GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
15 April 2006
Messages
6,766
Reaction score
8,003
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Interesting development/proposal I just came across:

ERvnyQYWkAI2kqT
ERvn2nXXUAYpdI7
 
Probably an unsolicited proposal for the 9th Infantry "High-Technology Test-Bed" Division?
 
I think the 75mm ARES gun had a lot of potential when fitted to an AFV but this proposal is quite a long shot. It may be relatively light but it would still suffer from the same vulnerabilities of towed guns. As indirect fire artillery it isn't very practical and as an anti-tank gun it doesn't provide the same high probability of a kill against heavy armor (T-64s and newer) that a good ATGM or larger guns can.

Part of me wonders if any of this was inspired by some Vietnam-era "nostalgia" of firebase artillery being used for direct fire?
 
Hey, nice find GTX!
An interesting concept indeed.

I like Colonial-Marine thought there was a lot of potential in the 75mm ARES gun.
It would be interesting to assertain the cost of such a mount vs an autonomous/remotely controlled ATGM....the size, weight, cost and concealment (and all but six-rounds) of this mount would be in question IMO.

P.S. do we have a timeframe for this article GTX?

P.P.S. What you say in regards to such a gun being 'of firebase artillery being used for direct fire'
makes a lot of sense Colonial-Marine. This would negate a lot of my issue of all but six-rounds, as in such a position as a firebase, the gun could be more readily reloaded in between actions (or even during).



Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
I'd prefer a towed M68, even in the '80's, tbh.
 
It more than likely was primarily aimed at West Germany and other NATO member countries that were at the time seriously considering 'Shallow Strike' defence schemes and the associated highly automated defences that were generally the lynchpin of such. South Korea was probably another potential customer.
 
Last edited:
P.S. do we have a timeframe for this article GTX?

It was from Jane's Armor and Artillery 1985-1986

Right in the heart of the last gasp for towed antitank guns. Some of the Belgian 90mm guns were marketed in towed versions around this same time, (as was an L7 version, IIRC). And there were constant rumors of a Soviet towed 125mm that eventually surfaced as the 2A45 Sprut.
 
They made a bunch of prototypes with the ARES 75mm, what you've got there is one of the later models of Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank (RDF-LT). AAI offered it to the Marines for what they were calling the Mobile Protected Weapons System, which went nowhere. Various other versions include the High Mobile Agility testbed (HIMAG-B), the High Survivability Test Vehicle Light (HSTV-L), and a rather neat concept called the Elevated Kinetic Energy/RDF-LT Stage 2 that featured an articulated gun mount to fire from behind cover or sharply inclined hull-down positions.

HIMAG-B
1ql2u1ijh4651.jpg

HSTV-L
HSTV(L)_img1.jpg

ELKE
Quizz2.jpg
 
They made a bunch of prototypes with the ARES 75mm, what you've got there is one of the later models of Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank (RDF-LT). AAI offered it to the Marines for what they were calling the Mobile Protected Weapons System, which went nowhere. Various other versions include the High Mobile Agility testbed (HIMAG-B), the High Survivability Test Vehicle Light (HSTV-L), and a rather neat concept called the Elevated Kinetic Energy/RDF-LT Stage 2 that featured an articulated gun mount to fire from behind cover or sharply inclined hull-down positions.

HIMAG-B
View attachment 677930

HSTV-L
View attachment 677932

ELKE
View attachment 677931
Also had the Combined Arms Team / Lightweight Combat Vehicle (CAT/LCV). Which was an SHORAD version with Proxy fuse shells and Stringers.

Also had the Standard AP shells so you can smack tanks around as well.

 

Attachments

  • CAT-LCV.jpg
    CAT-LCV.jpg
    19 KB · Views: 184
  • RapidDeploymentLightTank HSTVl ARES XM274.jpg
    RapidDeploymentLightTank HSTVl ARES XM274.jpg
    82.7 KB · Views: 197
  • n0p2clJ.png
    n0p2clJ.png
    748.9 KB · Views: 204
They made a bunch of prototypes with the ARES 75mm, what you've got there is one of the later models of Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank (RDF-LT). AAI offered it to the Marines for what they were calling the Mobile Protected Weapons System, which went nowhere. Various other versions include the High Mobile Agility testbed (HIMAG-B), the High Survivability Test Vehicle Light (HSTV-L), and a rather neat concept called the Elevated Kinetic Energy/RDF-LT Stage 2 that featured an articulated gun mount to fire from behind cover or sharply inclined hull-down positions.

