LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[Raellus]

What are your opinions of these vehicles. I'm fond of the v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide since I originally got it when I was 11. Until recently, I thought that the LAV-75 was a purely made-up vehicle, existing IRL only on the drawing board. It turns out, a couple of prototypes were actually built. The army found the 75mm HV gun to be grossly underpowered- it had trouble killing even T-55 era tanks and its HE ammo wasn't very effective against bunkers- and the program went nowhere.

So, why would the U.S. army of T2K adopt such an inneffective vehicle Expediency alone seems like a poor explanation, especially given the other options for a tracked, relatively lightweight tank/armored gun system for airborne/motorized divisions.(see below).

The Stingray makes more sense. IIRC, it actually entered production and was sold, in limited numbers, to Pakistan IRL (or at least they seriously considered buying it). With conventional armor, it wouldn't be too hard for U.S. car manufacturers (such as they were until quite recently) to transition from making cars and trucks to building Stingrays. It makes sense that the Stingray was kept (or put back) in production in '95 or '96 as a cornerstone of military aid to China. It also makes sense that production would continue when the U.S. actively entered the war and that allotmonts for export would subsequently find their way into American units.

The M8 makes more sense than the LAV-75 since the former was most seriously considered as a viable option to replace the M551 Sheridan than the other two options discussed above. On the other hand, I'm reluctant to accept the M8 since it's not mentioned at all in the v1.0 U.S. Vehicle Guide and therefore, in my mind, as part of the v1.0 timeline. The M8 is featured in the v2.0 and v2.2 materials, though.

And then, in our timeline, there's the 105mm AGS based on the Stryker IFV (itself based on the LAV-25 which is part of the T2K v1.0 timeline).

So, what do you think about these vehicles Which do you feature/accept in your T2K universe and/or campaign

[Targan]

I see no problem with the LAV-75 in T2K actually being the M8 AGS. In the same way that I treat the Tank Breaker in T2K as being the Javelin. Well okay, not exactly the same. But why not just replace whereever it says "LAV-75" with "M8" I don't think it would be entirely unreasonable.

[kato13]

I had about 50 production LAV-75 versions being made (about the same number as the Sgt York). And they were fielded only in a single light tank company attached to the 101st Air Assault Division, since their weight is just near the load limit of a couple variants of the CH-47. The remaining few could almost be anywhere.

I have M8s in all my other Active US light units.

[chico20854]

The DC Group isn't taking a position on what the Armored Gun System (program name for the Lt. Lank/Infantry Support Tank fielded in light divisions) in service is. I'll leave it up to the GM. I'm personally partial to the LAV-75, although mostly through nostalgia for the v1 "old school".

One factor against the M8 is that it uses the Bradley drivetrain and comes off the Bradley production line. When it gets to industrial mobilization time, a M8 is equal to one less Bradley, whereas a LAV-75 or Stingray doesn't require such a tradeoff. Eventually this concern goes away if you convert the LAV-75 production line (in Muskegon, Michigan) or Stingray line over to M8 production. It's possible both would be produced and issued - the B-17 and B-24, the P-51, P-47 and P-63, the C-46 and C-47 all being WWII analogies on the aircraft side...

[Mohoender]

As chico has been talking about it, what about the stingray I tend to use it as it saw limited but regular production for the Thai army (sole user to this days as far as i know). About the LAV, I have a tendency to use it with a TS-90 gun under a F-4 turret.

[Webstral]

As chico has been talking about it, what about the stingray I tend to use it as it saw limited but regular production for the Thai army (sole user to this days as far as i know). About the LAV, I have a tendency to use it with a TS-90 gun under a F-4 turret.

I had had a very similar thought about upgrading the LAV-75's gun to a 90mm low-pressure gun. There is plenty of precedent among light AFV all around the world. We might justify having the upgrade made by imagining that the LAV-75 is among the first US AFV sent to China in 1995. Naturally, the Army pays close attention to battlefield performance. When the unsatisfactory kill power of the 75mm is revealed, the Army embarks on a crash program to upgrade the LAV's gun (and turret) using off-the-shelf components. High priority Regular Army units might well receive their upgraded LAVs by October 1996 if enough priority is placed on the work. Of course, the LAV-75 moniker isn't going to be very applicable at that point. LAV-90 Some other name

Good thinking, Mo!

Webstral

[Raellus]

I'm all for any explanation that allows for the LAV-75 in the Twilight World but I'm not sure the 90mm LVG is going to be a whole lot more effective against either tanks (especially tanks) or hardened bunkers than the 75mm HVG.

The U.S. army fielded the M56, a 90mm gun armed SPATG during the '50s and '60s. The 90mm gun's performance against MBTs (I don't think they ever engaged enemy tanks in actual combat) proved disappointing and they were retired shortly after Vietnam.

The LAV-75 is built on a relatively small, light chasis but I wonder if it could handle a 105mm gun. That's about the minimum acceptable calibre nowadays for MBTs precicely because anything lighter will have trouble handling most MBTs built after the '60s. Due to the improved protection of current generation MBTs, the trend over the past 30 years has been for larger caliber guns. Supposedly, the Russian's new T-95/Black Talon MBT is equipped with either a 135 or 150mm main gun. After 1980, I can't see the army settling for anything under 105mm on weapon system designed to engage enemy MBTs.

[Adm.Lee]

I remember reading that the HV gun on the Scorpion was reasonably (marginally) effective against some Soviet armor. Could have been propaganda, I don't think I've checked it out.

