You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:
This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 35.175.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪JJMC89‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a colocation provider's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~)). You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host or colocation provider (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host or colocation provider.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 05:20, 2 March 2025.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by ‪Jon Kolbert‬. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected .
- Start of block: 05:38, 21 February 2024
- Expiry of block: 05:38, 21 February 2029
Your current IP address is 35.175.116.192. The blocked range is 35.175.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.
You can view and copy the source of this page:
((Short description|American light tank))
((good article))
((Use mdy dates|date=October 2018))
((Infobox weapon
| name               = M8 Armored Gun System
| image              = File:M8 Armored Gun System level 1 armor 1994.jpg
| image_size         = 300
| alt                = An M8 Armored gun system in 1994
| caption            = M8 AGS
| type               = [[Light tank]]((refn|group=nb|name=fifth|The Army admonished against calling the M8 a "light tank".((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=288)) 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."<ref name="Appropriations 1991">((cite book |title=Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1992: Appendix, submitted questions and answers |date=1991 |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office |page=435 |isbn=9780160373268 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rB5EAQAAMAAJ |access-date=14 February 2023))</ref> However, ''Field Manual 17-18 Light Armor Operations'' (1994) refers to the vehicle as the "M8 Light Tank".((sfn|Department of the Army|1994|p=1-2))))
| origin             = [[United States]]
| is_artillery       = yes
| is_vehicle         = yes
<!-- Production history -->| designer           = [[FMC Corporation]]/[[United Defense LP]]/[[BAE Systems]]
| design_date        = From 1983
| manufacturer       = FMC/United Defense/BAE Systems
| unit_cost          = 
| production_date    = 1995, 2020
| number             = 6 AGS pilots, 1 austere prototype, ≥11 [[Mobile Protected Firepower|MPF]]((refn|group=nb|name=number built|Twelve were ordered of which at least eleven were built according to MPF project manager LTC Peter George.<ref name="downselect"/><ref name="XM1302 Chieftain 2"/>))
| variants           = <!-- General specifications -->
| spec_label         = M8 AGS
| mass               = ((convert|36900|to|39800|lb|kg|-1|abbr=on)) (level 1 armor)((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310))<ref name="Miller"/><br/>((convert|44000|to|44270|lb|kg|-1|abbr=on)) (level 2)((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310))<ref name="Jane's 16th"/><br/>((convert|52000|lb|kg|-1|abbr=on)) (level 3)((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310))
| length             = ((convert|261.4|in|m|2|abbr=on|adj=ri0)) (level 1 hull + gun forward), ((convert|241.9|in|m|2|abbr=on|adj=ri0)) (level 1 hull only)((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310))
| part_length        = 
| width              = ((convert|104|in|m|2|abbr=on)) (over fenders)
| height             = ((convert|100|to|101|in|m|2|abbr=on)) (over cupola)
| crew               = 3 (commander, gunner, driver)
<!-- Artillery specifications -->| elevation          = +20° / -10° (depression limited over rear arc)
<!-- Vehicle/missile specifications -->| armour             = Welded [[5083 aluminum alloy]]
| primary_armament   = [[M35 tank gun|M35]] [[105&nbsp;mm caliber]] soft recoil rifled gun (31 rounds)
| secondary_armament = 7.62&nbsp;mm coaxial [[M240]] (4,500 rounds)<br/>.50&nbsp;cal. commander's [[M2 Browning]] (600 rounds)((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310))
| engine             = [[Detroit Diesel]] [[Detroit Diesel Series 92|6V 92TA]]
| engine_power       = ((convert|550|hp|abbr=on)) at 2,400 rpm ([[JP-8]] fuel), <br/>((convert|580|hp|abbr=on)) at 2,400 rpm ([[Diesel engine|diesel]])((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310))
| pw_ratio           = ((convert|28.3|hp/ST|kW/t|1|abbr=on)) (Level I)((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310))((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310))
| payload_capacity   = 
| drive              = 
| transmission       = [[General Electric]] HMPT-500-3EC((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310))
| suspension         = [[Torsion bar suspension|Torsion bar]]((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310))
| clearance          = Up to ((convert|17|in||abbr=on))
| fuel_capacity      = ((convert|150|USgal|abbr=on))
| vehicle_range      = ((convert|300|mi|abbr=on))
| speed              = Road: ((convert|45|mph|km/h|abbr=on))
| guidance           = 
| steering           = 
))
((US tanks))

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 [[Humvee]]s 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 [[airdrop]]ped. 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.

The Army canceled the M8 AGS program in 1996 over the objections of [[United States Congress|Congress]] and the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]], 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|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#Griffin II|General Dynamics Griffin II]]—later type classified as the [[M10 Booker]]—in 2022.

