M8 AGS: America's Abandoned Airborne Tank
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июн 2024
- Stop data brokers from exposing your personal information. Go to my sponsor aura.com/battleorder to get a 14-day free trial and see how much of yours is being sold
Become a Patron to support us & get exclusive perks: / battleorder
Or Sign-Up as a RUclips Member: youtube.com/@BattleOrder/memb...
Check out our merch shop for new prints, apparel and other stuff!: battleorder.myshopify.com/
If you'd like to make a one-time donation to Battle Order: www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted...
For tank illustrations and articles: tanks-encyclopedia.com/
Other Platforms
• Website: www.battleorder.org/
• 2nd Channel: / battleorder2
• Twitter: / battle_order
• Instagram: / battle.order
• Facebook: / battle.order
• Tiktok: / battle.order
Chapters:
0:00 - Introduction
0:40 - Overview of AGS Units
3:00 - The 82nd Airborne's AGS
5:11 - Light Armor Platoon
8:16 - Light Armor Company
11:32 - Light Armor Battalion
12:28 - 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light)
Sources:
• FM 17-18 "Light Armor Operations" (March 1994): upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...
The main publication for the employment of the AGS-equipped Light Armor Battalion that would've been under the 82nd Airborne Division.
• FM 17-15 "Tank Platoon" (April 1996): archive.org/details/FM1715Tan...
General publication on the U.S. Army Tank Platoon which, in preparation for the adoption of the M8 AGS, included details about it specifically. Page 7 also includes what the Light Armored Cavalry Troop would have looked like doctrinally.
• FM 17-97 "Cavalry Troop" (October 1995): archive.org/details/FM1797Cav...
Did not incorporate the M8 AGS but did talk about the Light Armored Cavalry Regiment (LACR) of the time.
• McGrath, J. "Scouts Out! The Development of Reconnaissance Units in Modern Armies" www.armyupress.army.mil/Porta...
Talks about the Light Armored Cavalry Regiment (LACR) and mentions the AGS in passing on pages 179-180
• FM 1-114 "Air Cavalry Squadron and Troop Operations" (February 2000)
archive.org/details/fm-114-ai...
Talks about the LACR's Regimental Aviation Squadron (RAS)
• FM 71-2 "The Tank and Mechanized Infantry Battalion Task Force" (January 1988) books.google.com.au/books?id=...
This source is from the 80s and doesn't apply to the AGS, but the "Detached company normal service support package" detailed on page 7-18 is basically the same one described in the Light Armor Operations manual (except regular armor companies needed M88s)
• Preston, A. "Putting Armor Back Into the 82nd Airborne Division: Revisiting the AGS Decision" web.archive.org/web/202105062...
Talks about how many M8 AGSs could fit in each type of airlifter in service at the time and the protection levels of the 3 armor packages on page 30.
• Arenstein, S. "AGS killed as Army budget rises" go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=...
Talks about the cancellation of the M8 AGS and the Army's budgetary climate at the time.The article states that the AGS program was the only significant termination in FY97, while later cancelled programs like the RAH-66 Commache and the Crusader SPG soldiered on. It also talks about some things the army said it would do to compensate for the AGS's cancellation, like fast tracking Abrams modernization and Javelin ATGM fielding.
• Inside the Army, Vol. 7, No. 50 (December 18, 1995), pp. 3-4 (2 pages). "Decker lauds 'model of streamlined acquisition': Six-Year Armored Gun System Cost-Cutting Plan Could Save $490 Million"
www.jstor.org/stable/43982560...
Talks about some cost cutting measures they were considering to make to the AGS shortly before it was cancelled. One idea was making a cheaper non-airborne version during later production for the 2d ACR.
Stop data brokers from exposing your personal information. Go to my sponsor aura.com/battleorder to get a 14-day free trial and see how much of yours is being sold
cool video
Ok
Nice video! I like the way 2ACR(L) was basically a copy/paste of the ACR but with light equipment. I would say it's strange that they didn't retain any TOW element to compensate the loss of AT firepower but I suppose at the time, the Army was just getting into 120mm so it might not have bothered them.
