LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[chico20854]

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.

From my history of the Norwegian-Kola campaign:

"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 Armys 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 GTRs rampage."

[Olefin]

From my history of the Norwegian-Kola campaign:

"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 Armys 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 GTRs rampage."

nice to see you back on the board again Chico!

[chico20854]

nice to see you back on the board again Chico!

Thanks! I'm going to try to divert some time from writing to come over here more frequently than when I finish something up.

[Louied]

I guess Flames of War pays attention to this page...,,

https://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspxart_id=7015

[Jason Weiser]

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...

[mpipes]

Admit it....you want a real one to drive around the neighborhood!!

[Jason Weiser]

Admit it....you want a real one to drive around the neighborhood!!

Well, yeah! Who in their right mind doesn't

[Panther Al]

Well, yeah! Who in their right mind doesn't

Well you can always play War Thunder...

https://warthunder.com/en/news/6711-development-hstv-l-view-of-tomorrow-en

They have it as well.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

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/2014/07/t-92-light-tank.html

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/76mm-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.

[ChalkLine]

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.

[Raellus]

Ridgway Baby Pic



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.

-

[pmulcahy11b]

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 T92 is a decent idea; I say decent because it's way out of date and would need a host of upgrades to make it viable on the modern battlefield. Fire control system, new, heavier-caliber gun (90mm would be a good compromise between weight and firepower) with gun stabilization, GPS/land navigation, BFT, Vehicle State, and perhaps some MEXAS applique armor tiles on the front and sides of the turret and hull, along with a thickened floor. And maybe a suspension upgrade. Somewhat more powerful and more compact engine to cope with what would be increased weight. New electrical system to cope with increased electronics. Better night vision. We may need something along the lines of the T92, perhaps even using the T92 as a base, but not the T92 itself.

I'll give you kudos for a good idea, though.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The T92 is a decent idea; I say decent because it's way out of date and would need a host of upgrades to make it viable on the modern battlefield. Fire control system, new, heavier-caliber gun (90mm would be a good compromise between weight and firepower) with gun stabilization, GPS/land navigation, BFT, Vehicle State, and perhaps some MEXAS applique armor tiles on the front and sides of the turret and hull, along with a thickened floor. And maybe a suspension upgrade. Somewhat more powerful and more compact engine to cope with what would be increased weight. New electrical system to cope with increased electronics. Better night vision. We may need something along the lines of the T92, perhaps even using the T92 as a base, but not the T92 itself.

I'll give you kudos for a good idea, though.

I have no disagreement with what you're saying - if it was to be put into service in the 1990s.

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.

[pmulcahy11b]

Hmmm...I wonder...

[Panther Al]

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.

Ah, but you want to stay with War Thunder - clearly the better game in all regards...

Admittedly... I am biased since I do work for them after a fashion...