Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 03:07, 2 January 2025

M8 armored gun system
M8 AGS
Type	Light tank
Place of origin	United States
Production history
Designer	FMC Corporation/United Defense LP/BAE Systems
Designed	From 1983
Manufacturer	FMC/United Defense/BAE Systems
Produced	1995, 2020
No. built	6 AGS pilots, 1 austere prototype, ≥11 MPF
Specifications (M8 AGS)
Mass	36,900 to 39,800 lb (16,740 to 18,050 kg) (level 1 armor) 44,000 to 44,270 lb (19,960 to 20,080 kg) (level II) 52,000 lb (23,590 kg) (level III)
Length	261 in (6.64 m) (level 1 hull + gun forward), 242 in (6.14 m) (level 1 hull only)
Width	104 in (2.64 m) (over fenders)
Height	100 to 101 in (2.54 to 2.57 m) (over cupola)
Crew	3 (commander, gunner, driver)
Elevation	+20° / -10° (depression limited over rear arc)
Armor	Welded 5083 aluminum alloy
Main armament	M35 105 mm caliber soft recoil rifled gun (31 rounds)
Secondary armament	7.62 mm coaxial M240 (4,500 rounds) .50 cal. commander's M2 Browning (600 rounds)
Engine	Detroit Diesel 6V 92TA 550 hp (410 kW) at 2,400 rpm (JP-8 fuel), 580 hp (430 kW) at 2,400 rpm (diesel)
Power/weight	28.3 hp/ST (23.3 kW/t) (Level I)
Transmission	General Electric HMPT-500-3EC
Suspension	Torsion bar
Ground clearance	Up to 17 in (430 mm)
Fuel capacity	150 US gal (570 L; 120 imp gal)
Operational range	300 mi (480 km)
Maximum speed	Road: 45 mph (72 km/h)

The M8 armored gun system (AGS), sometimes known as the Buford, is an American light tank that was intended to replace the M551 Sheridan and TOW missile-armed Humvees in the 82nd Airborne Division and 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (2nd ACR) of the U.S. Army respectively.

The M8 AGS began as a private venture of FMC Corporation, called the close combat vehicle light (CCVL), in 1983. The Army began the armored gun system program to develop a mobile gun platform that could be airdropped. By 1992, the AGS was one of the Army's top priority acquisition programs. The service selected FMC's CCVL over proposals from three other teams. The service sought to purchase 237 AGS systems to begin fielding in 1997. Key characteristics of the AGS are its light weight (17.8 short tons (16.1 t) in its low-velocity airdrop configuration), field-installable modular armor, M35 105 mm caliber soft recoil rifled gun, 21-round magazined autoloader, and slide-out powerpack.

Though it had authorized the start of production of the type classified M8 a year earlier, the Army canceled the AGS program in 1996 due to the service's budgetary constraints. The Sheridan was retired without a true successor. The AGS never saw service, though the 82nd Airborne sought to press the preproduction units into service in Iraq. The AGS was unsuccessfully marketed for export and was reincarnated for several subsequent U.S. Army assault gun/light tank programs. United Defense LP proposed the AGS as the Mobile Gun System (MGS) variant of the Interim Armored Vehicle program in 2000, but lost out to the General Motors–General Dynamics' LAV III, which was type classified as the Stryker M1128 mobile gun system. BAE Systems offered the AGS system for the Army's XM1302 Mobile Protected Firepower requirement, but lost to the General Dynamics Griffin II—later type classified as the M10 Booker—in 2022.

Development

The U.S. Army recognized the poor performance of the M551 Sheridan light tank in the Vietnam War and began the process of retiring the vehicle in 1977. A small number were retained in active service by the 82nd Airborne Division and the National Guard. The Army designated the M3 Bradley armored reconnaissance vehicle to partially fill the Sheridan's role.

Initial efforts

In the 1980s, the Army began looking for a more capable replacement for the Sheridan. During this time, a string of Army projects to update or replace the Sheridan were begun, but all ended without the Army committing to buy. Some of its efforts around this time could be described as hopelessly intermingled.

External images
Photos of the CCVL from a private collection.
gallery #2
gallery #3

In 1979, Army Chief of Staff General Edward C. Meyer initiated a transformation of the 9th Infantry Division that would see the light infantry division assume many of the characteristics of the heavy division through an infusion of high or emerging technology. The so-called "High Technology Light Division" (HTLD) would require the procurement of a Mobile Protected Gun, later called the Assault Gun System (AGS), and a Fast Attack Vehicle. The notional Mobile Protected Gun was to be armed with a kinetic gun, or possibly a missile, capable of defeating enemy armor.

The lack of a production-ready assault gun was one of the key problems in the development of the division. Originally conceived to be a wheeled light armored vehicle armed with a hypervelocity missile as its major tank-killing system, the Assault Gun received little support from the Armor School, which was invested in the M1 Abrams tank procurement process, or from the Missile Command, which was developing the Fiber Optic Guided Missile and resisted moving into the hypervelocity missile domain. In 1980, the U.S. Army Infantry School's Mobile Protected Gun project analyzed anti-armor weapons systems, concluding that the Army should equip its new light infantry divisions with TOW-armed Humvees and an unspecified 6×6 lightly armored vehicle armed with a 25 mm caliber gun. This led the Secretary of Defense to direct the Army to use the LAV-25 for this purpose. In 1981, the Army joined the Marine Corps's (USMC) Mobile Protected Weapon System program, which then became known as the Mobile Protected Gun System (MPGS). However due to differing requirements, the Army and USMC went their separate ways the following year.

The Army and Marine Corps were at the same time also involved in the joint LAV program. At the time, the Army planned to acquire 175 LAV-25s to fully equip the 9th Infantry Division. These interim MPGS's would be armed with a 25 mm cannon with seating for the passengers replaced with ammunition racks. The Army developed a version of the LAV to serve as the MPGS in the 9th Infantry Division in the interim. 75 mm, 90 mm and 105 mm guns were studied, with the Marine Corps initially leaning towards the 75 mm gun. Plans solidified around the 25 mm Bushmaster when it was realized the services needed an interim solution. Like the Marine version, this was armed with the 25 mm gun, but included additional ammunition stowage in lieu of passengers. The Army planned to replace this LAV beginning in the late 1980s with the "far-term" MPGS armed with a 75 mm gun. The Army's commitment to the program wavered somewhat, which caused Congress to withhold money for the LAV. The Army withdrew from the LAV program in December 1983.

One solution favored by the Infantry School was to modernize the Sheridan. The chassis of the Sheridan was considered to be in good working order even if its problematic 152 mm caliber gun/launcher was not. Both the Marine Corps and Army explored re-gunning the Sheridan with a conventional gun. In 1983, the Navy Surface Weapons Center mounted a 105 mm cannon to a Sheridan. One Army plan also envisioned re-gunning 120 Sheridans with 105 mm or 120 mm cannons, but this project was canceled in 1985. In the end the Army determined upgrading the Sheridan to meet the AGS requirement was not worth pursuing.

The U.S. Army determined that it needed a more immediate solution for the AGS requirement. In 1985, the Army approved a U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) recommendation to field the TOW missile-armed Humvee in the interim. The TOW-armed Humvee proved to be an inadequate substitute for the AGS in the 9th Infantry Division as it could not fire on the move and was too lightly armored.

By 1983 the Armor School had come to support an Assault Gun. Instead of wheeled, it would be a tracked, lightweight, highly agile kinetic energy gun capable of killing enemy tanks and shielded by sufficient armor to protection the crew from artillery and small caliber weapons. The system had to be light enough to fly in a C-130 aircraft. After the Army and Marine Corps parted ways on MPGS, the project morphed into the Armored/Assault Gun System. In 1983, the Army established the AGS program, sometimes called XM4. In 1985, Army Vice Chief of Staff General Maxwell R. Thurman approved an amended requirement operational capability (ROC) for the AGS. Thurman's recommendation that the Army purchase 500 AGS systems went to Army Chief of Staff John A. Wickham Jr.. The Abrams competed with the AGS for funding. Wickham and Thurman, backed by TRADOC, chose the Abrams, and did not advocate for the program in Congress. Senate appropriators declined the Army's request for AGS funds for FY1986. The program office was disestablished, and the ROC retracted. In May 1986, the AGS program was re-organized under the Armored Family of Vehicles Task Force (AFVTV). During one concept study for a proposed All Purpose Fire Support Platoon, the task force shortlisted four candidate vehicles for an Armored Support Platform. These were the FMC Corporation CCVL, the Cadillac Gage Stingray, the General Motors LAV-105, and the Teledyne AGS. The task force recommended the latter.

In August 1987, the Office of the Secretary of Defense approved the AGS program initiative for 600 vehicles—166 for the 9th Infantry Division (Motorized), 54 for the 82d Airborne Division, 217 for reserve component Tow Light Anti-tank Battalions (TLAT) and 163 for war reserves and floats. A joint Army–Marine Corps program was mooted. The ROC was approved for the second time in September. In December, the AGS program was dropped as the $800 million ($2.15 billion in 2023) plan was considered unaffordable. Around the same time, the Army Chief of Staff Carl E. Vuono issued a "promissory note" to replace the Sheridan by FY1995.

Rebooted program

In September 1989, the Armored Gun System Project Manager office was reestablished at the United States Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command and a marketing survey was distributed to industry. In March 1990, Vuono told the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee that the Army was surveying options for acquiring about 70 tanks to replace the Sheridan. The Army formalized the AGS program in April 1990 with the validation of a new ROC. An AGS "rodeo" was held in July 1990 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, with representative systems submitted from prospective contractors.

In July 1990, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) required that the Army procure the AGS off-the-shelf. In August, SASC directed the Army to halt work on Armored Systems Modernization until it could conduct a competition for an AGS. The AGS program had gained political favor by this point due in part to the back-to-back successful employment of the Sheridan in two overseas operations. In December 1989, Sheridans of the 3/73 Armor, 82d Airborne Division, were airdropped into Panama as part of Operation Just Cause. This was the first successful employment of light armor in combat. In August 1990, Sheridans were airdropped into Saudi Arabia as the spearhead of the buildup of Operation Desert Shield. In October 1990, HASC deferred the Block III main battle tank and directed the Army to make the AGS its top priority modernization program. After having earlier tried to kill the tank, appropriators grew to appreciate the program's relatively low price tag.