Also, wasn't the M8 supposed to equip the HTLD (9th ID) concept? That might also be worth a video in this series.
@@loicvanderwielen It would have but since 9ID wasn't around when AGS was about to go into service I decided not to get into it. I do want to talk about that division some day though
Please Battle Order I beg you to cover British regiments/brigades
The US loves developing the coolest concepts only to cut funding a decade later
Most of them are gremlins you can play in War Thunder
You mean Russia?
It's really Congress's fault really. They have total control over what can and can't be procured. Mk14s ended up how bad they were because of Congress. M8s weren't being deployed because of Congress. Bradley-ADATS being chucked was because of Congress...
... you can see a pattern here right?
@@zeus866 No, they’re just never funded from the start in Russia (or, in the case of the USSR, they get funding, but then some idiot comes in and goes “I can do it better guys, give me the money”)
Daddy
“American Lightweight Gremlins” gotta be my favorite genre of tanks
Don't feed with commies after midnight!
@@HanSolo__ or it will turn into a tank ace gremlin
Nice movie reference
ah that why Soviet invented TSAR bomb for just in case
I was a platoon leader in C Company, 4th Battalion (LT) (Abn), 68th Armor, 82d Airborne Division in 1971. We were equipped with M-551 Sheridans with a 152mm gun that was capable of firing a Shillelagh missile. Yes, we actually did heavy dropped them and low altitude drop them with a drogue parachute. In my reloading room have a picture of my tank that was dropped and the parachute failed to deploy. I was on the drop zone watching the test. When it hit the ground it detonated from compression of the diesel fuel on board. Quite an explosion. As I joked with another officer about the even , we turned around and there stood the battalion commander. He was not amused with us!
Oh crap! I’m a retired Army 11H/B and I’ve had a HMMWV and M-151 that was dropped from sling load while at Ft. Campbell, KY, the M-151 sat in the motor pool bay and was no more than 12” tall after hitting the ground, was hilarious. The HMMWV drop was when our C-47 had a new female pilot and it was stormy while flying and she got nervous when the load oscillated a bit from the winds which really confused us since it was within normal behavior for the conditions but nope, from 4,500 feet up she cut it and that was in 1988 when they were new so the CoC wasn’t very happy. Another Chinook on the same flight also female piloted came down too low during hookup and she crunched the vehicle big time causing some good damage. Not trying to imply females make bad pilots, it’s just who was flying at the time. In my 6 1/2 years in 2/502nd INF, that was the only times we had accidents like that. And like you, I do a lot of reloading as well, lol
3-73 Armor 1995 arrived right as they were turning in the last Sheridan and then got sent over to 1/17 CAV
that seems like a rigger issue .....
That BC saw a fuck load of paperwork in his future
@@echohunter4199 lmao
The sad irony is the M8 would have likely been just as good in the Insurgency phases of Iraq and Afghanistan as an Abrams, arguably better given the extra mobility in some cases, though of course a lot less resilient. Then again, the Stryker MGS underperformed, but that platform had a whole laundry list of issues with design, politics and practicality.
The M8 will particularly fit in Afghanistan due to the terrain of the country a mobile gun emplacement with better armor and mobility to the stryker MGS
An Ontos would still be useful.
@@CorePathway Something like it reloading from inside would be very handy. Maybe a turret with four of them alongside an autocannon for a fire support vehicle. Or just modernise the whole thing, the six 106mms get replaced by six Javelins or TOWs.
@@Del_S armored remote vehicles are coming anyway. 🤷🏼♂️
Throwing a large cannon on a troop carrier is just stupid. Why put so many bodies in such a clear target? You're just making the weapon the enemy wants to eliminate, easier and more rewarding to kill.
M8s, M60A3s, and M1A1s all sharing a manual makes sense but it's funny t o think about.
The M8 AGS and the Comanche I can never forget 💔
Based on what’s been seen, I don’t see the Booker filling this role in airborne units. It’s too heavy to be recovered by a M984, which means it needs an M88 for dedicated recovery, which itself is only air transportable via C5, limiting the Booker’s strategic mobility as many airfields are only C17 capable. It’s not air droppable, and the Abrams-style layout, while easier for training, increases its size and manpower requirement in needing a loader.
