Unrealized versions of LAV

[Triton]

USMC LAV-H High Capacity datasheet found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/LAV-H-HIGH-CAPACITY-FOR-THE-USMC-DATA-SHEET-/160549782365?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item256183435d

 

[eshelon]

1. LAV-75? (with ARES 75mm cannon)
2. LAV-HVM - possible HyperVelocity Missiles platform; source: "An Exploration of Integrated Ground Weapons Concepts for Armor/Anti-Armor Missions" RAND, 1991
3. LAV-LOSAT; no drawing, mentioned here
4. "Sports LAV" - low profile platform with gun (early MMEV concept)
5. LAV with AMRAAM missile (LAVRAAM); Chapfire only with AMRAAMs?
6. ?

 

[CostasTT]

Although the picture is small, the LAVRAAM appears to utilize the launcher assembly from the HUMRAAM.
The LAV/Chapfire was this:

 

[HappyCamper781]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1128_Mobile_Gun_System existed tho.

 

[Apophenia]

Not that eshelon implied it was ... but that 'Sport LAV" concept did not originate with GM Defence. It was a hypothetical future vehicle dreamed up at DND at a very early stage in Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle musings.

 

[CaID]

1. LAV-75? (with ARES 75mm cannon)

While the LAV is a Canadian/American license built Piranha, is this specific one really american?
the American is usually wrote "US Army" on the side of their tanks, including their prototype. and the Prototype usually have a designation name also written near it (like XM-123)


on this vehicles it's wrote "Mowag Piranha (and a roman number that i can't read)" which is what Mowag usually write on their prototype and promotional vehicles intended for export. which led me to believe it's a variants offered by Mowag with the license form USA, and not an American LAV

 

[TomS]

1. LAV-75? (with ARES 75mm cannon)

While the LAV is a Canadian/American license built Piranha, is this specific one really american?
the American is usually wrote "US Army" on the side of their tanks, including their prototype. and the Prototype usually have a designation name also written near it (like XM-123)
View attachment 686425

on this vehicles it's wrote "Mowag Piranha (and a roman number that i can't read)" which is what Mowag usually write on their prototype and promotional vehicles intended for export. which led me to believe it's a variants offered by Mowag with the license form USA, and not an American LAV

Pretty sure it was a private initiative in anticipation of a US requirement that never materialized. I'm not sure there was a realistic export potential for the ARES 75 without a US launch order first.

 

[Kat Tsun]

It was tested by the Marines as the Mobile Protected Weapon System at least, but they never bought it obviously.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EADDiJjX4AA2ADb?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

This appears to be a MOWAG commission more than anything.

 

[Hydroxideblue]

Was built by General Motors of Canada for the MPWS program, and trialed at Land Engineering Test Establishment in 1981. Gun is a mock of the XM274. Promotional photos from ARES show that a LAV was later constructed with a functioning XM274, but I don't have much on it besides this.

Thanks,

Hydro

 

[Pigglet]

Is ARES gun AAI Corporation development or is just by coincidence involved in both projects MPWS and M551?

 

[jsport]

LAV-6 (?) with 50mm cannon conduct live fire exercise during the Project Convergence 21 exercise.

www.snafu-solomon.com

 

[MadRat]

Brings back memories of Av Week & ST magazine in the 80s.

 

[murazor666]

1. LAV-75? (with ARES 75mm cannon)
2. LAV-HVM - possible HyperVelocity Missiles platform; source: "An Exploration of Integrated Ground Weapons Concepts for Armor/Anti-Armor Missions" RAND, 1991
3. LAV-LOSAT; no drawing, mentioned here
4. "Sports LAV" - low profile platform with gun (early MMEV concept)
5. LAV with AMRAAM missile (LAVRAAM); Chapfire only with AMRAAMs?
6. ?

Where is number 4 from?

 

[Apophenia]

Where is number 4 from?

As noted in reply #5, the 'Sports LAV' originated within Canada's Department of National Defence as a hypothetical future LAV leading towards the slightly later Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle programme.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Really too bad that the 75mm ARES gun didn't work out... That would have been nuts as a Mobile Protected Firepower system, but the Soviet tanks that might be responding to wherever this showed up would be pretty much resistant to 75mm fire. Even L100 smoothbore 75mm.

 

[Kat Tsun]

They were resistant to 105mm, yet that didn't stop anyone from using it in M8. 75mm was DOA because it had a small explosive payload.

 

[Scott Kenny]

They were resistant to 105mm, yet that didn't stop anyone from using it in M8. 75mm was DOA because it had a small explosive payload.

Because the M8 and M10 are not tanks. They're assault guns that can throw sabot and HEAT. Plus canister, HESH, smoke, and more.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Because the M8 and M10 are not tanks. They're assault guns that can throw sabot and HEAT. Plus canister, HESH, smoke, and more.

They are tanks though.

