LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[Mohoender]

Mo, as to using the TW-90 gun, it's not a bad weapon, but IMO I think it's still a little too underpowered to go up against the ubiquitous T-72 found nearly all over the world and I think the army really wanted to go with a crewless turret/autoloader to keep crew size/turret size down.

Definitely right. I like your idea of a 105mm gun. As a result, the ERC-90 is essentially used abraod. Units stationed in Europe are using the AMX-10RC.

[Webstral]

It certainly does seem like a 105mm gun is going to be the best option, provided it can be wedded to the chassis. I don't know enough about low-pressure ammunition and guns to know if our new light tank is going to require a low-pressure 105mm (I suspect so, but I'm no expert) and whether HEAT ammunition can be exchanged between various types of 105mm tank guns. I'd be curious to know what the 105mm gun and turret will do to the LAV's profile and weight.

What about a name for the new LAV, or at least a modifier (LAV-75B)

Webstral

[Raellus]

I don't see too much of a problem wedding a 105mm gun to the LAV-75 (M113) chasis. Like I said, if they can put a turretless 105mm gun on a wheeled LAV-25/Stryker chasis, they can probably fit the same turret to the LAV-25 chasis.

I don't know about ammo commonality between the low and high pressure 105mm guns. I was assuming there was cross-commonality but I have no evidence for that. Anyone

I like your new designator. LAV-75B has a nice ring to it. Or LAV-75A1, maybe

[Webstral]

LAV-75A1 seems more consistent with Army nomenclature. I'll use your idea.

It seems that the M1128 Mobile Gun System uses the L7 105mm rifled cannonthe same as many other NATO AFV. This is a powerful argument in favor of retrofitting the LAV-75 fleet with a 105mm gun firing the same ammunition as the M60A4. I dont know about the turret. Someone else is going to have to conjecture on that one. The added firepower and simplified logistical requirements (no further requirement for 75mm rounds that can only service one type of vehicle present in only one or two battalions per division) will be very attractive to the Army.

I suggest a brief revision of v1 history to justify the LAV-75A1.

Following the outbreak of the Sino-Soviet War, the US provides substantial numbers of the LAV-75 to the PRC. The PLA (Peoples Liberation Army) is eager to accept the American AFV because it can arrive by air and thus be on the front lines earlier than platforms arriving by sea. The US is eager to provide LAV-75s because the system is new: too late for Operations Desert Storm and Provide Hope, the LAV-75 is an untried system. XVIII Airborne Corps in particular is eager to have the Sheridan replacement put through its paces against Soviet forces without exposing American troops to hazard.

By the end of 1995, reports from the battlefield paint a mixed picture. The automotive performance of the LAV is goodexcellent where quality care can be provided. Fuel economy is good, and survivability against small arms and shell splinters is very good. Maneuverability is excellent. Kill power, on the other hand, is disappointing. In the assault gun role, the LAV is disappointing due to the mediocre power of its HE/HESH 75mm shell versus bunkers and fighting positions prepared inside concrete structures. As a light tank, the LAV is perfectly acceptable against all Soviet APC, IFV, and assault/mobile guns. However, the 75mm gun proves to have unreliable killing power against T-55s and T-62s. The front slope of the T-72 proves invulnerable to the LAV; only flank and rear shots with low deflection prove effective. The very good maneuverability of the LAV enables Chinese crews to obtain flanking shots heavier tanks might not achieve. However, this fact does little to make up for the lack of killing power of the 75mm gun.

US Army users of the LAV-75 bombard the Pentagon with requests for either a new mobile gun system/assault gun/light tank or an upgraded version of the LAV-75. Light divisions, such as 6th Infantry Division, 7th Infantry Division, and 10th Infantry Division, will be seriously compromised if their primary tank cannot defeat the kinds of armor US forces are most likely to encounter. China also requests upgrades and refits for its fleet of LAV-75s. The Pentagon orders a prototype LAV-75 with a 90mm gun and a prototype LAV-75 with a 105mm gun to be constructed and tested with maximum priority. Very quickly, the 105mm-equipped version proves its superiority in virtually every category. Orders go out for all LAV-75s in the US Army park to be upgraded simultaneously with new production for China.

By the time war erupts in Europe, all Regular Army divisions equipped with the LAV-75 have received the LAV-75A1 version. Some have come from new production, with the previous variants being sent back for refit. Other vehicles are post-production refit. When the war in Europe starts, the US puts a hold on all shipment and refit for the PLA. New and refitted LAV-75A1s are diverted to Army National Guard units and a national stockpile. It is from this stockpile that LAV-75A1s are distributed to formations in CONUS from 8/97 onward.

Webstral

[Raellus]

Outstanding, Web. Outstanding.