Exactly. The Booker weights the same as Leopard I MBT and I am sure there will be more weight creep. If the Stryker was too heavy for the 82nd how is the Booker not? Although it can be carried by a C-17 it is not air droppable so they need a C-17 capable airfield for it to become available. You already noted the need for heavier recovery assets this will extend to bridge/gap crossing assets, as well as adding to the necessary logistics train to support all these heavy vehicles. A better choice would have been the M-8 with a 90mm (why this obsession with the 105mm? it had too much recoil for the M-8). Or even the UK CVR(T) with a 76mm or 90mm. You can fit two in aC-130 and they are air droppable.
@@carlanderson7618 the reason for the M8 and M10 by extension having a 105mm cannon can be boiled down to a set of simple reasons.
1. compatibility of ammunition as by this point a good number of NATO countries still had/have and were/are still producing and or using 105mm ammunition and the M35 cannon was largely compatible with NATO standard 105mm munitions, meanwhile a 76 or 90mm cannon would have required new logistics chains which were unnecessary.
2. flexibility, there is a NATO 105mm ammo for just about any target you can think off short off shooting down fighter jets meaning, meanwhile there is almost no modern 76mm or 90mm ammuntion on the market meaning the US would have to produce its own significantly reducing flexibility.
3. lethality: to put it simply a 76 or a 90mm cannon would significantly decrease lethality of the individual rounds as the round would have a smaller relative charge, less space for explosive material when using HE or HEAT ammuntion, and less penetration when using APFSDS due to the round being both smaller and shorter thus leaving less room for the penetrator.
there are a couple other reasons such as the US just not producing 90mm or 76mm munitions anymore and the fact that it would have significantly increased costs since it would have required a whole new gun to be developed but those 3 are the biggest reasons from a simple logic POV as to why the M8 has a 105mm
@@stickpge As I understand it the supply of 105mm ammo is in question since most of NATO switched to 120mm. 105mm is just too much gun for a light chassis like the M-8. 76mm or 90mm would be more than adequate for intended role of fire support. It is not expected fight tanks. I point to the performance of the Scorpions in the Falkland's, exactly the type of light forces battle you expect them to be used in as an example.
I would argue you already can use the money saved in R&D costs to finance licensed built Scorpion and 90mm gun (Built by NATO member Belgium), already in use in other countries.
@@carlanderson7618 The US has lots and lots of 105mm tank ammo. And it's made by at least a half dozen vendors across the world.
@@k53847 I look at it this way. You can either have vehicle light enough to be air dropped/carried by C-130 or one with a heavy enough chassis to handle the forces of a 105mm. You can't have both. They keep trying to have both.
We really need a Chieftain & Battle Order collab.
I second the motion.
Oh, absolutely
MORE BATTLE ORDER!!!!!!!!!!
My week just started looking good
Love that you mentioned Spoolston
You both make content I enjoy aswell
SPOOKSTON MENTIONED RAHHHH🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
@BattleOrder, I'm one of the few US Army vets who spent time as M551 Sheridan crew. Airborne and Air Assault units need a light tank.
The Sheridan doesn't even have spare parts available and hasn't for decades. My late father in law was an M551 instructor at Ft. Knox back during the Korean War.
It's an antique, older than the B52.
All Light Infantry brigades should have a light armor unit.
82nd Airborne can be anywhere in the worlds with Bradleys within 18 hours of congress appoving them.
@dakotacarrel346 Bradley's don't have enough gun. 25mm don't cut it.
Most of my career was as a Light Infantry Squad Leader. Lightfighters need to have a big gun on tracks for direct fire support. Preferably amphibious, so it doesn't need a bridge.
Also... the president can order us to war for 90 days. Congress need not approve. See: War Powers Act.
It would sure suck to be on the rapid reaction force with genocide Joe as C in C. I got out after Clinton was elected for just such a reason.
@@dakotacarrel34682nd doesn’t have Bradley’s and doesn’t deploy with them.
Do you mean Vietnam War rather than Korean? Korea was 1950-1953, but the Sheridan didn't enter service until 1967.
