MIAG (Mechanized Infantry Assault Gun) - MICV-70 derived assault gun proposal

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,858
Reaction score
6,465
Grey Havoc said:
Charles Gray said:
In the 1970's, I saw concepts for a MIAG (Mechanized infantry Assault Gun, AFAIK), that had a six man dismount team, with a vehicle that was armored to tank standards and had an external 105mm cannon. I wsa never able to find much more information on it then the picture and sadly lost that some years ago (so if anyone can help me there...), but the designed seemed very effective although It came out during the hysteria about the Russian introduction of Reactive armor where people were talking about the unstoppable red horde tanks laughing off TOWS on their march to France, so I'm not certain if there was any real work done on it or if it was a artist concept only.

Came across a ARMOR (Jan-Feb 1972) article on the MIAG yesterday. Pages 34 - 41 (PDF pages 36 - 43). Unfortunately Charles Gray hasn't been online since August 2011.

An excerpt:
The main armament of the MIAG is a 152mm
gun, identical to that carried by the XM803 (less
missile particular components). This gun was chosen
because of its extremely powerful round (both
authors have observed the devastating effect of the
HEAT-MP-T round on bunkers during operations
on the DMZ) and relatively short tube length, which
is a necessary concession to maneuverability in a
turretless vehicle. The missile system has been
dropped because it would add weight, take up valu-
able space, lower maintainability, and reduce the
number of rounds which could be carried in the
basic load. The number of basic load main gun
rounds becomes critical when viewed vis-a-vis the
weapon's offensive employment. The missile system
is primarily an antitank weapon, and the TOW
platoon already possesses that capability, rendering
the addition of the Shillelagh an expensive duplication
of effort.
The tube would elevate from +30 to -10 degrees,
but would, like all turretless vehicles, possess limited
traverse (& 10 degrees), bolder changes in azimuth
being accomplished by pivoting the vehicle. The
semifixed gun mount and hydraulic suspension of the
STRV103 have not been adopted. These characteristics
are useful for a weapon with an automatic
loader, but otherwise add weight, complexity, increase
maintainability headaches, and eliminate most
points of commonality with the MICV. We feel no
need to decrease the crew by adding an automatic
loader, in fact, a fifth crew member has been added.
Ammunition is the same as that proposed for the
XM803, HEAT-MP-T, WP, HVAP-DS-T, and cannister.
A time fuzed beehive round on the order of
that issued in Vietnam for the 90mm gun tanks
would be desirable but not essential.
The fire control system uses a laser rangefinder
combined with the same digital computer used in the
M60A1E2. A secondary system uses an articulated
telescope with stadia reticle. There is no stabilization,
as this vehicle would not wisely be fired on the
move. A combination 360 degree periscope and 10-
power binocular periscope (similar to a BC scope)
are provided to the commander for target acquisition.
A low light level sight is also installed.
The secondary armament system consists of two
M60 machine guns. One is placed at the commander’s
station and the other opposite him and slightly to
his rear at a position manned by a machine gunner,
whose sole task is to protect the vehicle from enemy
infantry. Both are provided with optical and
mechanical linkages which allow them to be aimed
and fired from inside the cupolas. No coaxial weapon
has been provided due to the slow and limited
traverse of the main gun.
In deciding on the necessary armor protection, it
was assumed that the vehicle, to have an acceptable
degree of survivability, must be protected in front
from automatic weapons fire up to 23mm. This
decision was based on the high density in Soviet
formations of weapons of this caliber. These, though
intended primarily for antiaircraft protection, would
inevitably be incorporated in the defense in an
armor-defeating role.

Note: Given the date and lack of dismounts among other things, I suspect that this was the early incarnation of the MIAG proposal.


EDIT: Ack, blundered on the title! I put down MIVC-70 instead of MICV-70 and only noticed it now!
 
Last edited:

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,927
Reaction score
2,467
Interesting concept. Sounds like very reminiscent of the Strv 103 except lower tech (no autoloader, no kneeling suspension). The extra crew seems very much driven by Vietnam experience.

