M8 armored gun system

Not to be confused withHowitzer motor carriage M8.

TheM8 armored gun system(AGS), sometimes known as theBuford,is an Americanlight tankthat was intended to replace theM551 SheridanandTOW missile-armedHumveesin the82nd Airborne Divisionand2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment(2nd ACR) of theU.S. Armyrespectively.

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, ≥11MPF
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	Welded5083 aluminum alloy
Main armament	M35105 mm calibersoft recoil rifled gun (31 rounds)
Secondary armament	7.62 mm coaxialM240(4,500 rounds) .50 cal. commander'sM2 Browning(600 rounds)
Engine	Detroit Diesel6V 92TA 550 hp (410 kW) at 2,400 rpm (JP-8fuel), 580 hp (430 kW) at 2,400 rpm (diesel)
Power/weight	28.3 hp/ST (23.3 kW/t) (Level I)
Transmission	General ElectricHMPT-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 AGS began as a private venture ofFMC Corporation,called theclose combat vehicle light(CCVL), in 1983. The Army began the armored gun system program to develop a mobile gun platform that could beairdropped.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 itslow-velocity airdropconfiguration), field-installablemodular armor,M35105 mm calibersoft recoil rifled gun, 21-round magazinedautoloader,and slide-out powerpack.

Though it had authorized the start of production of thetype classifiedM8 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. Armyassault gun/light tank programs.United Defense LPproposed the AGS as the Mobile Gun System (MGS) variant of theInterim Armored Vehicleprogram in 2000, but lost out to theGeneral Motors–General Dynamics'LAV III,which was type classified as theStrykerM1128 mobile gun system.BAE Systemsoffered the AGS system for the Army'sXM1302Mobile Protected Firepowerrequirement, but lost to theGeneral Dynamics Griffin II—later type classified as theM10 Booker—in 2022.

Development

Main article:M551 Sheridan replacement process

TheU.S. Armyrecognized the poor performance of theM551 Sheridanlight tank in theVietnam Warand began the process of retiring the vehicle in 1977. A small number were retained in active service by the82nd Airborne Divisionand theNational Guard.The Army designated theM3 Bradleyarmoredreconnaissance vehicleto 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.

CCVL at theNational Museum of Military Vehiclesin 2020

View of inside of the CCVL

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

In 1979,Army Chief of StaffGeneralEdward C. Meyerinitiated a transformation of the9th Infantry Divisionthat 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 aFast 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 ahypervelocitymissile as its major tank-killing system, the Assault Gun received little support from theArmor School,which was invested in theM1 Abramstank procurement process, or from theMissile Command,which was developing theFiber Optic Guided Missileand resisted moving into the hypervelocity missile domain.In 1980, theU.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 withTOW-armedHumveesand an unspecified 6×6 lightly armored vehicle armed with a25 mm calibergun. This led theSecretary of Defenseto direct the Army to use theLAV-25for this purpose. In 1981, the Army joined theMarine 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 a25 mm cannonwith 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 and105 mm gunswere 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.

ANavy Surface Weapons CenterM551 Sheridanmounting a 105 mm caliber gun in 1983

One solution favored by theInfantry Schoolwas 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, theNavy Surface Weapons Centermounted 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 aU.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 aC-130aircraft.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 calledXM4.In 1985,Army Vice Chief of StaffGeneralMaxwell R. Thurmanapproved an amended requirement operational capability (ROC) for the AGS. Thurman's recommendation that the Army purchase 500 AGS systems went to Army Chief of StaffJohn 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.Senateappropriators declined the Army's request for AGS funds forFY1986. The program office was disestablished, and the ROC retracted.In May 1986, the AGS program was re-organized under theArmored 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 theFMC CorporationCCVL, theCadillac GageStingray,the General Motors LAV-105, and theTeledyneAGS.The task force recommended the latter.

In August 1987, theOffice of the Secretary of Defenseapproved 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 StaffCarl E. Vuonoissued a "promissory note" to replace the Sheridan by FY1995.

Rebooted program

In September 1989, the Armored Gun System Project Manager office was reestablished at theUnited States Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Commandand a marketing survey was distributed to industry.In March 1990, Vuono told theSenate Appropriations Defense Subcommitteethat 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 atFort Bragg,North Carolina, with representative systems submitted from prospective contractors.