In November 1990, the Defense Acquisition Board authorized the Army to proceed with the development of the AGS. The Army believed that replacing the Sheridan with an off-the-shelf AGS would be less expensive and provide more capabilities than an upgraded Sheridan. It was expected to replace the Sheridan in the 3/73rd Armor and TOW missile-armed Humvees in the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (2nd ACR).

In November 1990, Congressional appropriators sought for the Army to utilize the Marine Corps's developmental LAV-105 for the AGS role or "show clear and convincing evidence that the LAV-105 is unable to fulfill the requirement". The Army agreed. In 1991, the Senate and House Armed Services Committees joined in directing the Army to integrate the turret and Watervliet Arsenal EX35 gun of the LAV-105 with an AGS chassis. A joint program was balked at by both services, who believed the two platforms were mismatched. Subsequently, the Marine Corps demurred and requested no further funding for the LAV-105. In any event, the proposed chimera was nixed by the Senate Appropriations Committee later that year.

The Army issued a draft request for proposals (RfP) in May 1991. The Army published the RfP in August incorporating changes as a result of feedback from industry and Congress, the latter of which had directed the Army to require the EX35 gun. Army Acquisition Executive Stephen K. Conver became concerned that the AGS program was becoming laden with unnecessary requirements that would increase costs and development time, as well as limit the number of interested contractors. In view of this, in October 1991, Conver's office conducted a review of the requirements. The Army updated its RfP later that year, with submissions due in December.

The final RfP specified two configurations of the AGS: One intended for airborne forces, and another intended for other rapid deployment light forces.

FMC Corporation submitted the CCVL to meet the AGS requirement. Three other teams submitted proposals:

• General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) and Teledyne Continental Motors submitted a version of the Teledyne tank included in the AFVTV study. GDLS's design was unconventional with the powerpack mounted in the front, and an externally mounted cannon. The crew was located in the turret basket below the hull line.
• Cadillac Gage Textron submitted the Commando Stingray with the LAV-105 turret.
• Team Hägglunds USA submitted a variant of the Combat Vehicle 90 with a GIAT turret. This was the only version proposed without an autoloader. Series production would take place in Canada.

Three of the vehicles proposed had autoloaders, while Hägglunds did not. Although the Army did not require that proposals be tracked or wheeled, all four proposals were tracked.

In June 1992, the Army selected the FMC proposal. FMC Ground Systems Division was awarded a $27.7 million ($60.1 million in 2023) contract to begin phase 1 work, including the production of six test units. The bids for this phase ranged from a high of $189 million ($410 million in 2023) for GDLS–Teledyne and a low of $92 million ($200 million in 2023) for Hägglunds. The procurement program was valued at $800 million.

Close combat vehicle light becomes the AGS

FMC began developing the CCVL as a private venture in 1983. The vehicle was designed from the outset to meet the Army's as-yet unfunded AGS requirement. FMC built two mock-ups. The first was a front-engine model utilizing a 330 hp (250 kW) diesel engine. The second was a rear-engine model with a 552 hp (412 kW) diesel engine and featuring more armor. In 1984, FMC validated the feasibility of pairing the 105 mm gun with a light chassis by test firing a 105 mm gun mounted on an M548. The first prototype CCVL was completed in August 1985 and debuted at the meeting of the Association of the United States Army in October. The CCVL was demonstrated at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in 1987. FMC subsequently ended the marketing of the vehicle and disassembled the prototype. A prototype participated in an AGS "rodeo" with other prospective contractors held in July 1990 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. This was the only submitted vehicle that was considered complete.

The Army required the AGS to be airdroppable from a tactical airlifter. C-130 airdrop was a desired capability, but not a required one. FMC claimed it could achieve C-130 airdroppability and so such a requirement was written into FMC's contract. FMC made several weight-saving changes to the design, particularly the pallets, in order to meet the C-130's weight limit. In a December 1993 report, the Defense Department Inspector General (IG) cautioned that the AGS would be too heavy for low-velocity airdrop (LVAD). The IG recommended canceling 58 systems meant for the XVIII Airborne Corps if the Army could not demonstrate LVAD from a C-130. The Pentagon concurred that no production could begin until the Army met this requirement. The IG's concerns were put to rest in October 1994, when the service successfully airdropped an AGS from a C-130 at an altitude of 1,300 ft (400 m).

Citing cuts in the service's procurement budget, in 1993, the Army reduced its planned AGS order from 300 to 233. By November the Army had successfully overhauled the program. By reclassifying the preproduction prototypes as production models, the Army was able to cut two years off the time until full-scale production. The Army had by then settled on an acquisition target of 237 vehicles. Of these, 123 would go to the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, 58 to the 82nd Airborne Division, and 56 to reserves and training bases. The last 169 AGS systems, to be produced from 1998 to 2002, were to be built without the weight-saving modifications of those destined for the 82nd, which was the only unit that required an airdroppable AGS system. The AGS's budget was zeroed and the production schedule slipped by one year in Congress's FY1995 budget due to program cost growth.

Six prototypes were built under the designation XM8. The first of these was rolled out at the United Defense (created by a merger of FMC and BMY) facility in San Jose, California, in April 1994, and arrived at Fort Knox, Kentucky, in April 1995. The last of these was delivered in May. United Defense provided five XM8 AGS systems to the service's Operational Test Command, which put the vehicle through five months of testing at Fort Pickett, Virginia. Another prototype underwent survivability testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

Cancelation

In 1995, the Army explored inactivating the 2nd ACR, which would reduce the Army's buy to just the 80 AGS systems destined for the 82nd Airborne. In May 1995, the Army National Guard expressed interest in procuring the AGS for the 38th Infantry Division, 35th Infantry Division and 34th Infantry Division to help bridge the looming capability gap should the 2nd ACR be eliminated. This proposal was rejected by the service. Army Chief of Staff Gordon R. Sullivan, the AGS's most influential advocate at the Pentagon, retired in June 1995. In October 1995, the Army type classified the XM8 as the M8 armored gun system. It approved an initial production run of 26 vehicles, with an option for 42 more scheduled to begin in FY1997. A full production decision was scheduled for March 1997. Fielding to the 3/73 Armor would begin in 1999. All three squadrons of the 2nd ACR were to be fielded subsequently.

The end of the Cold War had precipitated a fall-off in U.S. military spending. The President's FY1996 budget request allotted the Department of Defense (DoD) the lowest procurement budget level since 1950. The AGS was one of several systems that did not fare well in an Army review of anti-armor weapons then under development. Responding to budget cuts anticipated in the period FY98–03, in 1996 the Army adopted a new policy: Instead of distributing small cuts throughout many projects, entire programs would be canceled.

Army Chief of Staff Dennis Reimer canceled the AGS in January 1996. In an email explaining the cancelation to officers, Reimer said the AGS was a "well run program" and that the Army had "no major complaints with the way that program was being administered." Reimer said that despite this, the Army had a funding shortfall in both the near and long term. Canceling the AGS would allow the service to alleviate a deficit in the military personnel account. It would also free up funds for other modernization efforts in the far term.

Many officials felt blindsided by the Army's decision to kill the AGS. The Army's decision to cancel the AGS went without a formal announcement but was soon leaked to the press. This displeased some lawmakers including Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Strom Thurmond, who privately expressed irritation to Defense Secretary William J. Perry about having learned of the cancelation through media reports. Ten Representatives signed a letter urging Perry to continue the program. The letter touted the program's "tremendous success" in meeting the program's objectives, and noted that the vehicle was "well within budget and on schedule." The House appropriations national security subcommittee requested that the DoD pause the cancelation of the AGS pending a Congressional review. The subcommittee said that the AGS had met its milestones and "would be a strong candidate for increased funding."

The Army belatedly sought to win Congressional and DoD support for its decision to cancel the tank. Securing the blessings of the Office of the Secretary of Defense would ensure that the service would not have to forfeit unspent FY1996 funds from the AGS program. The DoD, at least at first, affirmed its support for the program and called it "premature" for any service branch to draw any conclusions about the outyear funding environment. However, in February the DoD's Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) endorsed the Army's decision. Despite JROC's recommendation, Perry withheld his support for canceling the AGS until he could personally meet with key congressmen. Perry's office said it would review the Army's plans for the $1 billion originally earmarked for the AGS before making a decision.

The Army issued a stop-work order to United Defense in February 1996. In May, the Army Vice Chief of Staff formally announced the cancelation of the AGS. The service estimated killing the program would save the Army $1 billion. The service sought to reallocate unspent FY1996 funds from the AGS program on military pay, construction and modernization programs.

In order to help offset the loss of capability caused by the cancelation of the AGS, the Army increased its requested funding for M1A2 Abrams and M2A3 Bradley upgrades, and accelerated the development of the Javelin missile. The Army considered a variety of plans to "heavy up" the 2nd ACR. The service added heavy armor to the 2nd ACR and requested funding to purchase Apache helicopters. In the 82nd Airborne, the Army also planned to introduce the EFOGM missile and considered more widely fielding the Javelin missile. Funding for EFOGM was deleted in 1998. The Army also considered the MGM-166 LOSAT missile, now mounted on a Humvee rather than the originally planned AGS, as another platform offering similar capabilities for the 82nd Airborne. However, this program was canceled in FY2005. According to Reimer, the lack of a C-130-deliverable tank was made somewhat more acceptable by the introduction of an increasing number of larger C-17's.

The 3/73rd Armor was inactivated over the following two years. The last Sheridans in service were vismod Sheridans used for opposing force training. These too were retired in 2004. Maintaining the Sheridan was not thought to be practical. In place of the Sheridan in the 82nd Airborne, the Army stood up an Immediate Ready Company of Bradley Fighting Vehicles and M1A1 Abrams tanks from the 3rd Infantry Division which were to be attached to the 82nd.

Milestones and schedule

A Milestone I/II review was completed in May 1992. The engineering and manufacturing development contract was awarded to FMC in June 1992 for a ballistic structure, six test vehicles, and technical data. A critical design review was completed in September 1993. Six pre-production prototypes underwent technical testing in FY94–95. Early User Test and Experimentation was completed in June 1995 and was highlighted by a successful LVAD of a prototype AGS.