==Development==
((main|M551 Sheridan replacement process))

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 [[Army National Guard|National Guard]].((refn|group=nb|name=sixth|By 1985, the Army had about 800 Sheridans, 750 of which were in storage. The 82nd Airborne retained 50 in active service.<ref name="Thurman">((cite news |title=Army Official Urges Purchase of 500 Light Tanks |url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/140991547/?terms=%22armored%20gun%20system%22&match=1 |access-date=18 October 2022 |work=St. Louis Post-Dispatch |agency=UPI |date=23 December 1985 |archive-date=October 18, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221018052447/https://www.newspapers.com/image/140991547/?terms=%22armored%20gun%20system%22&match=1 |url-status=live))</ref>)) The Army designated the [[M3 Bradley]] armored [[reconnaissance vehicle]] to partially fill the Sheridan's role.((sfn|Zaloga|2009|p=35–38))

=== 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.((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=165)) Some of its efforts around this time could be described as hopelessly intermingled.((sfn|Freeman|1991|p=13))

[[File:Close Combat Vehicle Light National Museum of Military Vehicles.jpg|thumb|Close Combat Vehicle Light at the [[National Museum of Military Vehicles]] in 2020]]
[[File:Inside the CCVL 1.webm|thumb|right|thumbtime=60|View of inside of the CCVL]]
((external media
| float  = right
| image1 = [https://rmsothebys.com/en/auctions/lc14/the-littlefield-collection/lots/r0083-armored-gun-system-close-combat-vehicle-light-ccvl/574444 Photos of the Close Combat Vehicle Light from a private collection].
| image2 = [https://www.svsmgallery.com/Top-level/Walkarounds/Armored-Vehicles/Tanks-1946-to-Present/CCV-L-Close-Combat-Vehicle-Light-Family/CCV-L-Close-Combat-Vehicle-Light-Military-Vehicle-Technology/ gallery #2]
| image3 = [https://www.svsmgallery.com/Top-level/Walkarounds/Armored-Vehicles/Tanks-1946-to-Present/CCV-L-Close-Combat-Vehicle-Light-Family/CCV-L-Close-Combat-Vehicle-Light-Military-Vehicle-Technology/ gallery #3]
))

In 1979, [[Chief of Staff of the United States Army|Army Chief of Staff]] General [[Edward C. Meyer]] initiated a transformation of the [[9th Infantry Division (United States)|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.((sfn|Bowman|Kendall|Saunders|1989|p=13)) 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.((sfn|Bowman|Kendall|Saunders|1989|p=14–15))

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 got little support from the [[United States Army Armor School|Armor School]], which was invested in the [[M1 Abrams]] tank procurement process, or from the [[United States Army Aviation and Missile Command|Missile Command]], which was developing the [[MGM-157 EFOGM|Fiber Optic Guided Missile]] and resisted moving into the hypervelocity missile domain.((sfn|Bowman|Kendall|Saunders|1989|p=26-27))

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 [[BGM-71 TOW|TOW]]-armed [[Humvee]]s and an unspecified 6×6 lightly armored vehicle armed with a [[25&nbsp;mm caliber]] gun. This led the [[United States Secretary of Defense|Secretary of Defense]] to direct the Army to use the [[LAV-25]] for this purpose.<!-- For what purpose? what is this cited to? --> In 1981, the Army joined the [[United States Marine Corps|Marine Corps]]'s (USMC) Mobile Protected Weapon System program, which then became known as the Mobile Protected Gun System (MPGS).((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=165))<ref name="Jane's 6th">((cite book |editor1-last=Foss |editor1-first=Christopher F |editor1-link=Christopher F Foss|title=Jane's Armour and Artillery 1985–86 |year=1985 |publisher=Jane's Publishing Company |location=London |pages=152 |edition=6th |chapter=Light Tanks |isbn=0-7106-0820-9 |url=https://archive.org/details/janesarmourartil0006unse))</ref> However due to differing requirements,<ref name="Winds of Change">((cite journal |last1=Siler IV |first1=CPT Julius G. |title=Winds of Change Favor Armored Gun System (AGS) |journal=Ordnance |date=August 1994 |pages=32-34 |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ordnance/PKs5AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22armored+gun+system%22&pg=RA8-PA32&printsec=frontcover |access-date=23 February 2024 |publisher=Department of the Army))</ref> the Army and USMC went their separate ways the following year.((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=165))