Draft AGS requirements dated October 1990

In July 1990, theSenate Armed Services Committee(SASC) required that the Army procure the AGSoff-the-shelf.In August, SASC directed the Army to halt work onArmored Systems Modernizationuntil 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 ofOperation 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 theBlock IIImain battle tankand 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, theDefense Acquisition Boardauthorized 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 andTOWmissile-armed Humvees in the2nd 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 andHouse Armed Services Committeesjoined in directing the Army to integrate theturretandWatervliet ArsenalEX35gun 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 theSenate Appropriations Committeelater that year.

The Army issued a draftrequest 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 USAsubmitted a variant of theCombat Vehicle 90with aGIATturret.This was the only version proposed without anautoloader.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

A mockup of the CCVL

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 anM548.The first prototype CCVL was completed in August 1985 and debuted at the meeting of theAssociation of the United States Armyin 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, theDefense Department Inspector General(IG) cautioned that the AGS would be too heavy forlow-velocity airdrop(LVAD). The IG recommended canceling 58 systems meant for theXVIII Airborne Corpsif 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.

XM8 preproduction model in 1994

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 andBMY) facility in San Jose, California, in April 1994,and arrived atFort Knox,Kentucky, in April 1995.The last of these was delivered in May.United Defense provided five XM8 AGS systems to the service'sOperational Test Command,which put the vehicle through five months of testing atFort Pickett,Virginia. Another prototype underwent survivability testing atAberdeen 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, theArmy National Guardexpressed interest in procuring the AGS for the38th Infantry Division,35th Infantry Divisionand34th Infantry Divisionto help bridge the looming capability gap should the 2nd ACR be eliminated. This proposal was rejected by the service.Army Chief of StaffGordon R. Sullivan,the AGS's most influential advocate at the Pentagon, retired in June 1995.In October 1995, the Armytype classifiedthe 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.

AGS production schedule as of 1995

Year	Orders	Deliveries
1996	26	0
1997	42	4
1998	33	31
1999	40	40
2000	40	35
2001	35	40
2002	21	39
2003	0	36
2004	0	12

AGS pre-production unitc. 1994

AGS pre-production unit in level II armorc. 1994

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 StaffDennis Reimercanceled 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 chairmanStrom Thurmond,who privately expressed irritation toDefense SecretaryWilliam J. Perryabout 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 theOffice of the Secretary of Defensewould 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'sJoint 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 forM1A2 AbramsandM2A3 Bradleyupgrades, and accelerated the development of theJavelin 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 purchaseApache helicopters.In the 82nd Airborne, the Army also planned to introduce theEFOGMmissile and considered more widely fielding the Javelin missile.Funding for EFOGM was deleted in 1998.The Army also considered theMGM-166 LOSATmissile, 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 werevismodSheridans used foropposing forcetraining. 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 ofBradley Fighting VehiclesandM1A1 Abramstanks from the3rd Infantry Divisionwhich were to be attached to the 82nd.

Milestones and schedule

AGS procurement budget

Year	Orders	Procurement (M)	Advance Proc. (M)
FY1992	–	–	–
FY1993	–	4.7 (10.20 in 2023)	–
FY1994	–	8.2 (17.30 in 2023)	7.8 (16.50 in 2023)
FY1995	–	–	–
FY1996	26 (52.00 in 2023)	141.6 (283.10 in 2023)	–
FY1997	42 (81.60 in 2023)	182.2 (354.00 in 2023)	–

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. Acritical design reviewwas 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 the2nd Cavalry Regiment.

An M8 AGS rolls off a C-130 for a platform performance demonstration at Fort Knoxc. December 1999.

An M8 at the Fort Knox platform performance demonstrationc. 2000in the level II armor configuration

In October 1999, Army Chief of StaffEric Shinsekilaid out his vision for a lighter, more transportable force.The Army began theInterim Armored Vehicle(IAV) program to implement Shinseki's concept.United Defense LP(UDLP) proposed the AGS, as well as a version of theMobile 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 improvedforward-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 IIIproposal.The AGS lost out to the General Motors proposal, which was type classified as theStrykerM1128 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 inPennsylvaniato 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 recentwar 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 theStrykerfamily. Still more pervasive problems persisted with the autoloader.While this decision was on hold, CongressmanRobin Hayesexpressed 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 withRheinmetallto 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 theU.S. State Departmentauthorized 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 Taiwanc. 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),MalaysiaandSingapore.In 1996FMC-Nuroland 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 amain battle tankin the 50–60 short tons (45–54 t) range.