We used the Sheridan at FT Knox in the 90s as an OPFOR tank to go against Armor School LTs. Pain in the ass to keep em running
XM8's might be the best looking US light tanks
M41 looks pretty spiffy imo
The T92 and HSTV-L imo are the two best looking US light tanks ever made
@@neurofiedyamato8763 The T92 looks like an armored turd, what are you on about?
Personally, the best-looking American light tanks are the M24 Chaffee and M8 with the Level III armor (the base armor M8 and level II M8 look unbalanced to me due to the size of the turret)
I'm not going to lie, looking at the footprint within the light armor's decentralized support elements versus that of conventional armored formations, with all that duplication of personnel and equipment, I can see why the M8 was cut for cost. I don't think that was the right choice, of course, but I can understand it.
That augmentation was for a company operating as part of a brigade team as its own maneuver unit. At JRTC, mixed M1/Bradley company teams routinely augment infantry BCTs and have as much - if not more - attached support. The M8 doctrine mostly talks about M8 platoons augmenting light infantry battalions. A lot of this doctrine was at least inspired by Marine tank battalions or WWII and Korea-era independent tank battalions (or regimental tank companies).
I could not believe my eyes, the day I found out the M8 Buford was a real damn tank. I remembered seeing this ridiculous thing parachute dow from a C-130 in the A-Team movie, and now I know that was actually somewhat based in reality.
A small, three-man tank with an auto-loaded 105mm cannon, designed to be airdropped. Absolutely ridiculous, and fit into an action movie setting perfectly.
Can you do the USMC armor reconnaissance battalions?
Would be very cool
That ACR bent my mind into a pretzel; every level of command was named one level lower 😵💫
I reminded of reading a couple of articles on " air mech" units in the 90s and early on in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan it was with Canadian airborne units with tracked vehicles that were especially useful in mountains for transporting supplies and troops. And with China who wanted to give them airborne heavier firepower capabilities to reduce dependence on heavier armored units .
Well we have the Booker now.
Would enjoy Marine Light Armored Recon next 😊
0:23 the spookstoon history acurate music in the backround is just the cherry on top hahah
What no one knows is that the XM8 was also one of the first tanks to shoot down a drone, and the first successfully flown tank since the A-40
It seems like the problem of lacking crew could be easily solved by tank desant. Put some handles on and now you've got Airborne spaced armor.
Cool video, enjoyed the watch! Thanks!
Love these things in Wargame: RD
4:55 bumrushing is my new favourite word
Another banger video, great job!
Is there any chance that u will create video about Czech armored/mechanized forces?
Slovakia might get one first lol
@@BattleOrder well, those are still great news for me
Might as well make it a special episode detailing shortly how the Czechoslovak units looked like and how both countries changed their respective units in their own way?@@BattleOrder
Wb something for the Baltics? Esp since they're all forming divisions now.
I love the visuals. If you'd give Brigade Engineer Battalions a view, I would love you. Some items on MTOE are NTK, but still a lot of information available.
3-73 FIASCO was a blueprint in fu¢king up a wet dream. The fact was that the item manager of the M8 and the item manager of the M551 failed to coordinate and when the M8 was cancelled the Army failed to turn off the turn of the 551’s. I listened to the Div G4 spout some bull$hit about 551’s going away, some smart ass CPT asked what the base VISMOD vehicle at NTC, that line fell flat. To ensure those perfectly serviceable vehicles were unable to be reissued, the item manager donated them to become underwater artificial reefs!! It was a lesson I learned as an item manager at USASOC, I never even allowed an item to be scheduled for turn in until my units were “purefleeted”. Whenever someone asked me why I was so militant I asked “would you turn in your M60A3’s before your M1 Abrams were issued and crews qualified?” The answer was always a mocking “of course not” to which I would say, “would you turn in 551’s before their replacements were on hand?” “Aahhhhhh”.