I always thought the LAV-75 was mythical, too, until I read about the M8... first when it was cancelled, and again when the Rangers in Mogadishu really, really wanted some! I assumed that was the LAV-75.

Today, I learned that they weren't one & the same. Huh.

While I'm on the subject, I heard from an active-duty friend about the trials that were done prior to the adoption of the LAV-25 --> Stryker. He told me that a dozen or so designs were tested, and the test teams (1 team, 2 samples for each design) were headed by NCOs, not officers. That impressed him! Of those tests, one of the primary benefits of the Stryker over the Bradley was that the passengers weren't bruised and fatigued after a long march.

Back to the game: my first campaign in v.1 Poland, I let the PCs find and fix a LAV-75, but without the gun. They had more than enough fun with the MGs, anyway. I think I refused to let them swap an 82mm mortar for the 75mm gun.

[Mohoender]

LAV fitted with TS-90 under F-4 turrets is not only due to my thinking but it bears more to real life. I don't think that the LAV-75 ever came to existence. However, the piranha/LAV TDG (production in 1990) is a reality as is the LAV-120 AMS and the Canadian Cougar. Then, it seems than the most recent Piranha IV can be fitted with a 105mm tank turret verry similar to that of the AMX-10RC.

About efficiency, the TS-90 gun has proved very efficient on low intensity conflict (Africa and South America). It equips the mexican Lynx and the french Panhard ERC-90 as well as several other vehicle. Unlike the cockrill 90mm gun you are reffering to, it can take out about everything but the most modern tanks and it would be a threat to many cold war tanks (T-55, T-62, M48, Type 59, AMX-30...).

[Raellus]

Considering the nomenclature of the LAV-75, the Army's system for naming new gear doesn't always make sense. Maybe they just kept the original designation (based on the original 75mm gun system), after up-gunning them all, in order to avoid confusion.

I remember reading that the HV gun on the Scorpion was reasonably (marginally) effective against some Soviet armor. Could have been propaganda, I don't think I've checked it out.

Considering when the M56 was designed/fielded, that was probably against PT-76s and T-55/55s- T-62s at best. I don't know for sure but I'm guessing it wasn't that great against the T-62, else they would have used them longer. I should do a little more research, I guess.

Back to the game: my first campaign in v.1 Poland, I let the PCs find and fix a LAV-75, but without the gun. They had more than enough fun with the MGs, anyway. I think I refused to let them swap an 82mm mortar for the 75mm gun.

So you're one of those mean GMs, huh

[Targan]

I always thought the LAV-75 was mythical, too, until I read about the M8... first when it was cancelled, and again when the Rangers in Mogadishu really, really wanted some! I assumed that was the LAV-75.

Today, I learned that they weren't one & the same. Huh.

I was under the impression that the LAV-75 was based on the TAM.

While I'm on the subject, I heard from an active-duty friend about the trials that were done prior to the adoption of the LAV-25 --> Stryker. He told me that a dozen or so designs were tested, and the test teams (1 team, 2 samples for each design) were headed by NCOs, not officers. That impressed him! Of those tests, one of the primary benefits of the Stryker over the Bradley was that the passengers weren't bruised and fatigued after a long march.

Isn't the Stryker a lineal descendant of the LAV-25 followed by Australia's ASLAV

[Raellus]

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!

[Mohoender]

Actually, you are right. It was real but never reached the production line. It was undergoing testing in the mid-1980's. My confusion on that one came from the fact that I know it from the prototypes name: High Survivability Test Vehicle (Lightweight) HSTV(L).

Here are its specifications:
Crew: 3
Weight: 20450kg
Length gun forward: 8.528m
Length hull: 5.918m
Width:2.794m
Height: 2.414m
Max road speed: 83km/h
Accelaration 0-48 km/h: 11.8 sec.
Fuel capacity: 409 liters.
Max cruising range: 160km
Fording: 1m
Gradient: 60%
Side slope: 30%
Turning radius: pivot to infinity.
It was equipped with a 75mm ARES gun and 2 SMG (coaxial and AA)
Ammo was 26 and 3200 for the SMGs.

The lighter version was called Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank (RDF/LT). this lighter version could also mount a 76mm gun under a two men turret.

An interesting thing with 75mm ARES is that it was also intended as a replacement for the turret on the M551 sheridan.

I got the Jane's on armour and artillery 1984-1985 (found it in Brussel for about 25$). If you ever visit Brussel, go and check the second hand bookshops located in the islamist area next to the south railway station.

It seems that these programs were terminated because of the ARES gun fragility. After all, the Sgt York couldn't fire an accurate shot at a static balloon. LAV-AD, M6 Linebreaker... are much more impressive (IMO).

[Cdnwolf]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1128_Mobile_Gun_System

Something like that

[Raellus]

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.

I've made my decision.

If they can fit a 105mm gun to the LAV-25/Stryker chasis (thanks for the pic, Cdnwolf), I'm reasonably sure that they can fit the same type of gun/turret to the M113 chasis.

So, in my T2K world, the LAV-75 has a 105mm gun. It looks just like the LAV-75 in the v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide except for the turret. The Army keeps the 75 designation due to inane bureucratic considerations.

That means no gumming up Bradley production by also trying to manufacture significant numbers of the M8 AGS and it maintains my prefered v1.0 timeline.

The Stingray is still around as per the USAVG. No M8 AGS in my T2K U.