An XM1302 Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) testbed at the U.S. Army Armor & Cavalry Collection atFort Moore,Georgia, in 2023

An MPF testbed arrives at the U.S. Army Armor & Cavalry Collection in 2023.

In 2015, the U.S. Army articulated a requirement for aMobile Protected Firepowersystem 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 theGeneral Dynamics Griffinas 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 theM10 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 welded5083 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 ofChrysler 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 steelcomposite armor.Appliqué armorcould also be installed by the user.This may have beenModular Expandable Armor SystemfromIBD Deisenroth Engineering.

AGS PV-4 seen here with level III armor. Note the passive armor boxes.

The AGS was designed with three modular armor levels:

• The Level I (basic) armor package consisted ofceramic armortilesand protected the vehicle against small-arms fire and shell splinters.All-around protection protection is provided against rounds up to 7.62 mmAPand protection against14.5 mmrounds 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 oftitanium,hardened steelandexpanded metal.All-around protection was increased to protection against 14.5 mm rounds and30 mmrounds 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 andC-141cargo 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 asrocket-propelled grenadesover selected areas,and cannon rounds up to30 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.

MPF M257 smoke grenade launchers

An AGS with level III armor

The crew is protected from ammunition explosion by blowout panels on the roof and abulkheadseparating the ammunition from the crew.The ammunition compartments in the hull are also protected by blowout panels.Explosion/fire suppressionis provided by aSanta Barbara Dual Spectrumsystem.Halonfire-suppression protects the crew compartment while a powder system is installed in the engine compartment.Unlike the CCVL,the AGS crew is equipped withNuclear 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 forradiation hardeningfrom the AGS.

The CCVL had two 16-barrelTracorMBA Advanced Smoke Launcher Systemsmoke grenadelaunchers 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 M19smoke 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 fromroadside bombs.

The MPF variant integrated a BAE's Ravensoft killactive protection system. This comprised wide-angle view long-wave infrared cameras,radar,and ajammer.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

An XM8 is airdropped atYuma Proving Groundin October 1994

Power is provided by a Detroit Diesel6V-92TA6-cylindermultifueldiesel engine developing 550 hp (410 kW) at 2,400 rpm withJP-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 theHeavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck(HEMTT).The AGS's power-to-weight ratio was greater than the AmericanM1A1 Abramsmain battle tank. The top speed isgovernor-limitedto 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-500transmissionis also used by theBradley 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 AGStorsion bar suspensionis similar to that in the Abrams.The MPF's torsion bar suspension is in common with the Bradley andArmored Multi-Purpose Vehicle.

An MPF testbed withMTUengine visible idles at the U.S. Army Armor and Cavalry Collection in 2022

Many different engines, including agas turbine,were considered for follow-on versions of the CCVL.The Detroit Diesel engine was replaced in the Mobile Protected Firepower variant with anMTUdiesel engine,this one also developing 550 hp (410 kW).This was mated to anAllison3040 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 theC-17 Globemaster III(intended for the 82nd Airborne),and a heavier variant with roll-on/roll-off capability from theC-5 Galaxy,C-17, C-141 Starlifter andC-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.

An M8 AGS climbs a vertical wall at a test track.

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 ForceRecovery Vehiclesto assist with recovering the AGS.In 1994, the Army began seeking anassault bridgefor 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 asquadof nine mounted infantryon top.

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

Firepower

An XM8 preproduction model firing its gunc. September 1994

The AGS is armed with the Watervliet ArsenalM35rifledautoloading105 mm caliber soft-recoil tank gun with anM2407.62 mm caliber machine gun mountedcoaxially.

A prototypeEX35gun mounted in the FMC XM4 Armored Gun System (CCVL) turret basketc. 1984

M8 AGS autoloader diagram

M8 AGS autoloader operation

The M35, known as the EX35 and XM35 during development,was originally designed and developed byBenét Laboratories,Watervliet Arsenal in 1983 for the Marine Corps Mobile Protected Gun Program.The M35 is about 1,800 lb (816 kg) lighter than theM68used on theM60 tank.