Man, that sounds like this could become the American 2S25 Sprut-SD
Or BMD
@@Shantykoff BMD is an airdroppable IFV, so no
The M8 pre-dated the 2S25
@@ga3521Object 934 and 685 light airborne tanks send hello from the 1970s when there was no XM8
@@AUsernameWeShallMarchToKiev BMD has a small tank gun, instead of IFV auto cannon, as I remember
Nice video. I gotta say those M8 crewman look like they should be telling kids to "Stay off my lawn" 😆
Light tanks are like frigates and conventional naval tube artillery: everyone wants something larger, heavier and with higher technology, but realistic demands always want something lighter and more "retro".
cool video man
No, the real armored vehicle that was taken from us was the AeroGavin!!!!
Lol. Lazerpig has a very funny video on that and the genius named Mike Sparks🤣
Mike Sparks’ Geocities sites leaking again? 😂
@@shaider1982 that’s what I was referring to! Love Lazerpigs content!
You left out that 2nd ACR shortly after being stood up at Lewis moved to Ft Polk, La...I served in 3rd Squadron at Polk (97-02), my Squadron Commander when I left 2 Cav was Lt Col "Fighting" Joe Sartiano the commander of Ghost Troop 2/2 ACR at 73 Easting
I have been wondering a lot if there is benefit to mixing light tanks and mbts in the same unit. The heavier tanks will do pushes where they must, and the lighter tanks will try to hold back and provide supporting fire.
The M8 helped pave the way for the new M10
Wasn’t this thing for sale back in 2014? I vaguely remember seeing something that looked like this when I went to the Littlefield auction
God I Want AAC
Armored Air Calvary
God I Love Practical Mass Mechanized Air Assault Ability
God I Need Proper Capable Airborne Mechanized Divisions
Congratulations, now you have the VDV. See how that worked out.
I'll guess you can get the CV90120
nice HOI4 sound effect, can you do more videos on urban fighting?
for a second I though the m10 had already been cancelled!
An airborne armored unit is great in concept. I don't know if its justifiable in practice. How much advancing over contested ground should we expect airborne units to do when a slower but more capable unit is what is normally considered necessary to do that job?
An airborne unit, on the other hand, could take lightly defended rear areas quickly, one task other units might struggle with.
As a Buford, it makes me sad that the tank got scrapped. Still cool that we got a tank named for us.
Tank looks so cool 😎
M8 was canned specifically because of force structure decision made in 1990s. US army either keeps the light tank or 10 divisional OOB but not for both.
Basically an American Sprut SDM-1 ?
As far as I know the Sprut-SD is more of a tank destroyer. It has an artillery designation (2S25, anti-tank guns are controlled by the artillery in Russia) and has a 125mm anti-tank gun that was going to replace the MT-12, but the Cold War ended. I've also heard (can't confirm) that one of the test units was organized as a battery like anti-tank guns, so I think the vibe is a little different. The VDV had actual main battle tank units added to them in the 2010s (T-72B3).
The M8 AGS had an 105mm gun inferior to the Abrams 120mm. Destroying tanks was not its main purpose, although it probably could have if the threat had sub-par tanks or it had a positioning advantage. It was a better replacement for the M551 Sheridan, an airborne armored reconnaissance vehicle (kind of sort of like a light tank although people will argue it's not) that was in service with the US Army for decades.
@@BattleOrder Thank you for the answer.
Anyone else catch the still photo of the M8 with a Mk19 for the commander???? Wild
9:35 bitemarks on the guys lower arm
Can you do Marine Expeditionary Unit
extremely compact and low-weight "light tanks" will make a comeback with AI drone tanks. mark my words.
in the future paratroopers don't always drop men. they will just drop drone tanks and drone/rocket launchers.
once hitting the ground they start executing the programmed mission by themselves.
Asking “Could you pls make something about Austria? „ Part 2
Spookston mentioned!!!!
Will u maybe ever do a video about the bundesheer or a unit of it? (Austrian Armed Forces)
Question for you. How do you think the M10 Booker T will compare to what the M8 MGS would have performed in the role?
"I did not choose Stug life, Stug life chooses me."
If the 3rd bn was apart of the 82nd ABN division what units were the 1st and 2nd battalions apart of ?
You can go insane trying to make sense of the Army's regimental histories: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/73rd_Cavalry_Regiment
@@ga3521 Yeah those guys are all over the place
US Army should have kept the Sheridan light tank until there was a replacement.