Live fire testing and initial operational test and evaluation were scheduled to be conducted in FY96. A full-rate production decision was scheduled for March 1997 (Milestone III).

Proposed revivals and exports

In 1998, the Senate Armed Services Committee proposed using the M8 AGS as a surrogate vehicle to evaluate "strike force experimentation activities" in the 2nd Cavalry Regiment.

In October 1999, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki laid out his vision for a lighter, more transportable force. The Army began the Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) program to implement Shinseki's concept. United Defense LP (UDLP) proposed the AGS, as well as a version of the Mobile Tactical Vehicle Light, for the Mobile Gun System variant of the IAV in 2000. United Defense provided three AGSs oufitted with levels I, II and III armor for a platform performance demonstration from December 1999 to January 2000. One of these systems was equipped with improved forward-looking infrared. By then, the AGS had reached an advanced level of technological maturity, and thus UDLP said it could field its design almost two years earlier than the General Motors' LAV III proposal. The AGS lost out to the General Motors proposal, which was type classified as the Stryker M1128 mobile gun system. UDLP protested the award, alleging that the Army disregarded its own timeline requirements and that the requirements were unfairly biased for wheeled vehicles. The General Accounting Office denied UDLP's protest in April 2001.

In March 2004, at the 82nd Airborne Division's request, the Army approved the transfer of four production vehicles from United Defense's facility in Pennsylvania to Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The vehicles were intended to bolster the 82nd's 1st Squadron, 17th Cavalry, which was in need of greater firepower for an upcoming deployment to the recent war in Iraq. However, in June 2004, this plan was put on hold while the Army determined whether the Mobile Gun System (MGS) could meet the 82nd's requirements. An air-drop test of a Stryker weighted to simulate the load of the MGS was conducted in August. Around the same time, the Army identified issues with the airworthiness of the MGS, among the heavier of the Stryker family. Still more pervasive problems persisted with the autoloader. While this decision was on hold, Congressman Robin Hayes expressed frustration that the AGS had not been fielded, and called on the DoD to act swiftly to resolve the delay. In January 2005, the Army said it had ruled out fielding the AGS, saying the system lacked spare parts that would be required to maintain the vehicle for any significant length of time. The Army also doubled down on its commitment to fielding the MGS, which it said it could begin fielding in summer 2006.

United Defense sought overseas customers without success. In 1994 United Defense partnered with Rheinmetall to market the AGS to NATO allies. Taiwan was interested in acquiring as many as 700 of the system, which would be produced domestically. That year the U.S. State Department authorized the sale of just as many to Taiwan and United Defense agreed to co-production with Hwa Fong Industries conditional on the selection of the vehicle by Taiwan. United Defense manufactured a demonstrator vehicle which it shipped to Taiwan c. 1996. United Defense presented a version of the AGS without the autoloader. This was a cost-saving measure to allay Taiwan's concerns about the cost of the system. Many other countries expressed interest in the AGS. By 1998 these were: Canada, Germany (for 50 systems), Malaysia and Singapore. In 1996 FMC-Nurol and United Defense teamed to market the AGS to Turkey, which had a requirement for 200 systems. This bid was said to be a longshot as Turkey's requirement was for a main battle tank in the 50–60 short tons (45–54 t) range.

In 2015, the U.S. Army articulated a requirement for a Mobile Protected Firepower system to replace the Mobile Gun System. In 2017, the Army formalized its requirements with a request for proposals. The MPF was defined as an air-transportable light tank to assist infantry brigades in forced entry operations. The Army sought to buy 504 MPF systems. Requirements called for a tracked vehicle armed with a 105 mm or 120 mm caliber cannon, which would not need to be air-droppable. BAE Systems (which bought United Defense in 2005) entered a modernized AGS into the MPF competition. In 2018, the Army selected bids from GDLS and BAE to build 12 prototypes each. BAE began delivering the prototype vehicles to the Army in December 2020, although the last of these were delivered behind schedule after testing had begun. The Army's evaluation of BAE and General Dynamics prototypes at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, continued through August. In February 2022, BAE was eliminated from the competition due to noncompliance issues, leaving the General Dynamics Griffin as the only remaining MPF entry. In June 2022, the Army selected the Griffin as the winner of the MPF competition. The GDLS Griffin was later type classified as the M10 Booker.

Design

The AGS operational requirements were identified early in the process. In order, they were: deployability, lethality, survivability, and sustainability.

The basic hull of the AGS is made of welded 5083 aluminum alloy, with a modular armor system that allows the vehicle to be equipped according to requirements. Aluminum was chosen instead of steel in order to reduce the weight of the vehicle. The weight limit for the vehicle was driven by the requirement that it be capable of LVAD.

Subcontractors as of 1996 consisted of Chrysler Corporation (Pentastar), Computing Devices Canada, Detroit Diesel, General Electric Company, General Motors Corporation (Hughes Electronics), Textron Inc.: (Cadillac Gage) and Watervliet Arsenal.

Protection

The CCVL hull was all-welded aluminum with bolt-on steel composite armor. Appliqué armor could also be installed by the user. This may have been Modular Expandable Armor System from IBD Deisenroth Engineering.

The AGS was designed with three modular armor levels:

• The Level I (basic) armor package consisted of ceramic armor tiles and protected the vehicle against small-arms fire and shell splinters. All-around protection protection is provided against rounds up to 7.62 mm AP and protection against 14.5 mm rounds is provided over the frontal arc. It was designed for the rapid deployment role and could be airdropped from a C-130 cargo aircraft. All-up weight was 39,800 lb (18,100 kg).
• The Level II armor package consisted of additional plates of titanium, hardened steel and expanded metal. All-around protection was increased to protection against 14.5 mm rounds and 30 mm rounds over the frontal arc. At an all-up weight of 44,270 lb (20,081 kg), Level II-armored AGS could still be carried by C-130 and C-141 cargo aircraft. but could not be air-dropped.
• Level III armor is mounted atop Level II armor, and consists of bolt-on armor boxes and is designed for contingency operations. It provides protection against light handheld anti-tank weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades over selected areas, and cannon rounds up to 30 mm. Level III-armored AGS systems cannot be transported by C-130. All-up weight is 52,000 lb (24,000 kg).

As of 2003 United Defense was evaluating combining level I and II armors.

The crew is protected from ammunition explosion by blowout panels on the roof and a bulkhead separating the ammunition from the crew. The ammunition compartments in the hull are also protected by blowout panels. Explosion/fire suppression is provided by a Santa Barbara Dual Spectrum system. Halon fire-suppression protects the crew compartment while a powder system is installed in the engine compartment. Unlike the CCVL, the AGS crew is equipped with Nuclear Biological Chemical (NBC) overpressure system. Per the Army's requirement, this is accomplished with ventilated face pieces. NBC-sealing of the turret is not possible in any event as the vehicle is exposed to outside air when spent shell cases are ejected and when the main gun is fired in maximum depression. NBC protection is provided by filtered air through tubing to M25/M42 masks. The Army omitted a requirement for radiation hardening from the AGS.

The CCVL had two 16-barrel Tracor MBA Advanced Smoke Launcher System smoke grenade launchers mounted on either side of the turret. This fired L8 visual or M76 infrared obscurants. The AGS had two 8-barrel smoke grenade launchers which could fire a variety of obscurants. The MPF variant has two 8-barrel M257 model firing M19 smoke grenades.

The CCVL was protected from 30 mm kinetic-energy rounds over the frontal arc. The United Defense Mobile Gun System variant included 7.62 mm integral armor protection over most of the vehicle, and 14.5 mm AP protection over the frontal 60-degree arc. BAE equipped the Mobile Protected Firepower variant of the AGS with underbody blast protection from roadside bombs.

The MPF variant integrated a BAE's Raven soft kill active protection system. This comprised wide-angle view long-wave infrared cameras, radar, and a jammer. As of 2019, BAE was working on adding medium-wave infrared sensors and a slew-to-cue system that points the turret in the direction of the incoming missile. The latter would allow the crew to more quickly identify and engage the perpetrators.

Mobility

Power is provided by a Detroit Diesel 6V-92TA 6-cylinder multifuel diesel engine developing 550 hp (410 kW) at 2,400 rpm with JP-8 fuel, and 580 hp (430 kW) at 2,400 rpm with DF2 diesel. This had 65 percent commonality with the eight-cylinder version fitted on the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT). The AGS's power-to-weight ratio was greater than the American M1A1 Abrams main battle tank. The top speed is governor-limited to 45 mph (72 km/h). The fuel capacity is 150 US gal (570 L; 120 imp gal), giving the AGS a projected range of 300 mi (480 km) at a cruising speed of 25 mph (40 km/h). The General Electric hydromechanical HMPT-500 transmission is also used by the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The transmission has three forward speeds and one reverse.

Mounted on two tracks, the powerpack slides out for maintenance and can be run while it sits on the tracks at the rear of the vehicle. An auxiliary power unit was considered, but ultimately omitted from the final design to save weight. The M8's tracks are double-pin modified T150 with six inches of pitch.

The AGS torsion bar suspension is similar to that in the Abrams. The MPF's torsion bar suspension is in common with the Bradley and Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle.

Many different engines, including a gas turbine, were considered for follow-on versions of the CCVL. The Detroit Diesel engine was replaced in the Mobile Protected Firepower variant with an MTU diesel engine, this one also developing 550 hp (410 kW). This was mated to an Allison 3040 MX transmission.

FMC designed the CCVL to be capable of LAPES (low-altitude parachute-extraction system) airdrop from a C-130. The Army required two variants of the AGS. One capable of the LVAD from the C-17 Globemaster III (intended for the 82nd Airborne), and a heavier variant with roll-on/roll-off capability from the C-5 Galaxy, C-17, C-141 Starlifter and C-130 Hercules. In 1990, the Army had demoted the requirement for LAPES from a required capability to a desired one. After winning the AGS contract, FMC further whittled down the weight of the AGS in order to make the tank light enough for LVAD from a C-130. The AGS was initially several hundred pounds over the weight limit for LVAD from a C-130. Initially weight savings was primarily achieved by reducing the weight of the pallets. Other changes included: changing the shape of the track, substituting titanium and graphite materials for the autoloader, using titanium hatches instead of aluminum or steel, and using a lighter alloy of steel and titanium for the road wheels. The Army tested three airdrops of the pallets with the simulated weight of an AGS. However as of January 1994, the Army was exploring meeting the weight requirements simply with changes to the AGS design.