One typo I see in your scan: "The secondary armament system consists of two A460 machine guns " should read "The secondary armament system consists of two M60 machine guns."
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,444
Reaction score
1,279
Given the return of WWI fortifications this concept should be reconsidered. A 152mm gun is bit much. Manning is an issue maybe optionally manned. The all purpose 75mm ARES is a better gun the than currently proposed TARDEC UGV w/ a Med autocannon. Dont know maybe one doesnt want mixed recon UGV and Assault gun.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,927
Reaction score
2,467
No need for assault guns to reduce hardpoints now that there are missiles like TOW 2 Bunker Defeat available.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,444
Reaction score
1,279
TomS said:
No need for assault guns to reduce hardpoints now that there are missiles like TOW 2 Bunker Defeat available.
Understand expensive, and limited missile Bunker defeat however, linear fortifications are back in big way. Stretching some distance these contemporary forts require alot of cheap rds easy stored in a vehicle to surpress, destroy, deliver smoke especially when large forts afford themselves distant mutually supporting fires.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,927
Reaction score
2,467
Where are these linear fortifications back in fashion? Certainly not anywhere the US has been fighting.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,444
Reaction score
1,279
TomS said:
Where are these linear fortifications back in fashion? Certainly not anywhere the US has been fighting.
Sorry going be severe here. Have you been paying attention. The primary ISIS targets destroyed were excavating vehicles. Not only were the towns filled w/ tunnels for urban snipers (also requiring a gun to counter snipers at range in fortifications) but the towns were surrounded in trenches some covered ie linear fortifications. Likewise the Ukraine front is trenches some covered ie linear fortifications. Both fronts have been described as WWI throwbacks to trench warfare.. and god forbid. DPRK is nothing but platoon and company sized fortifications through the entire southern part of the country often connected by trenches. This is after you get past the country wide tunnel and fortified artillery belt. .
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,444
Reaction score
1,279
Grey Havoc said:
Grey Havoc said:
Charles Gray said:
In the 1970's, I saw concepts for a MIAG (Mechanized infantry Assault Gun, AFAIK), that had a six man dismount team, with a vehicle that was armored to tank standards and had an external 105mm cannon. I wsa never able to find much more information on it then the picture and sadly lost that some years ago (so if anyone can help me there...), but the designed seemed very effective although It came out during the hysteria about the Russian introduction of Reactive armor where people were talking about the unstoppable red horde tanks laughing off TOWS on their march to France, so I'm not certain if there was any real work done on it or if it was a artist concept only.

Came across a ARMOR (Jan-Feb 1972) article on the MIAG yesterday. Pages 34 - 41 (PDF pages 36 - 43). Unfortunately Charles Gray hasn't been online since August 2011.

An excerpt:
The main armament of the MIAG is a 152mm
gun, identical to that carried by the XM803 (less
missile particular components). This gun was chosen
because of its extremely powerful round (both
authors have observed the devastating effect of the
HEAT-MP-T round on bunkers during operations
on the DMZ) and relatively short tube length, which
is a necessary concession to maneuverability in a
turretless vehicle. The missile system has been
dropped because it would add weight, take up valu-
able space, lower maintainability, and reduce the
number of rounds which could be carried in the
basic load. The number of basic load main gun
rounds becomes critical when viewed vis-a-vis the
weapon's offensive employment. The missile system
is primarily an antitank weapon, and the TOW
platoon already possesses that capability, rendering
the addition of the Shillelagh an expensive duplication
of effort.
The tube would elevate from +30 to -10 degrees,
but would, like all turretless vehicles, possess limited
traverse (& 10 degrees), bolder changes in azimuth
being accomplished by pivoting the vehicle. The
semifixed gun mount and hydraulic suspension of the
STRV103 have not been adopted. These characteristics
are useful for a weapon with an automatic
loader, but otherwise add weight, complexity, increase
maintainability headaches, and eliminate most
points of commonality with the MICV. We feel no
need to decrease the crew by adding an automatic
loader, in fact, a fifth crew member has been added.
Ammunition is the same as that proposed for the
XM803, HEAT-MP-T, WP, HVAP-DS-T, and cannister.
A time fuzed beehive round on the order of
that issued in Vietnam for the 90mm gun tanks
would be desirable but not essential.
The fire control system uses a laser rangefinder
combined with the same digital computer used in the
M60A1E2. A secondary system uses an articulated
telescope with stadia reticle. There is no stabilization,
as this vehicle would not wisely be fired on the
move. A combination 360 degree periscope and 10-
power binocular periscope (similar to a BC scope)
are provided to the commander for target acquisition.
A low light level sight is also installed.
The secondary armament system consists of two
M60 machine guns. One is placed at the commander’s
station and the other opposite him and slightly to
his rear at a position manned by a machine gunner,
whose sole task is to protect the vehicle from enemy
infantry. Both are provided with optical and
mechanical linkages which allow them to be aimed
and fired from inside the cupolas. No coaxial weapon
has been provided due to the slow and limited
traverse of the main gun.
In deciding on the necessary armor protection, it
was assumed that the vehicle, to have an acceptable
degree of survivability, must be protected in front
from automatic weapons fire up to 23mm. This
decision was based on the high density in Soviet
formations of weapons of this caliber. These, though
intended primarily for antiaircraft protection, would
inevitably be incorporated in the defense in an
armor-defeating role.