HIMAG-B
View attachment 677930

HSTV-L
View attachment 677932

ELKE
View attachment 677931
Also had the Combined Arms Team / Lightweight Combat Vehicle (CAT/LCV). Which was an SHORAD version with Proxy fuse shells and Stringers.

Also had the Standard AP shells so you can smack tanks around as well.

Hm...was there ever a conventional HE shell developed for the XM274? I'd imagine in a SHORAD configuration the rate of fire and ammo stowage would be much less than ideal, though if it scores a hit that 75mm prox round is going to do some major damage compared to an M163 or even a Bofors.

But I bet this thing would be an absolute demon modernized into something...like a ungodly combination of an M50 Ontos and a 2S25 Sprut-SD. A light and mobile fire support platform able to rapidly throw HE backing up infantry (like how the Ontos was actually used in Vietnam) while still being able to engage hostile armor with APFSDS...and hell, bolt a couple TOW tubes on it, too.
 
Today with PGM this could be a devastating system.
 
I think the RDF-LT was the closet to a production-ready vehicle, although there seem to have been at least three variants of turret, one unmanned and two manned. The other vehicles which were more for testing purposes like the HSTV-L seem to have had a rather small ammunition load.

Besides the idea of a light tank I personally like the idea of a well-armored fire support vehicle on an MBT hull that would work in conjunction of the MBTs and IFVs of an armored formation. Would be suitable against a lot of different targets.
 
Besides the idea of a light tank I personally like the idea of a well-armored fire support vehicle on an MBT hull that would work in conjunction of the MBTs and IFVs of an armored formation. Would be suitable against a lot of different targets.
Basically the revival of the WWII assault gun. I've been thinking the same thing for a while now, there's definitely an unfilled niche for something with more firepower/armor than an IFV but less expensive and maintenance-heavy than an MBT for the type of low-intensity insurgency that most modern wars have become. The closest thing I can think of is the old Centurion AVRE and its American cousin the M728 with their massive 165mm demolition guns.
 
I faintly recall there was more heat in the 75mm vs 76mm discussion in magazines than the actual demand for these guns. Very high ROF compared to MBT 105's at the time, but punched too low. Too slow ROF compared to SPAAG developments. They already had highly mobile recoilless 76' and 105 vehicle options for the identified support niches. And the different chassis pushed for it were better suited to carry grenade launchers.
 
I faintly recall there was more heat in the 75mm vs 76mm discussion in magazines than the actual demand for these guns. Very high ROF compared to MBT 105's at the time, but punched too low. Too slow ROF compared to SPAAG developments. They already had highly mobile recoilless 76' and 105 vehicle options for the identified support niches. And the different chassis pushed for it were better suited to carry grenade launchers.
That's an entirely seansible position to take during the '80s for sure but I think these days there might be more utility for such a vehicle. An air-bursting 75mm HE shell could rapidly suppress an ATGM team that gets spotted for example or take out a medium sized drone that might be hunting for artillery targets. If necessary it could carry some ATGMs for use against heavy armor or ones with thermobaric or blast-fragmentation warheads for dealing with bunkers or structures.

I think the big question would be from an organizational perspective of how to deploy such a vehicle among the other AFVs of a formation.
 
I faintly recall there was more heat in the 75mm vs 76mm discussion in magazines than the actual demand for these guns. Very high ROF compared to MBT 105's at the time, but punched too low. Too slow ROF compared to SPAAG developments. They already had highly mobile recoilless 76' and 105 vehicle options for the identified support niches. And the different chassis pushed for it were better suited to carry grenade launchers.
The ARES gun had antitank performance close to that of the contemporary 105mm with APFSDS (see the doc Bruno Anthony posted). The problem was that the 105mm was already seen as running out of steam vs. future threats (ARES was tested circa 1975; Leopard II entered service with 120mm gun in 1979).

The Armored Combat Vehicle Technology (ACVT) program that produced the HIMAG, the HSTV-L, and ELKE went on to do a series of paper design exercises that included both the 75mm ARES and a larger 90mm version, on various weight chassis, but US programs finally settled on using a modern, lightweight 105mm for light vehicles instead of the actual 75mm ARES or the projected 90mm ARES.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom