LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[Raellus]

Seventy-six

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

-

[swaghauler]

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/guns are interoperable. Like, you couldn't take a 76mm AP round from a Sherman tank and use it an an OM DP gun could you

-

If you GOOGLE the Leonardo system built on the Leopard 1 chassis, It did spec an APFSDS round because it was equipped with a high-pressure barrel. I believe the Turret developed for the APC chassis had to ditch the high-pressure barrel in order to save weight. That doesn't mean the US wouldn't field such a round.

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.

[Sith]

The M8 could take out enemy tanks - its gun was similiar to the one on the original M1 tank - but it definitely was not a stand toe to toe and slug it out tank. What it could do was have a real chance to take out a modern MBT and survive - notice I didnt say participate in a stand up tank battle like 73 Easting.

Used to work at BAE and actually got a chance to ride in an M8 on our test track when we did a maintenance cycle on one of the ones we had there.

Yes, as a 105mm, the cannon could kill a tank. What they did not want was to foster the notion that it was a tank. Since it looked like, had a gun like, sounded like, smelled like, and tasted like a tank; they did not want the units and crews acting like it was. I was a tanker at the time and Armor School was beginning to put stuff out to us on the M8 with the intention of recruiting us to it. Additionally, I was at the Platform Performance Demo at Fort Knox when the M8 went up against the MGS, and got some time on it.

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.

[swaghauler]

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.

[Vespers War]

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

-

No more than you could fire 7.62mm Soviet from an unmodified M14. The Sherman's round is a 76.2x539mm, while the OTO Melara is 76x636mm.

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.

[Legbreaker]

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.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

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.

And it's probably worth noting that the Australian M113s armed with the 76mm were specifically called either a Fire Support Vehicle (M113 with Saladin turret) or a Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle (M113 with Scorpion turret), probably to reinforce the idea that they were not tanks and were not to be used as tanks.

[Raellus]

Got It, Thanks.

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 Sturmgeschtz 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.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

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.

[CDAT]

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.

[Legbreaker]

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.

[Vespers War]

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.

An M8 was designed to be airdroppable with Level I armor, airlifted in a C-130 (but ro-ro rather than dropped) with Level II armor, and able to be fitted with Level III armor once deployed on the ground (but not carried by a C-130 with that armor). Estimated GVWs were 18,052 kg, 20,820 kg, and 23,586 kg respectively. Level III was intended to be proof against 30mm cannon fire. The armor boxes look like they're designed to give better resistance against HEAT warheads, likely due to the proliferation of man-portable anti-tank rockets, but I haven't seen comparisons of its effectiveness against HEAT vs KE. Level II was roughly the same armor as the M551 Sheridan, while I'd put Level III as being more like an AMX-30 than an M-60.

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.

[pmulcahy11b]

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.

[cawest]

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.

[Olefin]

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