Level II and III armor packages can be airdropped separately from the AGS and installed in the field in under three hours. All versions are air-transportable by C-130, C-141, C-17 and C-5 (one, two, three and five systems respectively). For LVAD, the vehicle is stripped to a weight of no more than 17.8 short tons (16.1 t). The vehicle height is reduced by removing or retracting the commander's cupola. Up to 10 rounds of 105 mm ammunition can be carried in ready capacity. The MPF variant retained airlift capability: one could fit on the C-130 and three on the C-17.

A 1993 TRADOC study called for modifying 53 HEMTTs as Contingency Force Recovery Vehicles to assist with recovering the AGS. In 1994, the Army began seeking an assault bridge for the AGS. The service was seeking 18 medium assault bridge vehicles but hadn't been able to identify either an off-the-shelf solution or funding to develop one.

The M8 can carry approximately up to a squad of nine mounted infantry on top.

The MPF variant has a combat weight of 26 short tons (24 t).

Firepower

The AGS is armed with the Watervliet Arsenal M35 rifled autoloading 105 mm caliber soft-recoil tank gun with an M240 7.62 mm caliber machine gun mounted coaxially.

The M35, known as the EX35 and XM35 during development, was originally designed and developed by Benét Laboratories, Watervliet Arsenal in 1983 for the Marine Corps Mobile Protected Gun Program. The M35 is about 1,800 lb (816 kg) lighter than the M68 used on the M60 tank.

The M35 fires all NATO standard 105 mm ammunition in inventory. The M35 has a rate of fire of approximately 12 rounds per minute. The autoloader magazine has a ready capacity of 21 rounds. The M8 AGS holds nine more rounds in two hull storage compartments. The MPF also has 21 ready rounds and only seven rounds in hull storage.

The AGS has a laser rangefinder from the M1 Abrams, and the Computing Devices Canada Mission Management Computer System fire-control system is the same used in the Challenger 2. The nature of the gun's muzzle brake directed noise towards the tank, which could damage the crew's hearing; particularly the tank's commander. This problem was still being worked on as of 1995. Prototype versions of the AGS gun had a pepperpot muzzle brake which was anticipated would be deleted in the production version.

The gun is stabilized with a Cadillac Gage two-axis system. Gun depression and traverse are hydraulic, with a manual back up for emergencies. Depression and elevation is −10 degrees, except over a rear 60-degree arc, where it is limited to 0 degrees.

The CCVL was originally armed with Rheinmetall's soft-recoil version of the M68A1. It held 19 ready rounds, plus 24 in hull storage.

The autoloader was designed by FMC's Naval Systems Division. It is fed by a rotating 21-round magazine. The gunner selects the type of ammunition to be fired and the computer rotates the magazine to select the correct round accordingly. Automatic and single-shot modes are available. After firing, the gun returns to zero degrees elevation. The autoloader extracts the spent shell casing from the breech, then ejects the casing out of the turret through the same port used to load the autoloader. Once the autoloader has loaded the next round, the gun returns to the elevation of the last target. The autoloader will not engage if the door between the tank commander and the autoloader is open. If the autoloader is disabled, provisions exist for the crew to load the AGS under armor from the gunner's position. A program requirement existed that the crew was able to do this at three rounds per minute. In practice, the crew was only able to load the tank manually at about one round per minute as of 1994.

The gunner Hughes day/night thermal sight was stabilized. The CCVL had a commander's independent thermal viewer, but this was later eliminated to save weight.

The M35 fires all NATO-standard 105 mm caliber ammunition. The AGS can defeat 75 to 80 percent of tanks it may encounter on the battlefield. The AGS has the potential to engage main battle tanks, but these more heavily armored vehicles are less likely to be the AGS's main targets. The planned targets for the AGS ranged from bunkers and other artificial structures to armored personnel carriers and light armored vehicles.

On the AGS, a Browning M2 12.7 mm (.50) caliber heavy machine gun is mounted in a fully traversable ring-style mount on the commander's hatch. Unlike in the M1A1, the M8 tank commander must expose himself through the hatch to operate the machine gun. Other possible weapons were a M240 7.62 mm caliber machine gun or an MK 19 40 mm grenade launcher. The CCVL has no commander's machine gun.

The coaxial M240 7.62 mm caliber machine gun on the CCVL has 1,600 ready rounds with 3,400 carried in reserve. On the AGS this weapon has 1,000 ready rounds and 3,500 carried in reserve. On the MPF, the coaxial 7.62 mm caliber machine gun has 1,000 ready rounds.

Human factors engineering

The AGS has an autoloader rather than a human loader. This means the AGS has a crew of three rather than four. In addition to loading the tank gun, a loader has other responsibilities that would need to be taken on by the three crew members and dismounted infantry.

Miscellaneous

The AGS has a 1553 data bus. This is not present in the CCVL. The AGS is equipped with an infantry phone.

There are separate hatches for the tank commander, gunner, and driver.

The MPF variant has four blind spot cameras for situational awareness. These could see in the long infrared range, which was integrated with the Raven soft kill system, but BAE eventually planned to add sensors for the medium-wave infrared spectrum.

Comparison of tanks

Variants

Close combat vehicle light

FMC began developing the CCVL as a private venture in 1983. The first prototype CCVL was completed in August 1985 and debuted at the meeting of the Association of the United States Army in October.

M8 armored gun system/Buford

The AGS eliminated the commander's independent thermal viewer of the CCVL. The Watervliet Arsenal M35 replaced the M68A1 gun. Six prototypes were produced, with a seventh vehicle under construction at the time of cancelation for demonstration to potential foreign buyers.

Vickers/FMC Mark 5 battle tank (VFM 5)

In 1985 the British Vickers Defence Systems and FMC collaborated on a derivative of the CCVL intended for export customers. The prototype was completed in May 1986 and first publicly appeared later that year. The tank had a fourth crewmember in lieu of an autoloader. It was armed with a 105 mm low recoil force gun, and could accept a number of other 105 mm guns as well.

Line of Sight Anti-Tank (LOSAT)

In 1994, Loral Vought Systems was awarded a contract worth up to $42.5 million ($87.4 million in 2023) to integrate the LOSAT missile onto an AGS chassis. In lieu of the turret, a missile pod with 12 kinetic energy missiles was installed. At least one full-scale mockup of the AGS LOSAT had been constructed by 1995. Delivery of the AGS LOSAT was scheduled for 1996. After the cancelation of the AGS, the Army switched the chassis of the LOSAT to the Humvee.

Austere export variant.

One demonstrator produced in 1995 by United Defense for evaluation by Taiwan.

M8 Enhanced Capabilities Demonstrator/Thunderbolt

A single technology demonstrator was built by United Defense and demonstrated in 2003. The ECD had a hybrid electric drive instead of a diesel engine. The tracks were a rubber band type. Armament was an XM291 120 mm electrothermal-chemical smoothbore cannon fitted with an autoloader. A storage area in the rear could be used to carry up to four crew members or other equipment, such as additional ammunition.

Lightning Bolt

In August 2004, BAE conducted live fire testing of the Lightning Bolt at Camp Roberts, California. Like the ECD, the Lightning Bolt incorporated a hybrid electric drive and XM291.

Singapore design study

In 2004, United Defense and Singapore studied using the AGS to meet the country's requirement for a replacement for its AMX-13 SM1 light tanks. In addition to a Thunderbolt-derived AGS variant, United Defense submitted a number of designs that mounted the Thunderbolt AGS's 120 mm cannon/turret (and alternatively, 105 mm) on a variety of chassis. These chassis were the Bionix IFV and the Universal Combat Vehicle Platform that the Primus self-propelled howitzer was based on.

120 armored gun system

BAE Systems debuted the AGS 120 in 2006. The chassis was based on the original M8 AGS but integrated the 120 mm gun and turret of the ECD/Thunderbolt.

External media
Images
Photos of the BAE Mobile Protected Firepower prototype
An M8 armored gun system awaiting restoration at the Museum Support Center at Anniston
Video
Clip of MPF firing

Expeditionary Light Tank

BAE displayed this demonstrator at AUSA 2015. Improvements included rubber band tracks and better sensors such as 360-degree cameras and thermal imagers.

Mobile Protected Firepower demonstrator

BAE Systems showed this vehicle at AUSA Global Force in 2019. This demonstrator integrated IMI Systems Iron Fist hard kill and BAE Raven soft kill active protection systems and Saab Barracuda camouflage netting. The tracks were Soucy composite rubber and the engine was hybrid electric. Four longwave infrared cameras provided 360 degrees of view from the vehicle.

XM1302 Mobile Protected Firepower

BAE Systems entered an updated variant of the M8 in the U.S. Army XM1302 Mobile Protected Firepower program. According to BAE, the MPF variant is completely redesigned, keeping only the footprint (length, width and height). The MPF incorporates a new transmission and MTU powerpack, band composite rubber track, and a new fire-control system. BAE added improved underbody armor, as well as the Iron Fist active protection system and BAE's Terra Raven soft-kill system.

Surviving examples

As of 2015, all six XM8s exist in various states of repair. An XM8 used for drop-testing is outside the U.S. Army Armor and Cavalry Collection at Fort Moore, Georgia, awaiting restoration as of 2022.

Gallery

The Close Combat Vehicle Light at the National Museum of Military Vehicles in 2020.

• Rear
• Gun mantlet
• Roadwheels
• Pepperpot muzzle brake
• Smoke grenade launcher
• Laser rangefinder
• Fire extinguisher pull handles

BAE XM1302 MPF test vehicle 2 at the U.S. Army Armor and Cavalry Collection.