On the AGS, (CCVL pictured here) a compartment wall separates the commander and gunner from the autoloader magazine and the breech of the 105 mm main gun.

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 alaser rangefinderfrom the M1 Abrams,and the Computing Devices Canada Mission Management Computer Systemfire-control systemis the same used in theChallenger 2.The nature of the gun'smuzzle brakedirected 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.

Theautoloaderwas 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/nightthermal sightwas 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 engagemain 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 frombunkersand other artificial structures toarmored personnel carriersandlight armored vehicles.

On the AGS, aBrowning M212.7 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 aM2407.62 mm caliber machine gun or anMK 1940 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

FM 17-18 Light Armor Operations

The AGS has a1553 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 fourblind spot camerasfor 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

AGS dimensions

	CCVL	M8 AGS	XM1302 MPF	Vickers/FMC Mk 5	M551A1 Sheridan (TTS)	M1A1 Abrams
Hull Length	244 in (6.20 m)	242 to 247 in (6.15 to 6.27 m)	N/A	244 in (6.2 m)	248 in (6.30 m)	312 in (7.92 m)
Width	106 in (2.69 m)	104 in (2.64 m) (over fenders)	N/A	106 in (2.69 m)	110 in (2.79 m)	144 in (3.66 m)
Height	92 in (2.35 m) (turret roof)	100 to 101 in (2.54 to 2.57 m) (over cupola)	N/A	103 in (2.62 m) (overall)	116 in (2.95 m) (over MG)	114 in (2.90 m) (over MG)
Ground Clearance	16 in (0.41 m)	15 to 17 in (0.38 to 0.43 m)	N/A	16 in (0.41 m)	19 in (0.48 m)
Top Speed	43 mph (70 km/h)	45 mph (72 km/h)	N/A	43 mph (70 km/h)	43 mph (69 km/h)	41.5 mph (67 km/h)
Fording	52 in (1.32 m)	40 in (1.0 m)	N/A	39 in (1.0 m)	Floats	48 in (1.2 m) (w/o kit)
Max Grade	60 percent		N/A	60 percent
Max Trench	7 ft (2.13 m)	7 ft (2.1 m)	N/A	7 ft (2.13 m)	8 ft (2.4 m)	9 ft (2.7 m)
Max Wall	30 in (0.76 m)	32 in (0.81 m)	N/A	30 in (0.76 m)	33 in (0.84 m)	49 in (1.24 m)
Range	300 mi (480 km)		N/A	300 mi (480 km)	350 mi (560 km)	289 mi (465 km)
Power	575 hp (429 kW) at 2400 rpm	550 hp (410 kW) at 2400 rpm (JP-8)	550 hp (410 kW)	552 hp (412 kW) at 2300 rpm	300 hp (220 kW) at 2800 rpm	1,500 hp (1,100 kW) at 3000 rpm
Power-to-Weight Ratio	24.2 hp/ST (26.7 hp/t)	28.3 to 21.2 hp/ST (23.3 to 17.4 kW/t)	N/A	25.4 hp/ST (28 hp/t)	17.9 hp/ST (14.7 kW/t)	23.1 hp/ST (19.0 kW/t)
Torque	N/A	1,446 lb⋅ft (1,960 N⋅m) at 1500 rpm	N/A		615 lb⋅ft (830 N⋅m) at 2100 rpm	3,934 lb⋅ft (5,330 N⋅m) at 1000 rpm
Weight, Combat Loaded	42,801 lb (19,414 kg)	36,900 to 52,000 lb (16,740 to 23,590 kg)	26 short tons (24 t)	43,541 lb (19,750 kg)	33,600 lb (15,240 kg)	130,000 lb (58,970 kg)
Ground Pressure	9.8 psi (0.69 kg/cm2)	9.1 to 12.2 psi (0.64 to 0.86 kg/cm2)	N/A	9.8 psi (0.69 kg/cm2)	6.9 psi (0.49 kg/cm2)	14.4 psi (1.01 kg/cm2)
Main Armament	M68A1105 mm gun	M35105 mm rifled		105 mm low recoil force gun	M81E1rifled152 mm gun/launcher	M256120 mm smoothbore
Elevation	+20° / −10° (limited depression over rear arc)		N/A	+20° / −10° (limited depression over rear arc)	+19.5° / −8°	+20° / −10°
Traverse Rate	N/A	8.5 seconds/360°	N/A	9 seconds/360°	10 seconds/360°	9 seconds/360°
Elevation Rate	N/A	11°/second	N/A		4°/second	25°/second
Main Gun Ammo	43 (19 ready)	30 (21 ready)	28 (21 ready)	41 (19 ready)	29 (including 9 missiles)	40
Firing Rate	12rds/minute		N/A		4rds/minute	6rds/minute
Crew	3 (commander, gunner, driver)			4 (commander, gunner, loader, driver)
Protection	All-welded aluminum hull and turret with bolt-on steelcomposite armor	5083 aluminum alloyhull and turret withceramictile	N/A	Aluminum hull and turret with applique steel plates	7039 aluminum alloyhull,rolled homogeneoussteel turret	Rolled homogenous steel, with armor arrays in the turret and hull