The Army and Marine Corps were at the same time also involved in the joint LAV program. The Army at the time planned on acquiring 175 LAV-25s to fully equip the 9th Infantry Division. These interim MPGS's would be armed with a [[M242 Bushmaster|25&nbsp;mm cannon]] with seating for the passengers replaced with ammunition racks.<ref name="Military Posture">((cite book |title=Hearings on Military Posture and H.R. 5968 |date=March 1982 |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office |pages=953–956 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-BnGRKKyANcC&dq=%22MObile+protected+Gun+System%22&pg=PA955 |access-date=9 January 2024))</ref><ref name="MPGS appropriations">((cite book |title=Department of Defense Appropriations for 1985: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives |date=5 April 1984 |pages=245–246 |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MFrh2TXZ2w0C&dq=%22mobile+protected+gun+system%22&pg=PA246 |access-date=9 January 2024))</ref> The Army developed a version of the LAV to serve as the MPGS in the 9th Infantry Division in the interim. 75&nbsp;mm, 90&nbsp;mm and [[105 mm caliber|105&nbsp;mm guns]] were studied, with the Marine Corps initially leaning towards the 75&nbsp;mm gun. Plans solidified around the 25&nbsp;mm Bushmaster when it was realized the services needed an interim solution.<ref name="New Armament">((cite journal |title=Toward New Combat Vehicle Armament |journal=Army Research, Development & Acquisition Magazine |date=September–October 1981 |volume=22 |issue=5 |pages=9–11 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HIx_Wn6ZIuUC&dq=HSTVL&pg=RA4-PA9 |access-date=17 December 2023))((PD-notice))</ref><ref name="Jane's 1987-2">((cite book |editor1-last=Foss |editor1-first=Christopher F |editor1-link=Christopher F Foss|title=Jane's Armour and Artillery 1987–88 |publisher=Jane's Publishing Company |year=1987 |isbn=0-7106-0849-7 |pages=267 |edition=8th |chapter=Armoured Personnel Carriers))</ref> Like the Marine version, this was armed with the 25&nbsp;mm gun, but included additional ammunition stowage in lieu of passengers.((refn|group=nb|name=M1047|In 1987, the Army tested a version of the LAV-25, designated as the M1047. The Army determined that these were unsuitable for [[Low-altitude parachute-extraction system|LAPES]] and, with only a 25&nbsp;mm caliber cannon, could not match the firepower of the Sheridan. Congress did not favor the M1047,<ref name="Zaloga 1984">((cite book |last1=Zaloga |first1=Steven J. |title=US Light Tanks 1944–84 |publisher=Osprey Publishing Ltd |location=London |year=1984 |pages=24, 25 |isbn=0-85045-541-3))</ref> though a few were deployed with the 3/[[73rd Cavalry Regiment|73rd Armor]] of the 82nd Airborne Division in the [[Gulf War]].((sfn|Zaloga|2009|p=43)))) The Army planned to replace this LAV beginning in the late 1980s with the "far-term" MPGS armed with a 75&nbsp;mm gun. The Army's commitment to the program wavered somewhat, which caused Congress to withhold money for the LAV.<ref>((cite book |author=United States Congress House Committee on Armed Services |title=Research and development, Title II |date=1982 |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office |page=955 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-BnGRKKyANcC&dq=%22Mobile+protected+gun+system%22&pg=PA955 |access-date=18 August 2023 |language=en))</ref><ref>((cite journal |title=Joint-Service Contract Finally Let to GM of Canada |journal=Army |date=January 1982 |volume=30 |issue=1 |page=67 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5DBEAQAAIAAJ&dq=army+lav&pg=RA9-PA67 |access-date=18 August 2023 |issn=0004-2455))</ref> The Army withdrew from the LAV program in December 1983.<ref>((cite book |author=United States Congress House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Department of Defense |title=Department of Defense Appropriations for 1986: Marine Corps procurement programs |date=1985 |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office |page=93 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Kma2AAAAIAAJ&dq=army+lav&pg=PA93 |access-date=18 August 2023 |language=en))</ref>

[[File:Navy Surface Weapons Center Sheridan with 105mm caliber gun.jpg|thumb|left|A [[Navy Surface Weapons Center]] [[M551 Sheridan]] mounting a 105&nbsp;mm caliber gun in 1983]]
One solution favored by the [[U.S. Army Infantry School|Infantry School]] was to modernize the Sheridan.((sfn|Bowman|Kendall|Saunders|1989|p=26-27)) The chassis of the Sheridan was considered to be in good working order even if its problematic 152&nbsp;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&nbsp;mm cannon to a Sheridan. One Army plan also envisioned re-gunning 120 Sheridans with 105&nbsp;mm or 120&nbsp;mm cannons, but this project was canceled in 1985.((sfn|Zaloga|2009|p=44–45)) In the end the Army determined upgrading the Sheridan to meet the AGS requirement was not worth pursuing.<ref>((cite book |title=Army |date=October 1985 |publisher=Association of the United States Army |page=487 |edition=35 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6TdEAQAAIAAJ |access-date=15 February 2023))</ref>

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.((sfn|Bowman|Kendall|Saunders|1989|p=5–6)) 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.((sfn|Bowman|Kendall|Saunders|1989|p=101–102))

