them "Graves for Seven Brothers") and Valentines and the same current M4 Shermans being used by U.S. and Commonwealth armored divisions c. '43-'44.

[Webstral]

It makes sense for the U.S. to send its surplus Dragons and early-model TOWs before sending Tank-Breaker (Javelin) but I can see the U.S. sending the the latest ATGMs as China appears to be at the breaking point- "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that.

The v1 chronology mentions the US sending the Assault Breaker system, which would have been state-of-the-art, even in a 1995 that saw continued high levels of defense spending from 1986 onward.

Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

The v1 chronology mentions the US sending the Assault Breaker system, which would have been state-of-the-art, even in a 1995 that saw continued high levels of defense spending from 1986 onward.

Webstral

To give a better idea of how state-of-the-art and devastating the Assault Breaker is, the Assault Breaker program eventually produced the CBU-97 SFW bomb.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/cbu-97.htm

It's probably the most devastating antiarmor weapon ever devised. You drop a CBU-97 over an armored brigade, and it pretty much ceases to exist.

This is OT for this thread, but this is one of those weapon programs that would make the Soviets say, "Oh shit! We better invade now before they come up with something worse!"

[Targan]

So Paul, what do you say to say to one or more variants of the LAV-75 that tried using an ATGM launcher or two to increase the vehicle's anti armor capability instead of the 105mm conversion. I'm not saying they would have ever been as numerous as the M20 Ridgway/LAV-75 105mm conversions (I love your work on those) but there might be a few ATGM-equipped LAV-75s in the US or China (or both) that were being used for evaluation before the "missile drought" made the 105mm conversion the better option.

Would you be prepared to consider doing a write up for a couple of LAV-75 ATGM conversions Paul

[Legbreaker]

China has some very good missiles at their disposal - HJ-8, HJ-9, HJ-13 and HJ-73/AT-3. I'd be more inclined to see the original LAV-75 fitted out with launchers for them, or simply replace damaged turrents with missile, rocket and recoilless weapons.

[pmulcahy11b]

So Paul, what do you say to say to one or more variants of the LAV-75 that tried using an ATGM launcher or two to increase the vehicle's anti armor capability instead of the 105mm conversion. I'm not saying they would have ever been as numerous as the M20 Ridgway/LAV-75 105mm conversions (I love your work on those) but there might be a few ATGM-equipped LAV-75s in the US or China (or both) that were being used for evaluation before the "missile drought" made the 105mm conversion the better option.

Would you be prepared to consider doing a write up for a couple of LAV-75 ATGM conversions Paul

I can do that; what missiles do you want me to use

The Dragon can actually be easily added to existing LAV-75s if they have a commander's machinegun. There is a rare, little-known mount replacement that allows a Dragon to be mounted in place of a commander's machinegun on tanks that have a US-compatible commander's machinegun mount. I've never seen one in the flesh, but we were told about it during gunnery class and it's in the TMs.

Scratch that; the Stryker MGS turret we used on the LAV-75A4 will not allow the use of that Dragon mount; due to the installation (it is actually about 3 feet ahead of the commander in a mount integral to the turret).

[Legbreaker]

there is a rare, little-known mount replacement that allows a dragon to be mounted in place of a commander's machinegun on tanks that have a us-compatible commander's machinegun mount. I've never seen one in the flesh, but we were told about it during gunnery class and it's in the tms.

This of any assistance






Note that the M2HB is at right angles to the Dragon. It obviously does not require replacing the machinegun....

[pmulcahy11b]

This of any assistance
[ATTACH]774[/ATTACH][ATTACH]775[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]776[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]777[/ATTACH]

Note that the M2HB is at right angles to the Dragon. It obviously does not require replacing the machinegun....

Right out of the manual!

[pmulcahy11b]

As for missile armament for the LAV-75A4 (or I guess A5) -- I've been doing some thinking. Canon does say that the US sent Tank Breakers to China; that makes Javelins a possibility. A less sensitive alternative would be the TOW II system. And since it is vehicle-mounted, a heavier missile like the Hellfire is (to me) the best choice.

Or we could go nuts and arm it with the Hypervelocity Missile.

[Raellus]

TOW or Hellfire would probably require some sort of box mounting but could be fired from the safety of inside the vehicle. This would add to the weight, bulk, and maybe profile of the LAV.

