XM8 Buford/Ridgeway Armored Gun System (AGS)

[Brickmuppet]

Rickshaw asked about the pitfalls of direct fire capable moartars
Abraham G. gave an answer that went into extra innings with detail relevant to current operational concerns.

If this is the sound of one hand clapping, then zen contemplation IS the path to enlightenment.

 

[smurf]

Rickshaw said

Well I'll leave you to your conversation then Abraham. Tell me when you get bored of the sound of one hand clapping.

Do the rest of us get the chance to say if we are bored? I wasn't. This is a forum, not a duel.

 

[Apophenia]

In discussing "legacy weapons", Abraham mentioned that:

... lighter weight weapons like 25-40mm automatic cannons can also provide better penetrative effect. They may not knock down the building but they will certainly defeat any targets inside.

In Afghanistan, it seems that the thickness of particular mudbricks determines whether an M242 can mousehole a wall effectively. Is anyone aware of how other in-theatre autocannon rounds are comparing?

[Sorry, I realize this isn't really a 'project' question. I'm wondering about future vehicles.]

 

[Abraham Gubler]

In Afghanistan, it seems that the thickness of particular mudbricks determines whether an M242 can mousehole a wall effectively. Is anyone aware of how other in-theatre autocannon rounds are comparing?

Mouseholing is different to defeating targets inside a building. While a 25mm or even 40mm round is not going to provide a big enough hole in a mud-brick wall for a rifleman to crawl through (a mousehole) it will penetrate and defeat targets inside (if enough rounds are fired). Beacause walls come in various levels of robustness it is very difficult to provide a generic mouseholing capability via direct fire weapons. Even with the right fuse setting for the wall thickness the variables in explosive power are such that this needs to be talyored for the wall. For example a 120mm MPAT-OR with a quick fuze setting would make a nice mousehole in a foot thick of high rebar concrete (a fortified pillbox) but would blow up the entire wall/structure of standard household red brick.

Mouseholing and doorbusting is best left to the actual infantry who need it through a range of expident and specialised capabilities (including standoff door and wall busters). Especailly when one factors in tactics and role the direct fire vehicle's weapon systems are best optimised for target defeat and supression not engineering manouvre support (mouseholing).

[Sorry, I realize this isn't really a 'project' question. I'm wondering about future vehicles.]

These issues are fundamentally tied up in the requirement for the AGS and like systems. While it may not be 'AGS tender X by company Y submitted on so and so date' it is pretty important to understanding why these types of systems were wanted and why they were never wanted enough to see many of them into service.

 

[Apophenia]

Thanks for the reply. I should have made clear that I was refering to multiple round shots for mouseholing (which seems to be a primary use of Canadian M242s in Afghanistan). Almost everything else falls to the coax or turret-top MAG/Minimi.

For future vehicle designs, I agree that main armament selections should not be dictated by considerations such as mouseholing. However, if wallbusters aren't issued (or are in short supply), the job will always fall to the available vehicle regardless of the suitability of their main gun.

 

[RyanC]

Found on the Backlot of Aberdeen Proving Ground, the XM-8 Prototype.

 

[Creative]

That is so sad

 

[robunos]

There's some more information on this in Hunnicutt's 'Sheriden', pp.166-187...


cheers,
Robin.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a284507.pdf

 

[Grey Havoc]

There is some info on the competitors for the AGS requirement in this 1991 paper: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a236965.pdf

 

[Triton]

Loading configurations of BAE Systems XM8 Ridgeway Armored Gun System (AGS) within a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III.

Source:
http://www.combatreform.org/armored.htm

 

[Pioneer]

Now that second drawing is a decent and worthwhile load out Triton!!

It's only a pity the US Army can't get it's act together

Regards
Pioneer

 

[GTX]

Anyone want to buy one?

See here for more details.

 

[Snafuperman]

AFAIK, that's as far as it went--the vehicles never went overseas.

Correct. Matter of fact, there is ZERO chance that this project will ever be looked at again. We've been trying to get one of the prototypes at my facility for a while for some "Bradley mods" for it, but it'll never be transferred here. Whenever it shows up where the customer is (ie, TACOM), they don't like it. Industry politics (it makes the Styker's AGS variant look wanting). The ones that we've still got are stored at the York site. Shame, it was a good vehicle.

Haha, well, that didn't age well... But was a fair statement back in the day.

 

[Snafuperman]

In the late 1980s, FMC (Food Machinery Company) Corporation, later becoming United Defense Industries and now BAE Systems Land and Armaments, developed the Close Combat Vehicle - Light (CCV-L) and the US Army selected a modified version to meet its requirement for an Armored Gun System (AGS). A total of six prototypes were built for the US Army under the designation XM8 AGS. The AGS has been identified as M8 Buford named for Major General John Buford and M8 Ridgeway named for General Matthew Bunker Ridgeway. Though with Ridgeway's death in 1993, I presume that the name was changed in honor of him. The AGS was intended to replace the M551A1 Sheridan in the 82nd Airborne Division, and was expected to replace TOW-equipped HMMWVs in the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light). A total of 237 systems were planned for procurement. Initially slated to begin production in 1996, the US Army canceled the M8 AGS program because of budget constraints, despite the program meeting both time and cost targets.

United Defense Industries unveiled a technology demonstrator based on the XM8 AGS with a 120 mm cannon named "Thunderbolt" in 2003.

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/supplement/lav/lav_m8.shtmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8-AGShttp://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htmhttp://www.military-today.com/tanks/m8_buford.htmhttp://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_m8ags.php3http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-ags.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bufordhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Ridgway

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yqxr3tqtog

Any idea where you can find the original, government-owned (non-copywrited) pictures of the CCV-L and its competitors from AGS? I've already checked - they don't have any pics in the Army vehicle museums. And no luck so far at the College Park National Archive (mostly since it's been closed due to COVID).

 

[Grey Havoc]

Regarding the Armored Gun System competition, a Popular Mechanics article originally from 1988:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a34907426/stealth-tank/

In May 1988, Popular Mechanics covered the Armored Gun System (AGS) competition, an effort to replace the M551A1 Sheridan light tank. The contest had come down to three companies: FMC, Teledyne Continental Motors, and Cadillac Gage. FMC's Close Combat Vehicle, Light (CCVL) would be the eventual winner, becoming the M8 Armored Gun System ( a project cancelled in 1997 and replaced by the M1128 Mobile Gun System). However, the new M8 Buford takes many elements of the original M8 and could become the Army's new Mobile Projected Firepower (MPF) vehicle, which will be assessed in June 2021.

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/u-s-army-armored-gun-system-program-early-1980s.40186/

 

[RAP]

.