[James1978]

Ares 75mm Gun

There was a brief thread on the Ares 75mm recently on TankNet - http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.phpshowtopic=28830. They seem to think that it could handle a baseline T-55 or T-62 well enough, but the gun became very inadequate against more modern tanks/armor or reactive armor. There are also some pictures of the rusting prototype of the HSTV-L.

[Abbott Shaull]

The LAV-75 was based, I believe, on the chasis of the M113 APC. I was looking at a Osprey book on the M151 Sheridan when I came across an actual photograph of what GDW called the LAV-75. I had to do a double-take. I read up on it and I'm pretty sure it said it was based on the M113 chasis. If I was a millionaire, I would have bought the book just for that one photo and paragraph.

On a cool little side note, I just Googled LAV-75 to see if I could find a pic of the actual LAV-75 (I can't remember the official designation of the prototype) to prove to Mo that it was real and the first two things that popped up were our forum threads!

Yes the LAV-75 chasis was a M113. Popular Mechanics...lol My dad use to get them, and they had article shortly after Reagan took office and the RDF, the predecessor of Central Command. In the article they looked at the vehicles that 9th Infantry Test Bed Division were giving try outs too. LAV-75 proto-types and LAV-25 were there as well as various versions of the FAVs. Many of the various configuration of the HMMWV were tested here too.

The Modular Division concept was only 20 too late. As I recall when the 25th was made into Light Infantry Division, it was like many of the Mechanized/Armored Division in the states that had 2 active units. Well as the 6th and 7th Light Infantry Division were stood up, and 10th Mountain. One problem with all 4 divisions was ideally they had round out Light Brigades, but many of the top brass was hoping if and when they were sent to combat that they would have something of the Stryker Brigades now or Light Motorized concept tested in the 9th. For the only other real option was to attach a Mechanized/Armored Brigade to these Divisions.

From what I could see the Brass didn't really support the Light Infantry concept nor did they care for the 9th either. Even though twenty year later the concepts developed in the 9th were dusted off and given a new look with a shrinking Army. In real life even the 82nd had lost it Armor Battalion in the 1990s. Too many sheridans had crashed and burned.

[Abbott Shaull]

In reality, with the Light Infantry Divisions, it was always hoped that the Stryker Brigades now would be developed and attached to these Division to give them some punch, but Armor/Mechanized felt it was better to "rush" a Brigade to beef them up if they needed.

Honestly like I said, modularization should of taken placed in the 80s. Grenada and Panama operations weren't exactly Corps size operations, and Panama was probably the first taste of borrowing units from several divisions to make a complete field unit that was needed. Again in 1990-1991 they did the same thing for Desert Shield/Storm, strong arguments should of prevailed then, but it wasn't until 2003 when it was realized it easier to keep the Division organization loose, but that another story.

[Matt Wiser]

TR, before he passed on, did V.1 stats for the M-8 AGS on his site. I saved the info, and in all my OBs, I use the M-8. RIP, my friend.

[ChalkLine]

I might add, that with war clouds looming the US army might not rid itself of the M551 Sheridan as well, and would make another upgrade package available.

In my mind, this would be applique armour bringing it up to 20 tonnes, a snorkel system as it could no longer swim. A new solid state system for its missile launcher system and an upgrade package for the vision systems implemented in the A1 upgrade to bring them up to standard. The Shillelagh

The 'visual mod' vehicles are recalled and rebuilt. However, as the 152mm gun/launcher is no longer built, these vehicles are fitted with surplus 105mm howitzers from the M108 SPG and used in the direct fire role. These vehicles are designated M551A3(IS) for infantry support, a tacit acknowledgement that the army can no longer provide close air support.

The MGM-51 Shillelagh is no longer produced, but 75,000 were built and were still in store. These missiles are repacked in modern materials to remove the cook-off danger and replaced in service. It should be noted that this missile has similar penetrative characteristics as the Hellfire missile, and until the TOW 2B entered service was the most destructive combat missile in US service (the reason they were retained in storage).

[Dog 6]

In my games I use Sheridan, LAV-75 and M-8. I have the US army built up to 80+ divisions. I have light motorized divisions and light armored divisions about 3 corps worth. working up my 4th ed OBO now.

[kato13]

In my games I use Sheridan, LAV-75 and M-8. I have the US army built up to 80+ divisions. I have light motorized divisions and light armored divisions about 3 corps worth. working up my 4th ed OBO now.

I've tried to do something similar a while back. Had military spending increase through 2000 at the same rate as the Reagan years. Delayed the war 5 years as well. Had trouble hitting the required personnel and some equipment bottlenecks, but I would be interested in seeing what you have.

[Dog 6]

I've tried to do something similar a while back. Had military spending increase through 2000 at the same rate as the Reagan years. Delayed the war 5 years as well. Had trouble hitting the required personnel and some equipment bottlenecks, but I would be interested in seeing what you have.

ok I'll send it along. pm ok

[kato13]

ok I'll send it along. pm ok

Sure.

[Dog 6]

meh I'll just upload it here