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 give the crew protection from artillery and small caliber weapons. If strategic mobility was desired, the system had to be light enough to fly in a [[Lockheed C-130 Hercules|C-130]] aircraft.((sfn|Bowman|Kendall|Saunders|1989|p=26-27)) After the Army and Marine Corps parted ways on MPGS, the project morphed into the Armored/Assault Gun System.((sfn|Freeman|1991|p=12–14))((refn|group=nb|name=fourth|The [[United States Army Infantry School|Infantry School]] referred to the system as the Assault Gun while the [[United States Army Armor School|Armor School]] favored the more "tank-like" title of Armored Gun.((sfn|Freeman|1991|p=16)))) In 1983, the Army established the AGS program,<ref>((cite journal |last1=Loughlin |first1=Don |title=Sayonara AGS! Sayonara Scout? Sayonara Armor? |journal=Armor |date=July–August 1998 |issue=4 |volume=107 |page=37 |url=https://www.benning.army.mil/Armor/eARMOR/content/issues/1998/JUL_AUG/ArmorJulyAugust1998web.pdf |access-date=1 June 2022 |archive-date=March 13, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220313052018/https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/EArmor/content/issues/1998/JUL_AUG/ArmorJulyAugust1998web.pdf |url-status=live))</ref> sometimes called '''XM4'''.<ref>((cite magazine |magazine=Jane's Defence Weekly |title=Unknown |date=3 May 1986 |volume=5 |issue=17 |page=63 |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Jane_s_Defence_Weekly/NbZDAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=xm4+armored+gun+system&dq=xm4+armored+gun+system&printsec=frontcover |access-date=10 January 2024 |issn=0265-38-18))</ref> In 1985, [[Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army|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.]].<ref name="Thurman"/>((refn|group=nb|name=seventh|Possible destinations for the 500 AGS systems were the 82nd Airborne, the 9th Infantry Division (Motorized) or the [[101st Airborne Division]].<ref name="Thurman"/>)) The Abrams competed with the AGS for funding. Wickham and Thurman, backed by TRADOC, chose the Abrams,<ref>((cite journal |last1=Dunn |first1=Richard J. |title=Transformation: Let's Get it Right this Time |journal=The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters |date=Spring 2001 |volume=31 |issue=1 |doi=10.55540/0031-1723.2020 |url=https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2020&context=parameters |access-date=11 January 2024))</ref> and did not advocate for the program in Congress.((sfn|Freeman|1991|p=14)) [[United States Senate|Senate]] appropriators declined the Army's request for AGS funds for [[Fiscal year|FY]]1986. The program office was disestablished, and the ROC retracted.<ref name="Jane's 1987"/> In May 1986, the AGS program was re-organized under the [[Armored Systems Modernization|Armored Family of Vehicles Task Force]] (AFVTV).((sfn|Freeman|1991|p=14)) 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]] Close Combat Vehicle Light (CCVL), the [[Cadillac Gage]] [[Stingray light tank|Stingray]], the General Motors LAV-105, and the [[Teledyne Continental Motors|Teledyne]] [[Expeditionary tank|AGS]]. The task force recommended the latter.((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=176))

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 $800 million ($((Format price|((Inflation|US|800000000|1987)))) in ((Inflation/year|US))) plan was considered unaffordable.((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=175))((sfn|Freeman|1991|p=14)) Around the same time, the Army Chief of Staff [[Carl E. Vuono]] issued a "promissory note" to replace the Sheridan by FY1995.((sfn|Freeman|1991|p=14))

=== Rebooted program ===
In September 1989, <!-- (or was it Sept. 1990? ((sfn|Wank|1993|p=18))) -->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.((sfn|Freeman|1991|p=15))((refn|group=nb|name=mth|TRADOC System Manager was Colonel Eugene D. Colgan from March 1991;<ref>((cite journal |editor1-last=Cooney |editor1-first=Major Patrick J. |title=Directory - Points of Contact |journal=Armor |issue=2 |volume=100 |date=March–April 1991 |page=2 |url=https://www.benning.army.mil/Armor/eARMOR/content/issues/1991/MAR_APR/ArmorMarchApril1991web.pdf |access-date=3 March 2023))</ref> Colonel Charles F. Moler from July 1992;<ref>((cite journal |editor1-last=Brewer |editor1-first=Major J. D. |title=Directory - Points of Contact |journal=Armor |issue=4 |volume=101 |date=July–August 1992 |page=2 |url=https://www.dvidshub.net/publication/issues/33926 |access-date=3 March 2023))</ref> and Colonel John F. Kalb from July 1995.<ref>((cite journal |editor1-last=Blakely |editor1-first=Major Terry A. |title=Directory - Points of Contact |journal=Armor |issue=4 |volume=104 |date=July–August 1995 |page=2 |url=https://www.dvidshub.net/publication/issues/33793 |access-date=3 March 2023))</ref>)) In March 1990, Vuono told the [[United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense|Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee]] that the Army was surveying options for acquiring about 70 tanks to replace the Sheridan.<ref>((cite news |title=Vuono calls for 70 Sheridan light tank replacements; LH receives praise from subcommittee |url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A8848361/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=814008e6 |access-date=16 January 2023 |work=Defense Daily |issue=61 |publisher=Access Intelligence |date=30 March 1990 |volume=166 |archive-date=January 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230120033706/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE((!))A8848361&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-ITOF&asid=814008e6 |url-status=live))</ref> The Army formalized the AGS program in April 1990 with the validation of a new ROC.((sfn|Preston|2004|p=28))

[[File:ArmoredGunSystemDraftRequirementsOct1990.pdf|thumb|upright|Draft AGS requirements dated October 1990]]

