sdeering@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (03/13/91)
From: sdeering@ATHENA.MIT.EDU Does anyone have information about the proposed 17-ton Armored Gun System, which is supposed to have almost the same firepower as a 60 ton M-1? It was mentioned in the March 18 issue of U.S. News and World Report on page 32. On a similar subject, does anyone have an idea about how the newer weapons systems used in the ground phase (i.e. M-1, M-1A1, A-10, Apache attack helicopter, Multiple Launch Rocket system, etc.) faired and will the government order more? -scott deering sdeering@athena.mit.edu
drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) (03/20/91)
From: drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) Scott Deering (sdeering@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) writes >Does anyone have information about the proposed 17-ton >Armored Gun System, which is supposed to have almost the >same firepower as a 60 ton M-1? Recent employment of the obsolescent M551A1 Sheridan in Operations Just Cause and Desert Shield/Storm has emphasised the Army's neglect of light, air-deployable weapon systems. In response, the long simmering Armored Gun System (AGS) project has been moved to the front burner (1). The top-level functional requirements include: Weight: Less than 17.5 tons (U.S.) Armor: As good as the Sheridan, or better. Armament: 105 mm Crew: 3-4: Driver, Commander, Gunner, Loader (optional) Fire Control: M60A3-level, stabilized, fire-on-move. The requirement for the use of the standard 105 mm round seems to have been logistically driven and side steps R&D done with 75 mm guns for light armor systems. The AAI built Rapid Deployment Force- Light Tank 75mm (RDF-LT75) relied heavily on the XM274 75mm auto- loading cannon (2). This system now seems out of the running. Current tracked contenders include the Cadillac-Gage Commando Stingray, FMC's Close Combat Vehicle-Light (CCLV), General Dynamics/Teledyne Light Armored Vehicle, a Sheridan refitted with a Stingray turret and others (1). The Commando Stingray is a private development of Cadillac-Gage. It looks something like a subcompact version of an M1 Abrams. At 19 tons empty, it would have to be lightened somewhat for the airborne role (3). The FMC CCLV is also a private development of more-or-less conventional apperance. It makes extensive use of Bradley and M113 components and boasts an auto-loading EX35 105mm gun (3). The General Dynamics/Teledyne LAV is quite unconventional. It resembles a stretched Swedish S-tank but with the cannon mounted on the roof. The LAV also utilizes the EX35 105mm gun but mounted in a turretless pedestal mount with a built-in autoloader. All crew- members ride in the hull. To keep weight down, the LAV's armor is a bolt-on accessory. The advanced hydro-pneumatic suspension is able to adapt to the almost doubling of the GVW when the armor is added (5). References: 1. Lopez, Roman, "US Army Dusts-off AGS", in _International Defense Review_, #9, 1990, pp 997-999. 2. Wray, robert, "Giant Killer Tank", in _International Combat Arms_, v3 #4, July 1985, pp 74-77. 3. Gavin, Franc, "Commando Stingray", in _International Combat Arms_, v3 #3, May 1985, pp 64-67. 4. Green, Michael R., "In Search of the Tiny Tank", in _International Combat Arms_, v4 #3, May 1986, pp 91-93. 5. "Tracked & Wheeled Light Armored Vehicles", separate supplement to _International Defense Review_, #8, 1986. Donald Newcomb drn@pinet.aip.org drn@aip.bitnet
hsu@eng.umd.edu (Dagwood splits the Atom) (03/22/91)
From: hsu@eng.umd.edu (Dagwood splits the Atom) In article <1991Mar20.031541.27802@cbnews.att.com> drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) writes: >The requirement for the use of the standard 105 mm round seems to >have been logistically driven and side steps R&D done with 75 mm >guns for light armor systems. The AAI built Rapid Deployment Force- >Light Tank 75mm (RDF-LT75) relied heavily on the XM274 75mm auto- >loading cannon (2). This system now seems out of the running. Could you fill me in a bit more on the RDF-LT's 75mm system? Was this the gun supposed to be capable of 50 rounds/min and 70 degrees elevation? -dave -- David Hsu hsu@eng.umd.edu "Furthermore, local processing of muse-driven U of Md Systems Research Ctr events reduces network traffic and results College Park, Md 20742-3311 in enhanced response time" +1 301 405 3689 - from an NCD announcement
davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) (03/22/91)
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) writes: | Recent employment of the obsolescent M551A1 Sheridan in Operations | Just Cause and Desert Shield/Storm has emphasised the Army's | neglect of light, air-deployable weapon systems. In response, the | long simmering Armored Gun System (AGS) project has been moved to | the front burner (1). [Thanks for the update: I've been interested in the outcome of the aries gun and high-mobility tracked vehicle experiments, but have seen little discussion on it.] This posting reminded me of a photograph of a vehicle (or fragment?) that appeared in the March 18th Newsweek: on page 28-29, a soldier is illustrated standing on a turretless, apparently flat-decked armoured vehicle. It doesn't look like a BTR-50, and it doesn't look at all like a BMP unless someone's stolen the turret! Are we looking at a new light armoured vehicle or a remnant? --dave (:-)) c-b -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA | lethe!dave 72 Abitibi Ave., | Willowdale, Ontario, | Even cannibals don't usually eat their CANADA. 416-223-8968 | friends.
davisp@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Palmer Davis) (03/23/91)
From: davisp@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Palmer Davis) In article <1991Mar22.042439.20892@cbnews.att.com> davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) writes: > This posting reminded me of a photograph of a vehicle (or fragment?) that >appeared in the March 18th Newsweek: on page 28-29, a soldier is illustrated >standing on a turretless, apparently flat-decked armoured vehicle. It >doesn't look like a BTR-50, and it doesn't look at all like a BMP unless >someone's stolen the turret! > Are we looking at a new light armoured vehicle or a remnant? A remnant, if what you're describing is what I think it is. I haven't seen the actual picture you describe, but it sounds an awful lot like an MT-LB. The Soviets use these instead of BMP's in Category C divisions, and the MT-LB chassis is the basis for the ZSU-23-4, the ACRV, the SA-13, and several other vehicles. Apparently, some found their way into Iraqi service, since I've seen pictures of them burning (and winced when the TV commentator identified them as "tanks"). -- Palmer T. Davis | davisp@scl.cwru.edu -OR- ptd2@po.cwru.edu Case Western Reserve University | {att,sun,decvax,uunet}!cwjcc!skybridge!davisp
brownp@cs.unc.edu (Peter Brown) (03/26/91)
From: brownp@cs.unc.edu (Peter Brown)
davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) asked for an ID of the
armored vehicle on pages 28-29 of the March 18th _Newsweek_.
davisp@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Palmer Davis) suggested an MT-LB.
I am pretty sure that the vehicle is an ex-T-62. For the ex part,
note the scorch marks to the right of the soldier (of course, if I'm
right about the T-62, the absent turret is another subtle hint).
Remember, since we're only seeing one end of the vehicle (and a little
of the left side), much of the rest could be a jumble of scrap steel
without it showing in the photo.
For the T-62 part, compare the photo of a live Iraqi T-62 in the
pullout ("Saddam's War Machine") between pages 42 and 43 of the
February 18th _Newsweek_; the hulls are (as far as I can see)
identical. I don't see enough room between the top of the tracks and
the top of the hull for it to be an MT-LB (although I'm using the
picture of the ZSU-23-4 on the aforementioned pullout for that
judgement, so it's possible I'm full of some appropriate untruthful
substance). It is also possible, of course, that the Soviets used the
T-62 chassis for other vehicles (I don't know); if so, this could be
one such.
Hope that helps,
--Peter Brown
(brownp@cs.unc.edu)