• Rubber band track
• 
• Commander's hatch
• M257 smoke grenade launchers
• rear
• Pintle weapon mount
• Wire cutters
• Kidde Control Electronics Panel fire suppression system
• MTU engine
• Driver's hatch

See also

• 2S25 Sprut-SD, Russian airborne light tank
• XM1202 Mounted Combat System, a U.S. Army tank, that was part of the Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles program canceled in 2011
• Future Scout and Cavalry System/TRACER, a joint UK–U.S. scout vehicle canceled in 2001

Notes

1. The Army admonished against calling the M8 a "light tank". In a hearing before the subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. Senate in April 1991, General Pete McVey said, "The Army does not have a requirement for a light tank. A combat vehicle with all of the fightability features of a tank would result in a vehicle which is too heavy for light forces. What the Army is developing is an Armored Gun System (AGS) which will be a strategically deployable, lightly armored, highly mobile direct fire system. The primary mission of the Armored Gun System will be to provide direct fire support for airborne and light infantry forces." However, Field Manual 17-18 Light Armor Operations (1994) refers to the vehicle as the "M8 Light Tank".
2. Twelve were ordered of which at least eleven were built according to MPF project manager LTC Peter George.
3. By 1985, the Army had about 800 Sheridans, 750 of which were in storage. The 82nd Airborne retained 50 in active service.
4. In 1987, the Army tested a version of the LAV-25, designated as the M1047. The Army determined that these were unsuitable for LAPES and, with only a 25 mm caliber cannon, could not match the firepower of the Sheridan. Congress did not favor the M1047, though a few were deployed with the 3/73rd Armor of the 82nd Airborne Division in the Gulf War.
5. The Infantry School referred to the system as the Assault Gun while the Armor School favored the more "tank-like" title of Armored Gun.
6. Possible destinations for the 500 AGS systems were the 82nd Airborne, the 9th Infantry Division (Motorized) or the 101st Airborne Division.
7. TRADOC System Manager was Colonel Eugene D. Colgan from March 1991; Colonel Charles F. Moler from July 1992; and Colonel John F. Kalb from July 1995.
8. The Army claimed that the LAV–Assault Gun/LAV-105 would need additional armor to meet its protection requirements. In addition to pushing the vehicle past its maximum design weight limit, the added weight would make the LAV–AG too heavy to be lifted by the Marine Corps' CH–53E helicopter. The Marine Corps said that although the LAV–AG could theoretically be deployed via LAPES/LVAD, the vehicle would require an hour to be made combat ready after airdrop. The Army required a vehicle that could be made ready much sooner.
9. The Marine Corps claimed that the LAV-105 could be airdropped.
10. GDLS was the prime contractor. Teledyne had been the prime contractor for its own MPGS proposal
11. As of 1990, Teledyne marketed its AGS candidate as the Direct Fire Support Vehicle. It had a Cummins eight-cylinder turbocharged diesel with General Electric transmission. The gunner and tank commander were located in the turret basket for added protection.
12. The design entered into the competition was armed with an XM35 105 mm gun, though an earlier proposed model mounted a Royal Ordnance L7 105 mm Low Recoil Force cannon. It was powered by an eight-cylinder General Motors diesel engine. The torsion bar suspension is based on the M109 howitzer. The Cadloy steel armor protects the vehicle from 14.5 mm machine gun fire over the frontal arc.
13. The 1985–86 edition of Jane's Armour and Artillery labels this private venture as the "FMC XM4 Armoured Gun System".
14. For production vehicles, UDLP was expected to machine the AGS hull and turret, and fabricate its armor plate at the San Jose facility, and then ship the as-is structure to York, Pennsylvania. The York facility would perform integration, assembly, and acceptance testing.
15. The C-130 aircraft was the only U.S. tactical aircraft used for LVAD operations at the time. The C-141, C-17 and C-5, though capable of LVAD missions operate primarily in a strategic role. The C-130 can LVAD heavier loads than a C-141 without a waiver.
16. ^ Pictures of the visual differences between the armor levels can be found in a work by R. P. Hunnicutt.
17. A similar-looking undated image of an AGS is described by Christopher F Foss as having level 2 armor and explosive reactive armor.
18. ^ An illustration from an undated slide deck by FMC shows aluminum 7039 plates covering the sides of the chassis and the area behind the turret. High hard steel covers the tracks. High hard steel, perforated metal and aluminum 5083 covers the chassis rear.
19. According to MPF project manager LTC Peter George, JP-8 was expected to be used in general.
20. According to Armor Project Manager Tank Main Armament Systems, "There are ways to get many more rounds on board or strapped to the outside, but there is a penalty in weight and survivability. Additional rounds could be added to the forward storage locations, and the autoloader itself, and hung on the outside in containers. These things could be done for certain missions if the tradeoffs are acceptable, but there are limits to ammunition stowage in a light tank."
21. Should one crew member be lost, the remaining crew member in the turret can still fight the vehicle via manual loading from the gunner's position.
22. Originally a non-traversable pintle mount, this was changed to a 360° traversable design in 1992. This necessitated a redesign of the hatch.
23. An early mention of the "Buford" name appears in a speculative fictional account of the 2nd ACR in the 1994 Tom Clancy book Armored Cav: A Guided Tour of an Armored Cavalry Regiment, where it is said that the M8 is named after U.S. Army Civil War cavalry officer John Buford.