In July 1990, the [[Senate Armed Services Committee]] (SASC) required that the Army procure the AGS [[Commercial off-the-shelf|off-the-shelf]].<ref>((cite news |title=SASC requires Army to develop ASM artillery before tank |url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A9251275/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=a391ee4a |access-date=16 January 2023 |work=Defense Daily |issue=13 |publisher=Access Intelligence |date=19 July 1990 |volume=168 |archive-date=January 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230120033707/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE((!))A9251275&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-ITOF&asid=a391ee4a |url-status=live))</ref> In August, SASC directed the Army to halt work on [[Armored Systems Modernization]] until it could conduct a competition for an AGS.<ref>((cite news |title=Army reviewing Congressional call for procurement of gun system |url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A9331277/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=4fcaeb18 |access-date=15 January 2023 |work=Defense Daily |issue=34 |publisher=Access Intelligence |date=17 August 1990 |volume=168 |archive-date=January 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230120033707/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE((!))A9331277&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-ITOF&asid=4fcaeb18 |url-status=live))</ref> 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 [[United States invasion of Panama|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.((sfn|Freeman|1991|p=1)) In October 1990, HASC deferred the [[Block III tank|Block III]] [[main battle tank]] and directed the Army to make the AGS its top priority modernization program.<ref>((cite news |title=SAC makes AFAS priority over block III tank |url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A9023912/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=ea1840a6 |access-date=16 January 2023 |work=Defense Daily |issue=13 |publisher=Access Intelligence |date=18 October 1990 |volume=169 |archive-date=January 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230120033653/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE((!))A9023912&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-ITOF&asid=ea1840a6 |url-status=live))</ref> After having earlier tried to kill the tank, appropriators grew to appreciate the program's relatively low price tag.<ref name="top priority"/>

[[File:CCVL Sheridan Replacement Offers Better Firepower Plus Worldwide Mobility.jpg|thumb|left|Close Combat Vehicle Light (CCVL) ((circa|1992))]]
In November 1990, the [[Defense Acquisition Board]] authorized the Army to proceed with the development of the AGS.<ref>((cite report |last1=Hinton |first1=Henry |last2=Shafer |first2=F. James |last3=Gaston |first3=Lawrence |title=Armored Systems Modernization: Program Inconsistent With Current Threat and Budgetary Constraints |date=July 1991 |url=https://gao.justia.com/department-of-defense/1991/7/armored-systems-modernization-nsiad-91-254/NSIAD-91-254-full-report.pdf |access-date=21 February 2022 |publisher=Government Accounting Office |page=12 |archive-date=September 20, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170846/https://gao.justia.com/department-of-defense/1991/7/armored-systems-modernization-nsiad-91-254/NSIAD-91-254-full-report.pdf |url-status=live))((PD-notice))</ref> 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.<ref name="Three Units">((cite news |title=Army Plans to Form Three Units That Will Feature Armored Gun System |work=Inside the Pentagon |issue=46 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=14 November 1991 |volume=7 |pages=3–4 |jstor =43987581))</ref> It was expected to replace the Sheridan in the 3/73rd Armor and [[BGM-71 TOW|TOW]] missile-armed [[Humvee]]s in the [[2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment]] (2nd ACR)<!-- where it would support reconnaissance assets -->.((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=183))<ref name="AGB 96" >((cite journal |last1=Edwards III |first1=Major O.T. |title=TRADOC System Manager For Abrams and the AGS Comments on 'Assault Gun Battalion 96' |journal=Armor |date=January–March 1995 |issue=1 |volume=104 |page=49 |url=https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/1995/JAN_FEB/ArmorJanuaryFebruary1995web.pdf |access-date=23 March 2022 |archive-date=February 15, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170215171704/https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/1995/JAN_FEB/ArmorJanuaryFebruary1995web.pdf |url-status=live))</ref><ref>((cite news |last1=Foote |first1=Sheila |date=31 October 1995 |title=Army okays initial production of Armored Gun System |url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A17513496/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=552953e0 |access-date=5 August 2022 |work=Defense Daily |publisher=Access Intelligence |archive-date=January 15, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230115023208/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE((!))A17513496&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-ITOF&asid=552953e0 |url-status=live))</ref>

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".((refn|group=nb|name=nth|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' [[Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion|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.<ref name="LAV-105">((cite news |title=Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1991 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-4AtAAAAMAAJ&q=Armored%20gun%20system |work=U.S. Government Printing Office |date=29 March 1990 |pages=192, 196))</ref>))((refn|group=nb|name=12th|The Marine Corps claimed that the LAV-105 could be airdropped.<ref>((cite news |title=LAV-105 can meet Army need for air dropable AGS |url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A9066988/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=df2352da |access-date=15 January 2023 |work=Defense Daily |issue=25 |publisher=Access Intelligence |date=5 November 1990 |volume=169 |archive-date=January 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230120033713/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE((!))A9066988&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-ITOF&asid=df2352da |url-status=live))</ref>)) The Army agreed.<ref>((cite news |title=Army will consider LAV-105 for AGS |url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A9158404/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=aa32c26c |access-date=15 January 2023 |work=Defense Daily |issue=34 |publisher=Access Intelligence |date=19 November 1990 |volume=169 |archive-date=January 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230120033658/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE((!))A9158404&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-ITOF&asid=aa32c26c |url-status=live))</ref> In 1991, the Senate and [[House Armed Services Committee]]s joined in directing the Army to integrate the [[Gun Turret|turret]] and [[Watervliet Arsenal]] [[M35 tank gun|EX35]] gun of the LAV-105 with an AGS chassis.<ref name="Joint Marine Army program">((cite news |title=Army, Marine Corps Told to Join Forces and Develop New Armored Vehicle |work=Inside the Pentagon |issue=30 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=25 July 1991 |volume = 7|page=5|jstor = 43987311))</ref><ref name="Marines reject">((cite news |title=Marines reject Hill advice on LAV-105 turret; SASC and HASC support common turret |work=Defense Daily |volume=172 |issue=28 |publisher=Access Intelligence |date=8 August 1991 |url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A11103678/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=6403f25f |access-date=5 August 2022 |archive-date=January 15, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230115023206/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE((!))A11103678&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-ITOF&asid=6403f25f |url-status=live))</ref> A joint program was balked at by both services, who believed the two platforms were mismatched.<ref name="top priority"/> Subsequently, the Marine Corps demurred and requested no further funding for the LAV-105.<ref name="Marines reject"/> In any event, the proposed chimera was nixed by the [[Senate Appropriations Committee]] later that year.<ref>((cite news |title=Senate Appropriators Say: Army Does Not Have Funding to Follow Through With Force Modernization Plans |work=Inside the Pentagon |issue=39 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=26 September 1991 |volume= 7 |page=12 |jstor = 43989173))</ref>

