IF USA put M8 AGS into production.....

[roughneck06]

If the USA had placed the M8 AGS into production and equppped 82d Airborne and 2 ACR with these light tanks- who might have also decided to get M8s as well??? Austrailia? NZ, Turkey, Canada??? Others??? Perhaps even the UK for their Airborne BDE?

Absolutely criminal that the USA cancelled it!!!! I was with 82d and felt betrayed that the replacement for the M551 was cancelled- and believe me- so did alot of other 82d troopers felt the same way. CofS USA at the the time should have been busted down to MG. fuzzy bunny!!!!

[philp]

Hadn't heard of this one so had to Google it.  Kind of a high, squat turret.  Would have been interesting.  Did find this which may have contributed to it being cancelled.
"During the trials it appeared that the ammunition compartment failed to contain the reaction of the ammunition, when hit by anti-tank weapons."

[dy031101]

The ROC (Taiwanese) Army and Marine Corps were very interested in the AGS, too- the fact that the best tanks they've got are Pattons with kick-butt FCS but the same old armour protection and mobility, couple with the somewhat popular local belief that Taiwan is unsuitable for MBT activities, means that a light tank like the M8 was considered a reasonable interim replacement- but reportedly the Americans were asking for a higher unit price than a M1A2......

[anthonyp]

It very nearly came into production for Turkey.  There were even production plans drawn up for production over there, but the project was scrapped, and the six XM8's became oddities at York, PA, where they have to stay.  Can't bring one to my facility mainly because the Customer has a conniption when they turn up (because the Stryker AGS is "sooooo" successful    ).  It was killed primarily for political reasons here in the US and abroad.

Funny thing is the XM8's turret would fit almost seamlessly onto a Bradley's hull.

[Just call me Ray]

Funny thing is the XM8's turret would fit almost seamlessly onto a Bradley's hull.

Well, I heard that it's basically a "tank" version of either the M113 or Bradley, I don't remember which, so it doesn't surprise me.

[BillSlim]

It used, IIRC, the running gear from the Bradley. The reason I've heard for cancellation was the budget cuts of the mid '90s and the need to pay for the Bosnia peacekeeping force.
IMVHO it would have been a useful vehicle; at Level III armour it apparently would have been as well protected as the M60A3.

There's no way that the UK would have bought a small number of AGS to support 5th Airborne and its successor 16th Air Assault Brigade. It would not have made any sense from either an economic standpoint, or an operational one. As it is 16th AAB and 3 Cdo Brigade are supported by the CVR(T) family.

[rabid stoat]

Australia might have been interested, if the M8 was really c-130 transportable. As mentioned elsewhere we did look at the M551 Sheridan back in the sixties and developed a series of M113 derivatives for fire support, so the idea of lightweight armour clearly had some traction. If you'd caught us in the nineties when our Leopards were getting old and the idea of rapid deployment forces was popular I think we'd have been interested.

[Nick]

If you can fly a handful of these to the bare-bones bases on the north coast of Australia then they could do a useful job of holding back the invasion forces until the bigger tanks have been driven to a suitable battlefield.

I think the 82nd Airborne would really want these to replace the Sheridans they lost but they got the Strykers instead.

[rabid stoat]

Actually I imagine the idea was to use a lighter vehicle for direct fire support for infantry. Certainly the Centurion tank was used to great effect in this role in Vietnam, but it was perhaps a little big and clumsy for jungle fighting. The M113s were adequate but makeshift, and lacked the ability to tackle enemy tanks.

In general we don't like contemplating fighting off invaders on home soil. I doubt continental defence was on the agenda at all, except as a worst case scenario, and I agree that heavier vehicles would be retained for this eventuality. Given we never deployed our Leopards overseas I sometimes wonder if they weren't purchased specifically for homeland defence.

Although HMAS Sydney was still available for heavy lift in the sixties I suspect the ability to quickly deploy tanks by air would have appealed. Even into the modern era we have fairly limited transport capabilities and a policy of fighting our battles on the other side of vast oceans. I personally think a small number of M8s or similar would nicely complement both the M1A1 and the ASLAV in ADF service, but in practice the department would probably rather spend their money elsewhere - new artillery and trucks and air defence, etc.

I read the United Defence might indeed be looking for foreign buyers for the M8, but honestly I'd prefer the Stingray. It comes from a company more used to small foreign orders for unusual vehicles and the spare parts are more compatible with our M113s, etc... So I understand anyway.

[anthonyp]

I read the United Defence might indeed be looking for foreign buyers for the M8, but honestly I'd prefer the Stingray.

That was years ago, before UDLP became BAE Systems, when the M8 was trying to be saved.  Now the prototypes sit in a warehouse at one of our facilites.