References

1. Hunnicutt 2015a, p. 288.
2. Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1992: Appendix, submitted questions and answers. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1991. p. 435. ISBN 9780160373268. Retrieved February 14, 2023.
3. Department of the Army 1994, p. 1-2.
4. ^ Tressel, Ashley (December 24, 2018). "BAE, General Dynamics move forward in MPF competition". Inside the Army. Vol. 30, no. 51. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 4–5. JSTOR 26587496.
5. ^ Nicholas Moran, LTC Peter George (July 8, 2023). Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: BAE XM1302, Part 2 (Video). Retrieved July 8, 2023.
6. ^ Hunnicutt 2015a, p. 310.
7. ^ Miller, David Maxwell Owens (2000). The Illustrated Directory of Tanks of the World. London: Salamander. pp. 478–480. ISBN 1840651768. Retrieved March 7, 2022.
8. ^ Foss, Christopher F, ed. (1995). "Light Tanks". Jane's Armour and Artillery 1995–96 (16th ed.). Surrey: Janes Information Group. pp. 167–169. ISBN 978-0-71061-260-1.
9. ^ "Army Official Urges Purchase of 500 Light Tanks". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. UPI. December 23, 1985. Archived from the original on October 18, 2022. Retrieved October 18, 2022.
10. Zaloga 2009, p. 35–38.
11. ^ Hunnicutt 2015a, p. 165.
12. Freeman 1991, p. 13.
13. Bowman, Kendall & Saunders 1989, p. 13.
14. Bowman, Kendall & Saunders 1989, p. 14–15.
15. ^ Bowman, Kendall & Saunders 1989, p. 26-27.
16. ^ Foss, Christopher F, ed. (1985). "Light Tanks". Jane's Armour and Artillery 1985–86 (6th ed.). London: Jane's Publishing Company. p. 152. ISBN 0-7106-0820-9.
17. Siler IV, CPT Julius G. (August 1994). "Winds of Change Favor Armored Gun System (AGS)". Ordnance. Department of the Army: 32–34. Retrieved February 23, 2024.
18. Hearings on Military Posture and H.R. 5968. U.S. Government Printing Office. March 1982. pp. 953–956. Retrieved January 9, 2024.
19. Department of Defense Appropriations for 1985: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives. U.S. Government Printing Office. April 5, 1984. pp. 245–246. Retrieved January 9, 2024.
20. "Toward New Combat Vehicle Armament". Army Research, Development & Acquisition Magazine. 22 (5): 9–11. September–October 1981. Retrieved December 17, 2023. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
21. Foss, Christopher F, ed. (1987). "Armoured Personnel Carriers". Jane's Armour and Artillery 1987–88 (8th ed.). Jane's Publishing Company. p. 267. ISBN 0-7106-0849-7.
22. Zaloga, Steven J. (1984). US Light Tanks 1944–84. London: Osprey Publishing Ltd. pp. 24, 25. ISBN 0-85045-541-3.
23. ^ Zaloga 2009, p. 43.
24. United States Congress House Committee on Armed Services (1982). Research and development, Title II. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 955. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
25. "Joint-Service Contract Finally Let to GM of Canada". Army. 30 (1): 67. January 1982. ISSN 0004-2455. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
26. United States Congress House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Department of Defense (1985). Department of Defense Appropriations for 1986: Marine Corps procurement programs. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 93. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
27. Zaloga 2009, p. 44–45.
28. Army (35 ed.). Association of the United States Army. October 1985. p. 487. Retrieved February 15, 2023.
29. Bowman, Kendall & Saunders 1989, p. 5–6.
30. Bowman, Kendall & Saunders 1989, p. 101–102.
31. Freeman 1991, p. 12–14.
32. Freeman 1991, p. 16.
33. Loughlin, Don (July–August 1998). "Sayonara AGS! Sayonara Scout? Sayonara Armor?" (PDF). Armor. 107 (4): 37. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 13, 2022. Retrieved June 1, 2022.
34. "Unknown". Jane's Defence Weekly. Vol. 5, no. 17. May 3, 1986. p. 63. ISSN 0265-3818. Retrieved January 10, 2024.
35. Dunn, Richard J. (Spring 2001). "Transformation: Let's Get it Right this Time". The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters. 31 (1). doi:10.55540/0031-1723.2020. Retrieved January 11, 2024.
36. ^ Freeman 1991, p. 14.
37. ^ Foss, Christopher F, ed. (1987). "Light Tanks". Jane's Armour and Artillery 1987–88 (8th ed.). Jane's Publishing Company. pp. 155–158, 163. ISBN 0-7106-0849-7.
38. Hunnicutt 2015a, p. 176.
39. Hunnicutt 2015a, p. 175.
40. Freeman 1991, p. 15.
41. Cooney, Major Patrick J., ed. (March–April 1991). "Directory - Points of Contact" (PDF). Armor. 100 (2): 2. Retrieved March 3, 2023.
42. Brewer, Major J. D., ed. (July–August 1992). "Directory - Points of Contact". Armor. 101 (4): 2. Retrieved March 3, 2023.
43. Blakely, Major Terry A., ed. (July–August 1995). "Directory - Points of Contact". Armor. 104 (4): 2. Retrieved March 3, 2023.
44. "Vuono calls for 70 Sheridan light tank replacements; LH receives praise from subcommittee". Defense Daily. Vol. 166, no. 61. Access Intelligence. March 30, 1990. Archived from the original on January 20, 2023. Retrieved January 16, 2023.
45. Preston 2004, p. 28.
46. Etchechury, James (January–February 1991). "The Armored Gun System Debate: Let It Begin Before It Is Too Late" (PDF). Armor. 100 (1): 32, 38. Retrieved July 22, 2024.
47. "SASC requires Army to develop ASM artillery before tank". Defense Daily. Vol. 168, no. 13. Access Intelligence. July 19, 1990. Archived from the original on January 20, 2023. Retrieved January 16, 2023.
48. "Army reviewing Congressional call for procurement of gun system". Defense Daily. Vol. 168, no. 34. Access Intelligence. August 17, 1990. Archived from the original on January 20, 2023. Retrieved January 15, 2023.
49. Freeman 1991, p. 1.
50. "SAC makes AFAS priority over block III tank". Defense Daily. Vol. 169, no. 13. Access Intelligence. October 18, 1990. Archived from the original on January 20, 2023. Retrieved January 16, 2023.
51. ^ Richard, Lardner (March 2, 1992). "Service Emphasizes Lighter Forces: in New World, Armored Gun System Ranks as Army's Top Procurement Priority". Inside the Pentagon. Vol. 8, no. 11. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 11–13. JSTOR 43987842.
52. Hinton, Henry; Shafer, F. James; Gaston, Lawrence (July 1991). Armored Systems Modernization: Program Inconsistent With Current Threat and Budgetary Constraints (PDF) (Report). Government Accounting Office. p. 12. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 20, 2022. Retrieved February 21, 2022. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
53. "Army Plans to Form Three Units That Will Feature Armored Gun System". Inside the Pentagon. Vol. 7, no. 46. Inside Washington Publishers. November 14, 1991. pp. 3–4. JSTOR 43987581.
54. ^ Hunnicutt 2015a, p. 183.
55. ^ Edwards III, Major O.T. (January–March 1995). "TRADOC System Manager For Abrams and the AGS Comments on 'Assault Gun Battalion 96'" (PDF). Armor. 104 (1): 49. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 15, 2017. Retrieved March 23, 2022.
56. Foote, Sheila (October 31, 1995). "Army okays initial production of Armored Gun System". Defense Daily. Access Intelligence. Archived from the original on January 15, 2023. Retrieved August 5, 2022.
57. "Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1991". U.S. Government Printing Office. March 29, 1990. pp. 192, 196.
58. "LAV-105 can meet Army need for air dropable AGS". Defense Daily. Vol. 169, no. 25. Access Intelligence. November 5, 1990. Archived from the original on January 20, 2023. Retrieved January 15, 2023.
59. "Army will consider LAV-105 for AGS". Defense Daily. Vol. 169, no. 34. Access Intelligence. November 19, 1990. Archived from the original on January 20, 2023. Retrieved January 15, 2023.
60. "Army, Marine Corps Told to Join Forces and Develop New Armored Vehicle". Inside the Pentagon. Vol. 7, no. 30. Inside Washington Publishers. July 25, 1991. p. 5. JSTOR 43987311.
61. ^ "Marines reject Hill advice on LAV-105 turret; SASC and HASC support common turret". Defense Daily. Vol. 172, no. 28. Access Intelligence. August 8, 1991. Archived from the original on January 15, 2023. Retrieved August 5, 2022.
62. "Senate Appropriators Say: Army Does Not Have Funding to Follow Through With Force Modernization Plans". Inside the Pentagon. Vol. 7, no. 39. Inside Washington Publishers. September 26, 1991. p. 12. JSTOR 43989173.
63. Wank 1993, p. 23–24.
64. Wank 1993, p. 27–28.
65. ^ Bolte, Brig. Gen Phillip L. (May 1992). "Army's Light Forces Take on New Muscle". Armed Forces Journal International.
66. ^ "FMC Selected to Build Armored Gun System: Army's AGS to Feature All-Welded Aluminum Hull, Detroit Diesel Engine". Inside the Pentagon. Vol. 8, no. 24. Inside Washington Publishers. June 11, 1992. p. 13. JSTOR 43988110.
67. ^ Wank 1993, p. 35.
68. ^ "The Contenders: Four Teams Compete for Armored Gun System Contract". Inside the Pentagon. Vol. 8, no. 11. Inside Washington Publishers. March 12, 1992. p. 12. JSTOR 43987850.
69. ^ Hunnicutt 2015a, p. 182.
70. ^ Stephen J., Mraz (December 6, 1990). "Lightweight, fights great". Machine Design. Vol. 62, no. 25. p. 22+. Archived from the original on January 20, 2023. Retrieved January 15, 2023.
71. ^ Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition) 1996, p. 163.
72. Foss, Christopher F, ed. (1985). "Addenda". Jane's Armour and Artillery 1985–86 (6th ed.). London: Jane's Publishing Company. pp. 922–923. ISBN 0-7106-0820-9.
73. Foss, Christopher F, ed. (1987). "Light Tanks". Jane's Armour and Artillery 1987–88 (10th ed.). London: Jane's Publishing Company. p. 153. ISBN 0-7106-0849-7.
74. ^ "M8 Armored Gun System - Archived 3/2004". www.forecastinternational.com. Forecast International. Archived from the original on March 28, 2019. Retrieved March 28, 2019.
75. "Army's AGS Will Be Based on Existing Platform, 'Air-Droppable' From C-17". Inside the Pentagon. Vol. 7, no. 15. Inside Washington Publishers. April 11, 1991. JSTOR 43987017.
76. ^ "Armored Gun System Loses Weight to Be Deployed by C-130". Inside the Pentagon. Vol. 9, no. 31. Inside Washington Publishers. August 5, 1993. JSTOR 43990667.
77. "Transportability of Major Weapon and Support Systems" (PDF). DoD Office of the Inspector General. December 27, 1993. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 15, 2020. Retrieved January 15, 2020.
78. Dupont, Daniel G. (January 31, 1994). "Army Refutes DoD IG Claim That AGS Airdrop Mission May Be Ignored". Inside the Army. Vol. 6, no. 5. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 17–18. JSTOR 43975837.
79. ^ "Army Successfully Drops Armored Gun System From C-130 at Yuma". Inside the Army. Vol. 6, no. 43. Inside Washington Publishers. October 24, 1994. pp. 6–7. JSTOR 43976759.
80. Dupont, Daniel G. (November 15, 1993). "SADARM, MLRS Slipped: Army's POM Shows Planned Buy of Armored Gun Systems Is Cut by 77". Inside the Army. Vol. 5, no. 46. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 17–19. JSTOR 43975649.
81. "82nd Airborne to Be Equipped in FY-97: Program Overhaul Accelerates AGS Production Schedule by Two Years". Inside the Army. Vol. 6, no. 33. Inside Washington Publishers. August 15, 1994. pp. 6–7. JSTOR 43976559.
82. ^ "Decker Lauds 'Model of Streamlined Acquisition': Six-Year Armored Gun System Cost-Cutting Plan Could Save $490 Million". Inside the Army. Vol. 7, no. 50. Inside Washington Publishers. December 18, 1995. pp. 3–4. JSTOR 43982560.
83. "FY '95 budget cut to slip Armored Gun System by one year". Defense Daily. Vol. 182, no. 5. Access Intelligence. January 10, 1994. Archived from the original on January 20, 2023. Retrieved January 15, 2023.
84. Department of Defense (October 1995). Industrial Assessment for Tracked Combat Vehicles (PDF) (Report). p. 64. Retrieved April 24, 2023. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
85. Eagles, Cynthia (May 1, 1995). "This Gun for Hire: Prototype of Weapon Reaches Fort Knox". The Courier Journal. Archived from the original on May 12, 2022. Retrieved January 15, 2020.
86. ^ Zaloga 2009, p. 46.
87. ^ "Armored Gun System Completes Early User Tests, Clearing Way for LRIP". Inside the Army. Vol. 7, no. 31. Inside Washington Publishers. August 7, 1995. p. 3. JSTOR 43978398.
88. Sherman, Jason (September 25, 1995). "National Guard Expressing Interest in System: Army Considering Reducing or Terminating Armored Gun System Purchase". Inside the Army. Vol. 7, no. 38. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 8–9. JSTOR 43978524.
89. Sherman, Jason (January 26, 1996). "More Than $1 Billion Saved: Budget Squeeze Drives Army to Terminate Armored Gun System Program". Inside the Army. Inside Washington Publishers. JSTOR 43978810. Retrieved March 3, 2023.
90. ^ Foss, Christopher F, ed. (1997). "Light Tanks". Jane's Armour and Artillery 1997–98 (18th ed.). Surrey: Jane's Information Group. pp. 171–173. ISBN 978-0-71061-542-8.
91. Preston 2004, p. 12–14.
92. "DoD Allots $39 Billion for Procurement in FY-96, Lowest Level Since 1950". Inside the Pentagon. Inside Washington Publishers. February 6, 1995. JSTOR 43990396. Archived from the original on September 20, 2022. Retrieved September 18, 2022.
93. Dupont, Daniel G. (February 15, 1996). "Anti-Armor Review Could Lead to More Cuts: Canceling Armored Gun System Only One Step Toward Modernization Fix". Inside the Army. Vol. 8, no. 5. Inside Washington Publishers. JSTOR 43978852. Archived from the original on September 20, 2022. Retrieved September 18, 2022.
94. ^ Cameron, Robert S. (March 11, 1998). 1996 Annual Command History (PDF) (Report). United States Army Armor Center and Fort Knox. pp. 111–112. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 11, 2022. Retrieved February 21, 2022. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
95. ^ Sherman, Jason (February 12, 1996). "Service Still Seeking OSD Support: Army's Decision to Terminate AGS Meets Stiff Resistance on Capitol Hill". Inside the Army. Vol. 8, no. 6. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 9–10. JSTOR 43982648.
96. ^ Reimer, Dennis J. (2000). Carafano, James Jay (ed.). Soldiers are our Credentials: The Collected Works and Selected Papers of the Thirty-third Chief of Staff, United States Army (PDF). p. 25-26. Retrieved February 21, 2024.
97. ^ "Army Termination Decision Still Unannounced: Lawmakers Urge Perry to Fully Fund Armored Gun System in 1997 Budget". Inside the Army. Vol. 8, no. 4. Inside Washington Publishers. January 29, 1996. pp. 1, 16. JSTOR 43978837. Archived from the original on September 20, 2022. Retrieved September 18, 2022.
98. ^ Sherman, Jason (February 19, 1996). "With Congress Out of Session . . .: OSD Holding Up AGS Termination Announcement; JROC Backs Army Decision". Inside the Army. Vol. 8, no. 7. Inside Washington Publishers. JSTOR 43978916. Archived from the original on September 20, 2022. Retrieved September 18, 2022.
99. Arenstein, Seth (March 4, 1996). "AGS killed as Army budget rises". Defense Daily. Vol. 190, no. 42. Access Intelligence. Retrieved August 5, 2022.