The Army issued a draft [[request for proposal]]s (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.((sfn|Wank|1993|p=23–24)) 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.<ref name="top priority"/> 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.((sfn|Wank|1993|p=27–28))

The final RfP specified two configurations of the AGS: One intended for airborne forces, and another intended for other rapid deployment light forces.<ref name="Bolte"/>

FMC Corporation submitted the Close Combat Vehicle Light to meet the AGS requirement.<ref name="FMC selected"/>((sfn|Wank|1993|p=35))

Three other teams submitted proposals:<ref name="The Four Contenders">((cite news |title=The Contenders: Four Teams Compete for Armored Gun System Contract |work=Inside the Pentagon |issue=11 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=12 March 1992 |volume = 8|page=12|jstor = 43987850))</ref>

*[[General Dynamics Land Systems]] (GDLS) and Teledyne Continental Motors submitted a version of the Teledyne tank included in the AFVTV study.((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=182))((refn|group=nb|name=GDLS subcontractors|GDLS was the prime contractor. Teledyne had been the prime contractor for its own MPGS proposal)) 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.<ref name="Bolte"/><ref name="The Four Contenders"/>((refn|group=nb|name=tenth|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.<ref name="Lightweight, fights great">((cite news |last1=Stephen J. |first1=Mraz |title=Lightweight, fights great |url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A9264984/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=9af892e0 |access-date=15 January 2023 |work=Machine Design |issue=25 |date=6 December 1990 |volume=62 |page=22+ |archive-date=January 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230120033652/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE((!))A9264984&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-ITOF&asid=9af892e0 |url-status=live))</ref>))
*Cadillac Gage Textron submitted the Commando Stingray with the LAV-105 turret.<ref name="The Four Contenders"/>((refn|group=nb|name=eleventh|The design entered into the competition was armed with an XM35 105&nbsp;mm gun,<ref name="Bolte"/> though an earlier proposed model mounted a Royal Ordnance L7 105&nbsp;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&nbsp;mm machine gun fire over the frontal arc.<ref name="Lightweight, fights great"/>))
*[[Team Hägglunds USA]] submitted a variant of the [[Combat Vehicle 90]] with a [[GIAT]] turret.<ref name="The Four Contenders"/> This was the only version proposed without an [[autoloader]]. Series production would take place in Canada.<ref name="Bolte">((cite news |last1=Bolte |first1=Brig. Gen Phillip L. |title=Army's Light Forces Take on New Muscle |work=Armed Forces Journal International |date=May 1992))</ref>

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.<ref name="Bolte"/>

In June 1992, the Army selected the FMC proposal. FMC Ground Systems Division was awarded a $27.7 million ($((Format price|((Inflation|US|27700000|1992)))) in ((Inflation/year|US))) contract to begin phase 1 work, including the production of six test units.<ref name="FMC selected"/>((sfn|Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition)|1996|p=163)) The bids for this phase ranged from a high of $189 million ($((Format price|((Inflation|US|189000000|1992)))) in ((Inflation/year|US))) for GDLS–Teledyne and a low of $92 million ($((Format price|((Inflation|US|92000000|1992)))) in ((Inflation/year|US))) for Hägglunds.((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=182)) The procurement program was valued at $800 million.<ref name="FMC selected">((cite news |title=FMC Selected to Build Armored Gun System: Army's AGS to Feature All-Welded Aluminum Hull, Detroit Diesel Engine |work=Inside the Pentagon |issue=24 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=11 June 1992 |volume = 8|page=13|jstor = 43988110))</ref>

=== Close Combat Vehicle Light becomes the AGS ===
[[File:CCVL_Mockup.jpg|thumb|right|A mockup of the CCVL]]