Variants

Close combat vehicle light

Using a magnet to determine which components of the CCVL are ferrous

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 theAssociation of the United States Armyin 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.

The Vickers/FMC Mark 5

Vickers/FMC Mark 5 battle tank (VFM 5)

In 1985 the BritishVickers Defence Systemsand 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.

An artist's impression of a LOSAT system firing from an AGS chassis

Line of Sight Anti-Tank(LOSAT)

In 1994,Loral Vought Systemswas 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.

An AGS with level II armor fires its 120 mm main gun. Note the presence of track skirts.

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 anXM291120 mmelectrothermal-chemicalsmoothbore cannon fitted with anautoloader.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 atCamp 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 itsAMX-13 SM1light 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 IFVand the Universal Combat Vehicle Platform that thePrimusself-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 integratedIMI SystemsIron Fisthard kill and BAE Raven soft killactive protection systemsandSaab Barracudacamouflage netting. The tracks were Soucy composite rubber and the engine was hybrid electric. Four longwaveinfraredcameras 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 XM1302Mobile Protected Firepowerprogram.According to BAE, the MPF variant is completely redesigned, keeping only the footprint (length, width and height). The MPF incorporates a new transmission andMTUpowerpack, band composite rubber track, and a new fire-control system. BAE added improved underbody armor, as well as theIron Fistactive protection systemand 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 theU.S. Army Armor and Cavalry CollectionatFort Moore,Georgia, awaiting restoration as of 2022.

Gallery

The Close Combat Vehicle Light at theNational Museum of Military Vehiclesin 2020.

• 
  Rear
• 
  Gun mantlet
• 
  Roadwheels
• 
  Pepperpotmuzzle 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
• 
  Pintleweapon mount
• 
  Wire cutters
• 
  Kidde Control ElectronicsPanel 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 theFuture Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehiclesprogram canceled in 2011
• Future Scout and Cavalry System/TRACER,a joint UK–U.S. scout vehicle canceled in 2001

Bibliography

• Department of the Army (March 8, 1994).Light Armor Operations (FM 17-18)(PDF).RetrievedMay 31,2023.This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain.
• Department of the Army (April 1996). "656".Tank Platoon (FM 17-15)(PDF).RetrievedMay 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.OCLC37397056.Archived(PDF)from the original on November 24, 2020.RetrievedAugust 15,2022.This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic 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.RetrievedMarch 10,2022.This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic 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.RetrievedJune 1,2022.This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain.
• Hunnicutt, Richard Pearce(2015a) [1995].Sheridan: A History of the American Light Tank.Vol. 2. Battleboro, VT: Echo Point Books & Media.ISBN978-1-62654-154-2.
• 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.RetrievedMarch 23,2022.This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain.
• Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition) (1996).Weapon Systems 1996(PDF)(Report).RetrievedJanuary 26,2023.This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic 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.RetrievedMarch 23,2022.This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic 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.RetrievedJanuary 18,2024.This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic 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.RetrievedMarch 23,2022.This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic 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.RetrievedJune 1,2022.This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain.
• Zaloga, Stephen J.(2009).M551 Sheridan, US Airmobile Tanks 1941–2001.Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd.ISBN978-1-84603-391-9.

External links

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