100. Sherman, Jason (March 25, 1996). "According to MG Anderson: Army Considers How It Will Compensate for Loss of Armored Gun System". Inside the Army. Vol. 8, no. 12. Inside Washington Publishers. JSTOR 43982686. Archived from the original on August 6, 2022. Retrieved August 6, 2022.
101. "Chief Requests Study of Assault Gun Requirement: Gen. Reimer Directs Army to Inactivate Would-be AGS Unit by Next July". Inside the Army. Vol. 8, no. 36. Inside Washington Publishers. September 9, 1996. pp. 1, 11. JSTOR 43979441. Archived from the original on August 6, 2022. Retrieved August 6, 2022.
102. Sherman, Jason (July 15, 1996). "Reimer Wants Little Disruption for Soldiers: Without AGS, Army Plans to Phase Out Its Sole Light Armored Battalion". Inside the Army. Vol. 8, no. 28. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 7. JSTOR 43982760. Archived from the original on August 6, 2022. Retrieved August 6, 2022.
103. "Army Considers Speeding Javelin Fielding to Unit Affected by AGS Kill". Inside the Army. Vol. 8, no. 14. Inside Washington Publishers. April 8, 1996. JSTOR 43982527. Archived from the original on August 6, 2022. Retrieved August 6, 2022.
104. Winograd, Eric Q. (May 18, 1998). "Enhanced Fiber-optic Guided Missile Killed in House, Senate Bills". Inside the Army. Vol. 10, no. 19. Inside Washington Publishers. p. 5. JSTOR 43981279. Archived from the original on August 6, 2022. Retrieved August 6, 2022.
105. Dupont, Daniel G. (July 28, 1997). "Panel Accuses Service of Misusing ACTD Concept: Army's Plans to Replace AGS With EFOG-M, LOSAT Under Fire in Congress". Inside the Army. Vol. 9, no. 30. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 10–12. JSTOR 43980251. Archived from the original on August 6, 2022. Retrieved August 6, 2022.
106. "Future KE Missile Road Map Under Development: Army Evaluates Plans for Kinetic-energy Weapons After LOSAT Kill". Inside the Army. Vol. 17, no. 18. Inside Washington Publishers. May 9, 2005. pp. 1, 8. JSTOR 24823265. Archived from the original on August 6, 2022. Retrieved August 6, 2022.
107. ^ Staff of the AUSA Institute of Land Warfare (June 1993). Army Budget Fiscal Year 1994—An Analysis (PDF) (Report). Association of The United States Army. p. 42.
108. ^ Staff of the AUSA Institute of Land Warfare (May 1995). Army Budget Fiscal Year 1996—An Analysis (PDF) (Report). Association of The United States Army. p. 42.
109. Dupont, Daniel G. (May 18, 1998). "Armored Gun System May Get (Limited) New Life". Inside the Army. Vol. 10, no. 19. Inside Washington Publishers. p. 7. JSTOR 43981282.
110. MacRae, Catherine (October 14, 1999). "Service Wants to Be Lighter, Faster, More Lethal: Army Chief of Staff's 'vision' Is Focused on Medium-weight Force". Inside the Army. Vol. 15, no. 41. Inside Washington Publishers. p. 6. JSTOR 43995956. Archived from the original on December 9, 2022. Retrieved February 7, 2022.
111. ^ Burger, Kim (October 9, 2000). "IAV Source Selection May Come This Week: Chosen Vehicle Less Important Than New Concept, Observers Say". Inside the Army. Vol. 12, no. 40. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 7–9. JSTOR 43985072.
112. ^ Gourley, Scott R. (June 2000). "Soldier Armed: Armored Gun System". Army. 50 (6): 65-66. Retrieved July 22, 2024.
113. Hunnicutt, Richard Pearce (September 15, 2015) . "The LAV Program". Armored Car: A History of American Wheeled Combat Vehicles. Brattleboro, VT: Echo Point Books & Media. p. 295. ISBN 978-1-62654-155-9.
114. Baumgardner, Neil (December 16, 1999). "GD, GMC, UDLP Add Vehicles for Knox Demonstration Program". Defense Daily. Vol. 204, no. 51. Access Intelligence. Archived from the original on January 20, 2023. Retrieved January 15, 2023.
115. ^ Burger, Kim (December 18, 2001). "According to Company Protest Documents . . .: UDLP Alleges Bias Against Tracked Vehicles in Army's LAV III Pick". Inside the Army. Vol. 12, no. 50. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1–6. JSTOR 43984197.
116. Winograd, Erin Q. (May 7, 2001). "GAO Releases Redacted Decision: UDLP Won't Pursue Further Action to Overturn Army's IAV Decision". Inside the Army. Vol. 13, no. 18. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1–7. JSTOR 43985396.
117. ^ "GDLS given $500,000 to pursue air-drop test: Army to Delay Armored Gun System Delivery Until MGS Tests Complete". Inside the Army. Vol. 16, no. 23. Inside Washington Publishers. June 7, 2004. JSTOR 24822615.
118. ^ "Cody: Answer Could Lie Outside Army: Army Re-evaluates Airborne Division's Request for AGS-like Platform". Inside the Army. Vol. 16, no. 44. Inside Washington Publishers. November 1, 2004. JSTOR 24821748.
119. DiMascio, Jen (January 31, 2005). "Letter Notes Soldiers 'Dying in the Streets of Iraq': Rep. Hayes Presses DoD to Send Armored Gun System to 82nd Airborne". Inside the Army. Vol. 17, no. 4. Inside Washington Publishers. JSTOR 24822880.
120. "Rep. Hayes Dissatisfied With Response to Query on AGS: Army Still Backing Stryker MGS to Fill Year-Old Request for Firepower". Inside the Army. Vol. 17, no. 6. Inside Washington Publishers. February 14, 2005. JSTOR 24823120.
121. "U.S. and Taiwan move closer on sale of Armored Gun System". Defense Daily. Vol. 183, no. 60. Access Intelligence. June 27, 1994. Archived from the original on January 15, 2023. Retrieved August 5, 2022.
122. ^ Sherman, Jason (March 4, 1996). "Turkey, Taiwan Scheduled for Vehicle Demos: Foreign Interest in AGS Remains Firm Despite Army Termination Decision". Inside the Army. Vol. 8, no. 9. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 14–15. JSTOR 43982669.
123. ^ Cahlink, George (February 16, 1998). "Army May Help Company's Cause: United Defense Markets Armored Gun System to Turkey, Other Nations". Inside the Army. Vol. 10, no. 6. Inside Washington Publishers. p. 3. JSTOR 43982835.
124. Sprenger, Sebastian (August 17, 2015). "'Mobile Protected Firepower' weapon sought: Service Begins Tipping Its Hand On Combat Vehicle Modernization Strategy". Inside the Army. Vol. 27, no. 32. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 10–11. JSTOR 24841371.
125. ^ Sterenfeld, Ethan (December 16, 2020). "BAE starting to deliver MPF prototypes". Inside Defense. Inside Washington Publishers. Archived from the original on May 12, 2022. Retrieved March 23, 2022.
126. Judson, Jen (October 11, 2021). "US Army's light tank competition enters final stretch". Defense News. Archived from the original on January 14, 2023. Retrieved November 11, 2022.
127. ^ Judson, Jen (June 28, 2022). "General Dynamics unit wins contract to build new light tank for infantry". Defense News. Archived from the original on January 14, 2023. Retrieved June 30, 2022.
128. "US Army eliminates BAE Systems from 'light tank' competition". Janes Information Services. March 2, 2022. Archived from the original on March 6, 2022.
129. Judson, Jen (June 10, 2023). "US Army's new combat vehicle named for soldiers killed in Iraq, WWII". Defense News. Retrieved June 25, 2023.
130. ^ Flanagan, Captain Timothy (May–June 1995). "How Manpower and Personnel Integration Was Applied to the Armored Gun System". Armor. 104 (3): 37. Retrieved July 13, 2023.
131. Freeman 1991, p. 20.
132. Transportability of Major Weapon and Support Systems – GAO Report (PDF) (Report). General Accounting Office. December 27, 1993. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 15, 2020. Retrieved January 15, 2020. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
133. Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition) 1996, p. 225.
134. ^ Foss, Christopher F, ed. (1986). "MBTs/Medium Tanks". Jane's Armour and Artillery 1986–87 (7th ed.). London: Jane's Publishing Company. pp. 113–114. ISBN 978-0-71060-849-9.
135. ^ Foss, Christopher F, ed. (2008). "Light Tanks". Jane's Armour and Artillery 2008–2009 (29th ed.). Surrey: Janes Information Group. pp. 193–195. ISBN 978-0-71061-374-5.
136. Lett, Phillip. Phillip Lett Collection, Box: 18, File: 22. Armored Gun System. Auburn, AL: Auburn University. 02-038.
137. ^ Shufelt Jr. 1993, p. 17.
138. ^ Moler, Colonel Charles F.; Knox, Colonel Richard L. (March–April 1993). "AGS Answers". Armor. 102 (2): 3-4. Retrieved July 13, 2023. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
139. Cullen & Foss 1997, p. 170.
140. ^ Nagl 1992, p. 28.
141. ^ Hartline, Colonel Franklin Y. (March–April 1993). "AGS Questions". Armor. 102 (2): 2-3. Retrieved July 13, 2023. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
142. ^ LTC Peter George, Nicholas Moran (June 24, 2023). Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: BAE XM1302, Part 1 (Video). Retrieved June 24, 2023.
143. Lopez, Ramon. "CCVL unveiled". International Defense Review 1985. No. 9. Interavia S.A. ISSN 0020-6512. Retrieved June 13, 2023.
144. Decision (Report). General Accounting Office. April 9, 2001. Archived from the original on February 28, 2021. Retrieved June 23, 2022. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
145. ^ "MPF: Light Tank Competitors BAE & GD Head For Soldier Tests". Breaking Defense. October 19, 2020. Archived from the original on May 22, 2022. Retrieved May 22, 2022.
146. ^ Freeburg Jr., Sydney J. (February 21, 2019). "Army Adapts Aircraft EW To Protect Tanks: BAE Raven". Breaking Defense. Breaking Media. Retrieved August 11, 2023.
147. ^ Hunnicutt 2015a, p. 172.
148. Nagl 1992, p. 28–29.
149. Nagl 1992, p. 29.
150. ^ Moler, Charles F. (July–September 1994). "The TRADOC System Manager for the AGS Comments on 'The AGS in Low-Intensity Conflict'" (PDF). Armor. 103 (4). Archived (PDF) from the original on March 23, 2022. Retrieved March 23, 2022.
151. Tegler, Eric (March 7, 2021). "Two Light Tank Prototypes Battle for the Future of Army Firepower". Popular Mechanics. Hearst Magazine Media. Retrieved June 1, 2023.
152. Freeman 1991, p. 17.
153. "Citing Problems With Armored Gun System, Black Hawk Retrofits: IG: Transcom Should Get Transportability Oversight Responsibility". Inside the Army. Vol. 10, no. 4. Inside Washington Publishers. January 27, 1994. JSTOR 43989447. Retrieved May 31, 2023.
154. Preston 2004, p. 30.
155. Hagen 1997, p. 27.
156. Mauser, George E. (January–February 1996). "The Armored Gun System (AGS) Autoloader" (PDF). Armor. 105 (1): 10. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 24, 2022. Retrieved March 24, 2022.
157. "TRADOC Study Finds Billions of Dollars in Unfunded CSS Requirements". Inside the Army. Vol. 5, no. 46. Inside Washington Publishers. November 15, 1993. p. 17. JSTOR 43975662.
158. "Army wants new medium assault bridges". Defense Daily. Vol. 185, no. 13. Access Intelligence. October 20, 1994. Archived from the original on January 20, 2023. Retrieved January 15, 2023.
159. Department of the Army 1994, p. 4-22.
160. ^ Freeman 1991, p. 23–24.
161. ^ Hunnicutt 2015a, p. 178.
162. Cullen & Foss 1997, p. 344.
163. ^ Nagl 1992, p. 27–28.
164. Tibbetts 1994, p. 31.
165. Foote, Sheila (October 31, 1995). "Army okays initial production of Armored Gun System". Defense Daily. Vol. 189, no. 21. Access Intelligence. Archived from the original on January 15, 2023. Retrieved January 18, 2023.
166. Wank 1993, p. 6.
167. ^ "Despite a slight design change, AGS forges ahead". Defense Daily. Vol. 177, no. 12. Access Intelligence. October 19, 1992. p. 94+. Archived from the original on January 20, 2023. Retrieved January 15, 2023.
168. Department of the Army 1996, p. 69.
169. ^ Foss, Christopher F, ed. (1996). "Light Tanks, Tank Destroyers". Jane's Armour and Artillery 1996–97 (17th ed.). Surrey: Janes Information Group. pp. 193–195, 546. ISBN 978-0-71061-374-5.
170. Hunnicutt 2015a, p. 309.
171. Hunnicutt, Richard Pearce (September 15, 2015) . Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank. Battleboro, VT: Echo Point Books & Media. ISBN 978-1-62654-166-5.
172. South, Todd (December 17, 2018). "Army picks two companies to build prototypes for a new cannon-toting vehicle to back up infantry". Army Times. Retrieved March 2, 2023.
173. Clancy, Tom (1994). Armored Cav: A Guided Tour of an Armored Cavalry Regiment. New York: Berkley Books. p. 283. ISBN 0-425-15836-5. Retrieved October 5, 2022.
174. Cameron, Robert S. "Pushing the Envelope of Battlefield Superiority". Armor (November-December 1998): 11. Retrieved January 8, 2024. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
175. Steeb, Randall; Matsumura, John; Covington, Terrell; Herbert, Thomas; Eisenhard, Scot; Melody, Laura (1996). Rapid Force Projection Technologies A Quick-Look Analysis of Advanced Light Indirect Fire System (PDF) (Report). Arroyo Center National Defense Research Institute. p. 6. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 3, 2022. Retrieved June 3, 2022.
176. Dupont, Daniel G. (November 25, 1996). "But Army May Still Fight for LOSAT: Pentagon Comptroller Terminates Advanced Tank-Killing Missile System". Inside the Army. Vol. 8, no. 47. Inside Washington Publishers. p. 12. JSTOR 43979626.
177. Hunnicutt 2015a, p. 183–186.
178. "United Defense Unveils Thunderbolt 120 mm Demonstrator". United Defense. October 6, 2003. Archived from the original on October 10, 2003.
179. Goodell, Brad (January 2007), "Electrothermal Chemical (ETC) Armament System Integration Into a Combat Vehicle", IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 43 (1), IEEE: 456–459, Bibcode:2007ITM....43..456G, doi:10.1109/TMAG.2006.887524, S2CID 35796526, archived from the original on September 28, 2022, retrieved September 28, 2022
180. "Singapore studies indigenous 120 mm main battle tank". Jane's International Defence Review. April 5, 2004. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved September 29, 2008.
181. Christopher F Foss (October 29, 2015). AUSA 2015 BAE Systems M8 Expeditionary Light Tank (video) (video). Washington, D.C.: Janes Information Group. Retrieved August 10, 2023.
182. Maundrill, Beth (March 28, 2019). "AUSA Global 2019: BAE Systems looks to impress with technology demonstrator vehicle". Shephard. Retrieved August 10, 2023.
183. Muradian, Vago (October 2019). BAE's Signorelli on New Light Tank, Archer Wheeled Artillery, AMPV Update, Heavy Tank Concepts (Video interview). Huntsville, Alabama: Defense & Aerospace Report. Event occurs at 1:30. Archived from the original on November 11, 2022. Retrieved November 11, 2022. There's a lot of confusion about—it's an M8, it's an AGS—It really isn't. This is a new from the ground up chassis. The only thing we really kept was the footprint.
184. Weisgerber, Marcus (October 12, 2015). "With Russia in Mind, BAE Revives Light Tank from the '90s". Defense One. Government Media Executive Group. Retrieved November 10, 2023.
185. Moran, Nicholas (May 8, 2022). Unofficial High Speed Tour of the US Armor and Cavalry Collection, Ft Benning (video). Fort Benning, Georgia: YouTube. Event occurs at 44:20. Retrieved May 28, 2023.