FMC began developing the Close Combat Vehicle Light as a private venture in 1983. The vehicle was designed from the outset to meet the Army's as-yet unfunded Armored Gun System (AGS) requirement. FMC built two mock-ups. The first was a front-engine model utilizing a ((convert|330|hp|abbr=on)) diesel engine. The second was a rear-engine model with a ((convert|552|hp|abbr=on)) diesel engine and featuring more armor. In 1984, FMC validated the feasibility of pairing the 105&nbsp;mm gun with a light chassis by test firing a 105&nbsp;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.<ref name="Jane's 1987">((cite book |editor1-last=Foss |editor1-first=Christopher F |editor1-link=Christopher F Foss|title=Jane's Armour and Artillery 1987–88 |publisher=Jane's Publishing Company |year=1987 |isbn=0-7106-0849-7 |pages=155–158, 163 |edition=8th |chapter=Light Tanks))</ref>((refn|group=nb|name=13th|The 1985–86 edition of ''Jane's Armour and Artillery'' labels this private venture as the "FMC XM4 Armoured Gun System".<ref>((cite book |editor1-last=Foss |editor1-first=Christopher F |editor1-link=Christopher F Foss |title=Jane's Armour and Artillery 1985–86 |publisher=Jane's Publishing Company |location=London |year=1985 |isbn=0-7106-0820-9 |pages=922–923 |edition=6th |chapter=Addenda |url=https://archive.org/details/janesarmourartil0006unse))</ref>)) The CCVL was demonstrated at Fort Bragg in 1987.((sfn|Wank|1993|p=35)) FMC subsequently ended the marketing of the vehicle and disassembled the prototype.<ref>((cite book |editor1-last=Foss |editor1-first=Christopher F |editor1-link=Christopher F Foss |title=Jane's Armour and Artillery 1987–88 |publisher=Jane's Publishing Company |location=London |year=1987 |isbn=0-7106-0849-7 |page=153 |edition=10th |chapter=Light Tanks))</ref>

The Army required the AGS to be airdroppable from a tactical airlifter. C-130 airdrop was a desired capability, but not a required one.<ref name="anticipated RfP">((cite news |title=Army's AGS Will Be Based on Existing Platform, 'Air-Droppable' From C-17 |work=Inside the Pentagon |issue=15 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=11 April 1991|volume = 7|jstor = 43987017))</ref> 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.<ref name="weight loss">((cite news |title=Armored Gun System Loses Weight to Be Deployed by C-130 |jstor=43990667 |work=Inside the Pentagon |volume=9 |issue=31 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=5 August 1993))</ref> 

In a December 1993 report, the [[Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense|Defense Department Inspector General]] (IG) cautioned that the AGS would be too heavy for [[Airdrop#Types|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.<ref>((cite web |title=Transportability of Major Weapon and Support Systems |url=https://media.defense.gov/1993/Dec/27/2001714706/-1/-1/1/94-024.pdf |publisher=DoD Office of the Inspector General |access-date=15 January 2020 |date=27 December 1993 |archive-date=January 15, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200115124750/https://media.defense.gov/1993/Dec/27/2001714706/-1/-1/1/94-024.pdf |url-status=live))</ref><ref>((cite news |last1=Dupont |first1=Daniel G. |title=Army Refutes DoD IG Claim That AGS Airdrop Mission May Be Ignored |jstor=43975837 |work=Inside the Army |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=31 January 1994 |volume=6 |issue=5 |pages=1, 17–18))</ref> 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 ((convert|1,300|ft|abbr=on)).<ref name="first airdrop">((cite news |title=Army Successfully Drops Armored Gun System From C-130 at Yuma |jstor=43976759 |work=Inside the Army |volume=6 |issue=43 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=24 October 1994 |pages=6–7))</ref>

Citing cuts in the service's procurement budget, in 1993, the Army reduced its planned AGS order from 300 to 233.<ref>((cite news |last1=Dupont |first1=Daniel G. |title=SADARM, MLRS Slipped: Army's POM Shows Planned Buy of Armored Gun Systems Is Cut by 77 |jstor=43975649 |work=Inside the Army |volume=5 |issue=46 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=15 November 1993 |pages=1, 17–19))</ref> 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.<!-- (244 as of https://www.jstor.org/stable/43974789?searchText=DOD+BUDGET+GROWTH+IN+SCIENCE+TECH%3B+ARMY+TOA+INCHES+UP+TO+%2469+BILLION+IN+FY-99&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DDOD%2BBUDGET%253A%2BGROWTH%2BIN%2BSCIENCE%2B%2526%2BTECH%253B%2BARMY%2BTOA%2BINCHES%2BUP%2BTO%2B%252469%2BBILLION%2BIN%2BFY-99&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A85213c66d84bb6ab3c71245c6c039b0d&seq=2; 216 as of 1995? https://books.google.com/books?id=lWNQPRr5XrMC&pg=PA178) --> Of these, 123 would go to the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, 58 to the 82nd Airborne Division, and 56 to reserves and training bases.<ref>((cite news |title=82nd Airborne to Be Equipped in FY-97: Program Overhaul Accelerates AGS Production Schedule by Two Years |jstor=43976559 |work=Inside the Army |volume=6 |issue=33 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=15 August 1994 |pages=6–7))</ref> 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.<ref name="Decker">((cite news |title=Decker Lauds 'Model of Streamlined Acquisition': Six-Year Armored Gun System Cost-Cutting Plan Could Save $490 Million |jstor=43982560 |work=Inside the Army |volume=7 |issue=50 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=18 December 1995 |pages=3–4))</ref> The AGS's budget was zeroed and the production schedule slipped by one year in Congress's FY1995 budget due to program cost growth.<ref>((cite news |title=FY '95 budget cut to slip Armored Gun System by one year |url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A14714590/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=a5d3302d |access-date=15 January 2023 |work=Defense Daily |issue=5 |publisher=Access Intelligence |date=10 January 1994 |volume=182 |archive-date=January 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230120033650/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE((!))A14714590&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-ITOF&asid=a5d3302d |url-status=live))</ref>