Note: Given the date and lack of dismounts among other things, I suspect that this was the early incarnation of the MIAG proposal.
A 152mm might be still be considered a tank main gun mixed artillery/tank capability combined w/ a new missile as large as Shillieagh was could be used to out range any adversary tank and suppress any swarm UAS launch nest which likely will be the greatest threat. guess we're at the 70s-80s-90s called and want the vehicles back.. MIAG, Crusader, and MBT-70.
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
2,064
Reaction score
602
Just noticed the co-incidence . . . This 'MIAG' vehicle is effectively a 'Son of Stug' and some of the original Stugs were built by . . . MIAG! ;D


cheers,
Robin.
 

skylancer-3441

I really would not change much my personal text
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
86
Reaction score
206
I guess, it goes there
The Army has also done some thinking about the old problem of having to siphon off tanks to support infantry assaults, a process which dilutes the concentrated offensive power of an armored force. One alternative might be what the Army calls the combined arms system-armor (CAS-A), a heavy infantry carrier with its own major-caliber gun for direct fire support. Some concepts considered so far resemble the self-propelled assault guns familiar in the Soviet and German armored forces, except that an armored fighting box for a 6- to 8-man infantry unit would be built in. One type of vehicle studied would use an M551 Sheridan gun-launcher turret, while another would have a front, ball-mounted 105-mm. gun with a limited traverse of 25 degrees. A third layout would have a turret-mounted 76-mm. liquid propellant gun. Liquid propellants, which have been examined in other contexts as well, have the advantage of better crew protection since the supply could be carried in an outside armored compartment, eliminating the dangers of internally-stowed ammunition.
 

Attachments

  • Army 1972-10 p.132_cr1.jpg
    Army 1972-10 p.132_cr1.jpg
    338.9 KB · Views: 608

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,444
Reaction score
1,279
skylancer-3441 said:
I guess, it goes there
The Army has also done some thinking about the old problem of having to siphon off tanks to support infantry assaults, a process which dilutes the concentrated offensive power of an armored force. One alternative might be what the Army calls the combined arms system-armor (CAS-A), a heavy infantry carrier with its own major-caliber gun for direct fire support. Some concepts considered so far resemble the self-propelled assault guns familiar in the Soviet and German armored forces, except that an armored fighting box for a 6- to 8-man infantry unit would be built in. One type of vehicle studied would use an M551 Sheridan gun-launcher turret, while another would have a front, ball-mounted 105-mm. gun with a limited traverse of 25 degrees. A third layout would have a turret-mounted 76-mm. liquid propellant gun. Liquid propellants, which have been examined in other contexts as well, have the advantage of better crew protection since the supply could be carried in an outside armored compartment, eliminating the dangers of internally-stowed ammunition.
Wow what a find. Thank you for posting Skylancer.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,131
Reaction score
674
skylancer-3441 said:
I guess, it goes there
The Army has also done some thinking about the old problem of having to siphon off tanks to support infantry assaults, a process which dilutes the concentrated offensive power of an armored force. One alternative might be what the Army calls the combined arms system-armor (CAS-A), a heavy infantry carrier with its own major-caliber gun for direct fire support. Some concepts considered so far resemble the self-propelled assault guns familiar in the Soviet and German armored forces, except that an armored fighting box for a 6- to 8-man infantry unit would be built in. One type of vehicle studied would use an M551 Sheridan gun-launcher turret, while another would have a front, ball-mounted 105-mm. gun with a limited traverse of 25 degrees. A third layout would have a turret-mounted 76-mm. liquid propellant gun. Liquid propellants, which have been examined in other contexts as well, have the advantage of better crew protection since the supply could be carried in an outside armored compartment, eliminating the dangers of internally-stowed ammunition.


Oh wow, nice find skylancer :eek: :p

Will be interesting what the forum members can find on this design!!


Regards
Pioneer
 

skylancer-3441

I really would not change much my personal text
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
86
Reaction score
206
Same pic from the same issue of Army magazine, but this one was scanned in another library and luckily it does not have those white cross-shaped glitches of scanning process or whatever they are
(It took 3 weeks for GoogleBooks - to fulfill my request on making that volume of Army magazine available in "full view" mode instead of "snippet view mode" set by default, along with some other volumes, which they did only because Army magazine is in Public Domain, and than it took 9 more days until several minutes ago I accidently remembered, why I asked them about that volume in the first place)
 

Attachments

  • Army 1972-10 p.132a_cr1.jpg
    Army 1972-10 p.132a_cr1.jpg
    234.4 KB · Views: 372

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,131
Reaction score
674
Thank you skylancer-3441!!


Regards
Pioneer
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,735
Reaction score
2,706
Mentioned above and often featured in the old "Armies and Weapons" mag I always wondered what this was for...
 

Attachments

  • M113_FSCV.jpg
    M113_FSCV.jpg
    23.1 KB · Views: 98

Similar threads

Top