Hi battle order . If you wouldn't mind could u cover the divisional slice of us forces during gulf war or GWOT . It would be great if you decide to cover it. Or just abt any conflict of any nation specifically the us to understand the logistical perspective. If not it's fine Godbless u and everyone
thx much for another *'interesting'* upload 😵💫
🏒🇨🇦🥶😁
My ex had put in his packet put in to convert to !9Z and attend Airborne School, when the program got cancelled...
The only thing you got wrong was we didn't have 81mm mortars in 3-73. Our mortars had 120s. Other than that, everything else you said about 2ACR and 3-73 was spot on.
Damn I wish we had a TRUE ACR back.
Preach
I really wish this tank and the Comanche helicopter had entered service
What about the ripsaw like tank armed with twenty five mm or thirty mm cannons these machines are fast light weight and could hit the enemy so fast before they could react
This is basically my wargame: red dragon deck
When your tank weighs 40 tons and your main tank weighs 70 tons, "medium tank" is probably a better way to put it. I agree with not calling the M-10 a light tank.
M8 is way sexier then the M10 Booker, that alone is enough reason for it to win.
So true
Peak 90s aesthetics.
It is basically the cadilac gage stingray that they sold to the Thai army
I can't think of a single war, operation, or engagement that would have gone differently had these things been fielded.
WOOOOOOOOO
Yep sad tank noise...
Tank furry mentioned
I was going to post my list but I'm beginning to think your egnoring it wich is fine, you have ever right to,
Watch MPF also not be fielded across the IBCT…
In some fictional work/games it's called "Buford"
Apparently Tom clancy is responsible for that name, since it featured in one of his books in service with the 2nd ACR and like all tanks it needed a name.
FYI the name is a reference to a union civil war cavalry officer, a gen. John Bufford.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 ah its actually Clancy in origin. Thanks.
Subbed for spookston
Why has no one tried putting MBTs and AIFVs together under a unified Armoured structure? Using Tank Troopers as dismounts and spare MBT crew
First part already happens, but the second part is moronic
@@Seth9809 Go on then why can't Armoured Corps take over AIFVs then?
m10 bringing this concept back to 82nd....minus the air dropping
No way 🤩
one one three, not one thirteen
*Sigh* What could have been...
0:22 Henge why USSR have to build TSAR bomba for just in case
no, not US invasion
There is always the Wiesel tank.
Politicians always screwing up
I still do these tanks nonetheless either way
00:35
Why not recovering the cases? Waste of good metal to throw it out and away like this.
is the M10 just reskinned versionof this?
No they are completely different platforms
US tankodesantniki? Huh
Riding on tanks is always a trick up the sleeve, it's just not preferred because it's dangerous and the units that normally work with tanks have perfectly fine infantry fighting vehicles
The airborne didn't though
@battleorder Extra style points too
Cold War structure just made more sense
It could have been perfect....
time for me look for one for sale no not in war thunder
Shouldn't the units have been called light infantry troupes instead of troops? Probably not the language you had used but the army needs a google search or two.
Money well spent
Ah yes the American take on the fallschirm-panzer-division
Wait a minute... didn't we spend $xxx to develop the M10? I have the impression s/o is earning a lot developing tanks.
The M8 Armored Gun System (AGS) started in 1983 and was cancelled in 1996 due to budget contraints. The M10 Booker apparently started under the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) in 2015. After the M8 AGS was cancelled, the M1128 Mobile Gun System (MGS) on a Stryker chassis covered from when the Sheridan's were retired in 1997. The Stryker MGS was retired in 2022 due to maintenence issues apparently.
@@steveaustin2686 The MGS was apparently always terrible. It went into service years late due to issues (IIRC involving, among others, injuries to the crew due to the gun overpressure), and then was an unreliable POS maintenance nightmare in service.
As usual the Army gets screwed over, the M8 was the more effective choice for the MPF ,the whole point was to create airborne armored units, not this nonsense that was “chose” now a few years from now guess what the army is going to bring up again, yeah airborne armor
Well said, I don't think it makes sense for the Airborne to have a non-airdroppable tank.