LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[Legbreaker]

It appears to me (and I could well be missing something obvious) that the LAV-75 (and M8) were passed over in favour of M1s, M2s and M3s as well as a number of other less widespread vehicles. Therefore, it's hard to say definatively which units may have received the LAV-75/M20.

Of course we do have the Sheridan as a precursor, but as it was phased out a little too early in our presumed timeline, and was only assigned to the 82nd Div anyway (I think)....

Perhaps new subunits (company size - battalion seems a bit big for my liking) are needed to fit the M20 (or M8) into the unit structure :S

Ideas anyone

[ChalkLine]

With a halt to MBT construction, it's likely that other divisions would have heavy and light armour units as more divisions were raised.

[Jason Weiser]

Here's another item to support Rae's hypothesis. The M20 is going to be going into engagements, even with the 105mm, where it will be routinely outgunned by enemy MBTs..yeah, I know, the M20 has no business taking on MBT as a matter of course, but like the TDs of WWII, since when does one always have a choice in this matter Frontally speaking, a 105mm is going to knacker anything less than a T-72, anything more modern than that, that's where it might get a bit squirrly. So, a second or third round from said 105mm as a quick followup against Mr. T-80 is a damn good thing IMHO.

[pmulcahy11b]

For better or worse, here it is:

http://www.pmulcahy.com/best_stuff_that_never_was/best_lcv_that_never_were.htm

I await your comments and corrections.

[Targan]

Excellent Paul. Great work.

[Legbreaker]

Not bad at all.

Do the early models really warrant +4 fire control though Early to mid 80's US MBTs appear to have only had around a +3...

Another point worth considering is would the US really allow high tech fire control systems to be included in the vehicles sent to china and possibly captured by the Soviets

[pmulcahy11b]

Not bad at all.

Do the early models really warrant +4 fire control though Early to mid 80's US MBTs appear to have only had around a +3...

Another point worth considering is would the US really allow high tech fire control systems to be included in the vehicles sent to china and possibly captured by the Soviets

Well...

1) The fire control system of the LAV-75 was well ahead of its time, with a very advanced ballistic computer that was loaded with software to match, a pulse coded-beam laser rangefinder, sensors to take into account weather, temperature, and barrel droop and a bunch of little sensors that were tied together by the computer to give the gunner an excellent chance of a first-shot hit. This is a big part of what scuttled export sales.

2) Good point...and I don't have an answer for that one. Someone help me out here!

[Dog 6]

WOW


Good job Paul!

[Raellus]

Thanks, Paul! Outstanding work.

I'd really love to run a little battle sim pitting a handful of M20 Ridgways against a Soviet or PACT armored division c. 2000 (T2K) and see if I could stop them. I know that a lot of folks here don't like the Eastern European Sourcebook but the Czech Mate scenario, replacing the M8 AGSs with M20s would make a good foundation for such a war game.

[Webstral]

Paul,

Great work! Wonderful attention to detail.

Webstral

[Targan]

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

I'm not suggesting that we change what has already been decided among us for the LAV-75A4/M-20 Ridgway (because I think it rocks), but might the Chinese and or US Army have a few ATGM-armed variants floating around I don't know how hard it would be to fit the electronics required (that might stop my idea cold for all I know) but it seems to me to certainly be easier to bolt on a (manually reloaded) ATGM launcher than to replace the entire turret, auto loader and magazine with a 105mm version.

[ChalkLine]

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

I'm not suggesting that we change what has already been decided among us for the LAV-75A4/M-20 Ridgway (because I think it rocks), but might the Chinese and or US Army have a few ATGM-armed variants floating around I don't know how hard it would be to fit the electronics required (that might stop my idea cold for all I know) but it seems to me to certainly be easier to bolt on a (manually reloaded) ATGM launcher than to replace the entire turret, auto loader and magazine with a 105mm version.

It kinda depends if the vehicles are shipped before or after the missile drought starts to take hold. I can see the first series having a Javelin on it, as it's a fire-and-forget missile that fits in well with its mobile role, but after that the launcher may be deleted due to a lack of munitions.

[Targan]

It kinda depends if the vehicles are shipped before or after the missile drought starts to take hold. I can see the first series having a Javelin on it, as it's a fire-and-forget missile that fits in well with its mobile role, but after that the launcher may be deleted due to a lack of munitions.

I totally agree with that. I'm not suggesting that the missile armed variety would have been produced in large numbers. I'm thinking that they would have trialled a few different options including the 105mm armed conversion and an ATGM armed conversion.

It may have even been that early on the ATGM armed variant might have been more appealing (because on the face of it it would be an easier conversion) but the 105mm version ended up being the preferred option because of the missile drought.

There may have even been several different ATGM armed variants, a Javelin-armed one for the US Army and maybe several different options for the PLA (TOW II, Javelin, some European or even Soviet-derived ATGM packages).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I'm personally inclined to think that any ATGM version for the PLA would be wired for Sino/Soviet missiles or older Western systems, for a few reasons (or more simply, fitted with a hardpoint to allow a Chinese launcher to be mounted so that it can be fired by a crew member from the hatch - much in the same manner as the Milan on the Marder).

1. While certainly wanting to help the Chinese reduce Soviet numbers, would the USA really want to give them current (for the timeline) ATGM technology Especially when the Chinese already have their own versions of Soviet ATGMs in service.
2. If using a Western ATGW why not supply an older (obsolete) system, this would provide a way of disposing of older generation missiles that are still "reasonably" capable of tackling Soviet armour without sacrificing newer technology (that the Soviets may capture in the field and reverse engineer, think of Iran's F-4, F-5 and F-14 aircraft after the fall of the shah).
3. The West already has an idea of how Soviet and NATO ATGWs work against the others armoured vehicles because the Arabs and Israelis have provided plenty of examples (and to a much lesser extent, so have other wars in Africa) so they wouldn't need the Chinese operational experience so much.
4. If the Soviets are causing trouble, wouldn't you want to keep all your most capable gear ready for your own use, just in case they start to wander into your neighbourhood

Just some thoughts...

[ChalkLine]

. . . snip good points . . . just some thoughts...

Once again, it sort of comes down to when the LAVs go to China.
I think canonically 'Tank Breakers' go to China in the early phase. Of course nowadays we know that the Chinese are the world's worst technology thieves, and giving them a GPS isn't a good idea. Giving them a Javelin just means your enemies, the PRC aren't shy about selling your technology to your enemies, are going to be zapping you with cut price versions of your own weapons.

During the next phase of the war, when there's a general engagement with the USSR, the seized stocks of weaponry could be mounted on export vehicles.

After that phase, well you won't be giving weapons to anyone. Every vehicle, every captured weapon, all will be needed for your own people.