Bibliography

• Department of the Army (March 8, 1994). Light Armor Operations (FM 17-18) (PDF). Retrieved May 31, 2023. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
• Department of the Army (April 1996). "656". Tank Platoon (FM 17-15) (PDF). Retrieved May 31, 2023.
• Bowman, Stephen L.; Kendall, John M.; Saunders, James L., eds. (1989). Motorized Experience of the 9th Infantry Division 1980–1989 (PDF). Fort Lewis: Fort Lewis, Wash. OCLC 37397056. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 24, 2020. Retrieved August 15, 2022. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
• Cullen, Tony; Foss, Christopher F, eds. (1997). Jane's Armour and Artillery Upgrades 1997–98 (10th ed.). Surrey: Jane's Information Group.
• Freeman, Major Marshall A. (April 5, 1991). The Army Needs a Strategic Armored Gun System—Now! (PDF) (War College Individual Study Project). U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 12, 2022. Retrieved March 10, 2022. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
• Hagen, Lieutenant James A. (December 18, 1997). Employment of Light Infantry in Contingency Operations: What Do We Do Without Light Armor (PDF) (Monograph). U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 2, 2022. Retrieved June 1, 2022. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
• Hunnicutt, Richard Pearce (2015a) . Sheridan: A History of the American Light Tank. Vol. 2. Battleboro, VT: Echo Point Books & Media. ISBN 978-1-62654-154-2.
• Nagl, Captain John A. (July–August 1992). "Sheridan Replacement Offers Better Firepower Plus Worldwide Mobility" (PDF). Armor. 101 (4). Fort Knox, KY: United States Army Armor Center: 26–29. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 23, 2018. Retrieved March 23, 2022. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
• Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition) (1996). Weapon Systems 1996 (PDF) (Report). Retrieved January 26, 2023. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
• Preston, Major Andrew D. (May 26, 2004). Putting Armor Back Into the 82nd Airborne Division: Revisiting the AGS Decision (PDF) (Monograph). Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved March 23, 2022. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
• Shufelt Jr., Major James W. (May 1, 1993). Mobile Firepower for Contingency Operations: Emerging Concepts for U.S. Army Light Armor Forces (PDF) (Monograph). Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies. Retrieved January 18, 2024. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
• Tibbetts, Major John R. (December 17, 1994). The Impact of the Human Dimension on a Three-Man-Crew Tank (PDF) (Monograph). Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies. Retrieved March 23, 2022. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
• Wank, Lieutenant Colonel James A. (April 15, 1993). The Armored Gun System - An Acquisition Streamlining Model for the U.S. Army? (PDF) (Personal study). U.S. Army War College. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 2, 2022. Retrieved June 1, 2022. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
• Zaloga, Stephen J. (2009). M551 Sheridan, US Airmobile Tanks 1941–2001. Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-1-84603-391-9.

External links

• CCVL auction from the Littlefield Collection
• Nicholas Moran reviews the BAE XM1302 MPF
• Moran reviews the interior of the BAE XM1302 MPF

• Light tanks of the United States
• Airborne tanks
• Fire support vehicles
• Tanks with autoloaders
• Cold War tanks of the United States
• Light tanks of the Cold War
• Post–Cold War light tanks
• Post–Cold War tanks of the United States
• Abandoned military projects of the United States
• United Defense
• BAE Systems land vehicles
• FMC Corporation