Just because the U.S. Army calls them some dumb name doesn't change the fact that the ur-tank is "a machine gun protected vehicle carrying a field gun to crack pillboxes open to support an infantry unit in the assault" or something similar. Killing other tanks, and resisting anti-tank gunfire, is a WW2 thing not a tank thing.

3" guns are just weedy at throwing good HE payloads. 90mm has a decent HEAT shell.

Maybe the 75mm ARES was just a poorly designed shell though. The British didn't seem to have much complaint about the L23A1.

 

[Scott Kenny]

They are tanks though.

Just because the U.S. Army calls them some dumb name doesn't change the fact that the ur-tank is "a machine gun protected vehicle carrying a field gun to crack pillboxes open to support an infantry unit in the assault" or something similar. Killing other tanks, and resisting anti-tank gunfire, is a WW2 thing not a tank thing.

That's like saying a Bradley is a tank.

3" guns are just weedy at throwing good HE payloads. 90mm has a decent HEAT shell.

Maybe the 75mm ARES was just a poorly designed shell though. The British didn't seem to have much complaint about the L23A1.

3" was the minimum effective HE shell in WW2. As fast as the ARES shells were going, they probably had pretty thick walls. Like the 76mm or 17pdr versus 75mm issue in WW2, the 76mm and 17pdr had much thicker walls that gave them an ineffective HE shell.

 

[MadRat]

Wasn't there a LAV version with a four SAM Rapier turret at some point. Seems like there was.

 

[asVAL]

That's like saying a Bradley is a tank.

Technically it can be one though. It's kinda like the WW1 hybrid tank/troop carrier. I guess it boils down to doctrinal employment, but the Booker is a tank in both cases.
It's a tracked, turreted, gun-armed, armoured vehicle. It would support leg infantry via the delivery of direct-fire HE, mow down fortifications, commit a breakthrough, so on and forth. It's what the Sherman was doing back in WW2 tbh. Assault guns are more related to usage rather than design, but the early assault guns had very much in common with tanks of their eras.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I guess it boils down to doctrinal employment, but the Booker is a tank in both cases.
It's a tracked, turreted, gun-armed, armoured vehicle. It would support leg infantry via the delivery of direct-fire HE, mow down fortifications, commit a breakthrough, so on and forth. It's what the Sherman was doing back in WW2 tbh. Assault guns are more related to usage rather than design, but the early assault guns had very much in common with tanks of their eras.

The difference is that the Abrams is intended to fight other tanks as job 1 with all that other stuff lower priorities, while the Booker is doing all that other stuff first and fighting other tanks last.

Bookers are going to be assigned to leg infantry (and maybe Stryker units), who have enough Javelins that they have no trouble killing tanks. But it's a gross waste of a Javelin blowing up bunkers.

 

[asVAL]

The difference is that the Abrams is intended to fight other tanks as job 1 with all that other stuff lower priorities, while the Booker is doing all that other stuff first and fighting other tanks last.

It's still a tank, no?
Fighting enemy infantry, demolishing structures, protecting advancing troops, and committing an assault into a position are the most important roles or tanks. Killing other tanks isn't. I'd rather have a 90-ton MBT passively protected from 125mm AT guns across all arc armed with an autoloading low-recoil 105mm howitzer than a 50-ton MBT that can kill the heaviest tanks but cant tank crap and is useless to infantry.

The role of the assault gun itself is directly derived from the MBT's. It's just that modern SP guns can't do the other important things like covering troops from HMG fires, because they are designed to be escorted by friendlies to a position where they could have a good vantage point and deliver HE. The Booker is an exception because it has a tank level FCS ( implying its target set would be somewhat similar to the Abrams), it is extremely well armoured, relatively speaking ( 30mm APDS and mine protection) and well armed with a 105mm HV gun. IMHO it's closer to what an MBT is than an Abrams, because the Abrams was designed for killing Soviet tanks frontal and up close, not for the traditional roles of an MBT. It would be interesting what would the Abrams have turned into had the requirements been drawn from Vietnam experience, like the hypotheticality of a timeline where the A-X was designed to counter Soviet hordes not CAS/COIN in Vietnam.

 

[Kat Tsun]

That's like saying a Bradley is a tank.

There is an actual Tank Museum comic about this.

3" was the minimum effective HE shell in WW2. As fast as the ARES shells were going, they probably had pretty thick walls. Like the 76mm or 17pdr versus 75mm issue in WW2, the 76mm and 17pdr had much thicker walls that gave them an ineffective HE shell.

Ah yeah that's true. L23A1 is very low velocity/low pressure.

Makes you wonder if you could do an ARES-type telescoping gun with 2A70 pressures or abouts. Have it fire a 3" Shillelagh or something.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It's still a tank, no?

Not according to the US Army.