The other option is an external Dragon or Tank Breaker mount for the commander like the one posted by Leg. I like this a bit better. The gun/missile combo makes the M20 particularly versatile. Add a 7.62mm coax and an M2 for the commander and the Ridgway will be able to take on almost all comers.

I'm not sure but I think Targan may be thinking about a version armed only with ATGMs, kind of the like the M901/M113 ITV. If this is the case, bigger is better and I would go with Hellfire. The v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide presents a similar concept with Hellfires mounted on a Bradley chasis (the M920 Hellfire AT vehicle on p.33). The Hellfires are exposed, though, and I would guess that would eventually lead to system degredation due to exposure to the elements and such.

On the other hand, such a vehicle wished-for by Targan already exists in canon. On page 32, there's the M917 ADATS vehicle based on the LAV-75 chasis. To my understanding, the ADATS system was intended for both SAM and AT capabilities. IIRC the ADATS system was never adopted but I kind of like it in the T2K universe. I say go with that. Targan, what do you think

[Targan]

I'm not sure but I think Targan may be thinking about a version armed only with ATGMs, kind of the like the M901/M113 ITV. If this is the case, bigger is better and I would go with Hellfire. The v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide presents a similar concept with Hellfires mounted on a Bradley chasis (the M920 Hellfire AT vehicle on p.33). The Hellfires are exposed, though, and I would guess that would eventually lead to system degredation due to exposure to the elements and such.

On the other hand, such a vehicle wished-for by Targan already exists in canon. On page 32, there's the M917 ADATS vehicle based on the LAV-75 chasis. To my understanding, the ADATS system was intended for both SAM and AT capabilities. IIRC the ADATS system was never adopted but I kind of like it in the T2K universe. I say go with that. Targan, what do you think

I'm aware of the ADATS vehicle (one turned up in my campaign, ex-Canadian vehicle somehow obtained by the 78th ID in New Jersey). That's not what I was suggesting. I had in mind original pattern LAV-75 variants with some sort of ATGM launcher added to it, either of the type that is bolted on and fired electronically from within the vehicle or of the type that is fired from a hatch.

We've already talked about how early in the Sino-Soviet War the experience of the Chinese original pattern LAV-75s in combat led to the US creating the M-20 Ridgway with a 105mm turret because the basic LAV-75 was found lacking when in combat with Soviet MBTs right Well what I'm suggesting is that they might well have trialled a number of different variant options, not only the LAV-75A4/M20 Ridgway with the 105mm gun, but also basic LAV-75s with box-type ATGM launchers, LAV-75s with hatch fired ATGM launchers, heck maybe even a few US-only M20 Ridgway evaluation vehicles with ATGMs added too.

[Raellus]

I'm aware of the ADATS vehicle (one turned up in my campaign, ex-Canadian vehicle somehow obtained by the 78th ID in New Jersey). That's not what I was suggesting. I had in mind original pattern LAV-75 variants with some sort of ATGM launcher added to it, either of the type that is bolted on and fired electronically from within the vehicle or of the type that is fired from a hatch.

Sorry. I misunderstood. Not trying to read into what you wrote.

I think some sort of universal hatch mount along the lines of what Leg posted that could accept either the Dragon, the Tank-breaker/Javelin, or similar model ATGM (the Soviets made one- I can't recall its exact NATO designation right now- that was configured almost exactly like the Dragon) already used by the PRC would be the simplest option. Maybe the initial batches of LAV-75 were sent with Dragons, then later, when things started going really badly for the Chinese, the U.S. acquiesced and sent the newer Tank-breaker/Javelin either before or with (or both) the upgunned LAV-75A4. The ADATS-armed LAV-75 would fill the requirement for an exclusively missile armed version.

[ChalkLine]

Really, if you send LAV-75s with ATGMs you don't need to upgun the ARES turret.

(By the way, the ARES turret is really modular. There's lot of images of it mounted on Stingray, M551 and even M8 chassis)

Here's a site with many images, although it's a wacky group associated with the infamous 'M113 'Gavin' Sparks'

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Targan, did you mean the M113 based ADATS Because I think Raellus was refering to the 1st edition US vehicle guide where it has the LAV75 based version. GDW made stats for two fictional versions, anti-tank and anti-aircraft gun.
The pics are from the 1st ed US vehicle guide