Fighting enemy infantry, demolishing structures, protecting advancing troops, and committing an assault into a position are the most important roles or tanks. Killing other tanks isn't. I'd rather have a 90-ton MBT passively protected from 125mm AT guns across all arc armed with an autoloading low-recoil 105mm howitzer than a 50-ton MBT that can kill the heaviest tanks but cant tank crap and is useless to infantry.

Except that the Booker is more useful to the infantry than the Abrams is. 105mm HEAT is better than 120mm HEAT, because the 120mm HEAT round is only 80mm in diameter! It also has canister, HEP/HESH, smoke, illum, and Sabot rounds. And a couple of GL-ATGMs, if you can convince the US Army to buy them (Israeli, French, and Ukrainian production).

The role of the assault gun itself is directly derived from the MBT's.

No, an assault gun is a self propelled infantry gun. It's direct fire artillery under the command of the infantry battalion/regimental CO, not something that you need to request from the artillery FDC.

It would be interesting what would the Abrams have turned into had the requirements been drawn from Vietnam experience, like the hypotheticality of a timeline where the A-X was designed to counter Soviet hordes not CAS/COIN in Vietnam.

There was almost no tank-on-tank action in Vietnam while the Americans were there. Such a tank probably would have gotten the L7 105mm (or a fixed 152mm gun/launcher, if they could have kept the launcher electronics working under gun recoil), more all around armor and less on the front, wider tracks and lots of torque at the low end to power through brush... Basically MBT70 with a conventional crew seating setup.

As to the AX, it would have had lots more avionics added for all weather capabilities, more or less the full set from the A-6E TRAM. Radar bombing, terrain following radar, FLIR, laser designator built in. Able to fly in European winters (full de-icing capabilites) with zero visibility and still put warheads on foreheads. Maybe even HARM missile capabilities to stomp on whatever SPAA was rolling around, but definitely carrying SideARMs. And we would have seen lots of pictures with A-10s flying with racks of 4x Hellfires on each pylon, instead of Mavericks. Inspired by the AH56's 3x triple TOW racks, the Hellfires might be even carried in tandem (8x per pylon), or a triple rack with 4x Hellfires on each mount for 12x per pylon (maybe 8x if side spacing is tight, 2x 4x 2x).

 

[asVAL]

Not according to the US Army.

The US Army does not have the right to dictate what constitutes a tank. They can call it an MPF or whatver just like the USN calling a cruiser a LSC.

Except that the Booker is more useful to the infantry than the Abrams is

First, nobody is arguing that the Booker should be an Abrams, and if there was, definitely not me. Second, I did said below that quoted section, that

IMHO it's closer to what an MBT is than an Abrams, because the Abrams was designed for killing Soviet tanks frontal and up close, not for the traditional roles of an MBT.

So yeahh I agree that the Booker is better for infantry support. Probably shouldve did that clearer though.

No, an assault gun is a self propelled infantry gun

My mistake on wordings there. What I meant, is that the roles of an MBT encompass that of an assault gun: it provides direct fire support for infantry.

 

[asVAL]

Aight OT warning.

There was almost no tank-on-tank action in Vietnam while the Americans were there.

That's specifically why I mentioned it. During Vietnam the bulk of American armour did more bashing bushes and trees and clearing entire strips of forest with canister rounds than shooting at whatever PAVN armour they could find. Keep in mind that this wasnt because the North Vietnamese had 0 armour, rather any and every vehicle they sent in was demolished by Cobras and BAI and long range guns. They were doing infantry support, not armour killing because most PAVN tanks were dead before they reached the battle zone. There was a clear division of role back then and a logical one it was

Such a tank probably would have gotten the L7 105mm (or a fixed 152mm gun/launcher, if they could have kept the launcher electronics working under gun recoil), more all around armor and less on the front, wider tracks and lots of torque at the low end to power through brush... Basically MBT70 with a conventional crew seating setup.

The 152mm gun probably wouldve been kept but stripped of the missile guiding bits. The M551s canister rounds were literally raining hellstorms of shrapnel. A mixture of CAN (antipersonnel), HESH (anti structure) and a short rod APFSDS to kill T-72s at 1km would be perfect.

Maybe even HARM missile capabilities to stomp on whatever SPAA was rolling around, but definitely carrying SideARMs.

You could probably make a folding fin version of the AGM122 and stuff it inside the standard Zuni pod. The A-X craft would receive targeting data from ESM-configured BGM34s and dump a load of ARMs in that sector. Would definitely need a new LOAL seeker though.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You could probably make a folding fin version of the AGM122 and stuff it inside the standard Zuni pod. The A-X craft would receive targeting data from ESM-configured BGM34s and dump a load of ARMs in that sector. Would definitely need a new LOAL seeker though.

Oh, that's EVIL! I like it!!! 4x short range ARMs per pylon!

 

[Apophenia]

Other than @MadRat's query, what was the Mowag LAV content in the last 14 posts?