[[File:XM8 AGS c. August 1994.png|thumb|right|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 and [[Bowen McLaughlin York|BMY]]) facility in San Jose, California, in April 1994,((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=183))((refn|group=nb|name=yth|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.<ref>((cite report |author=Department of Defense |date=October 1995 |title=Industrial Assessment for Tracked Combat Vehicles |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA303814.pdf |page=64 |access-date=24 April 2023))((PD-notice))</ref>)) and arrived at [[Fort Knox]], Kentucky, in April 1995.<ref name="Knox arrival">((cite news |last1=Eagles |first1=Cynthia |title=This Gun for Hire: Prototype of Weapon Reaches Fort Knox |url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/111095925/?terms=%22armored%2Bgun%2Bsystem%22 |access-date=15 January 2020 |work=The Courier Journal |date=1 May 1995 |archive-date=May 12, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220512222735/https://www.newspapers.com/image/111095925/?terms=%22armored%2Bgun%2Bsystem%22 |url-status=live))</ref> The last of these was delivered in May.((sfn|Zaloga|2009|p=46)) United Defense provided five XM8 AGS systems to the service's [[United States Army Test and Evaluation Command|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.<ref name="user tests">((cite news |title=Armored Gun System Completes Early User Tests, Clearing Way for LRIP |jstor=43978398 |work=Inside the Army |volume=7 |issue=31 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=7 August 1995 |page=3))</ref>

=== Cancelation ===
In 1995, the Army explored cutting the 2nd ACR, which would reduce the Army's buy to 80 AGS. These would be destined for the 82nd Airborne. In May 1995, the National Guard expressed interest in procuring the AGS for the [[38th Infantry Division (United States)|38th Infantry Division]], [[35th Infantry Division (United States)|35th Infantry Division]] and [[34th Infantry Division (United States)|34th Infantry Division]] to help bridge the looming capability gap should the 2nd ACR be eliminated. This proposal was rejected by the service.<ref name="National Guard">((cite news |last1=Sherman |first1=Jason |title=National Guard Expressing Interest in System: Army Considering Reducing or Terminating Armored Gun System Purchase |work=Inside the Army |issue=38 |date=25 September 1995 |volume=7 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |pages=1, 8–9 |jstor=43978524))</ref> Army Chief of Staff [[Gordon R. Sullivan]], the AGS's most influential advocate at the Pentagon, retired in June 1995.<ref name="billion saved">((cite news |last1=Sherman |first1=Jason |title=More Than $1 Billion Saved: Budget Squeeze Drives Army to Terminate Armored Gun System Program |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43978810 |access-date=3 March 2023 |work=Inside the Army |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=26 January 1996|jstor=43978810))</ref> In October 1995, the Army type classified the XM8 as the M8 Armored Gun System.<ref name="Jane's 18th"/> It approved an initial production run of 26 vehicles,((sfn|Zaloga|2009|p=46)) with an option for 42 more scheduled to begin in FY1997.<ref name="user tests"/> A full production decision was scheduled for March 1997.((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310))((sfn|Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition)|1996|p=163)) Fielding to the 3/73 Armor would begin in 1999. All three squadrons of the 2nd ACR were to be fielded subsequently.((sfn|Preston|2004|p=12–14))

{| class="wikitable floatright" style="text-align:right;"
|+ AGS production schedule as of 1995<ref name="Jane's 16th"/>
|-
! 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

|}
[[File:One of six preproduction versions of the XM-8 AGS.png|thumb|right|AGS pre-production unit ((circa|1994))]]
[[File:Armored Gun System level 2 armor c. 1994.png|thumb|right|AGS pre-production unit in level 2 armor ((circa|1994))]]
The end of the Cold War had precipitated a fall-off in U.S. military spending.((sfn|Zaloga|2009|p=46)) The President's FY1996 budget request allotted the Department of Defense (DoD) the lowest procurement budget level since 1950.<ref>((cite news |title=DoD Allots $39 Billion for Procurement in FY-96, Lowest Level Since 1950 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43990396 |access-date=18 September 2022 |work=Inside the Pentagon |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=6 February 1995 |jstor=43990396 |archive-date=September 20, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920193041/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43990396 |url-status=live))</ref> The AGS was one of several systems that did not fare well in an Army review of anti-armor weapons then under development.<ref>((cite news |last1=Dupont |first1=Daniel G. |title=Anti-Armor Review Could Lead to More Cuts: Canceling Armored Gun System Only One Step Toward Modernization Fix |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43978852 |access-date=18 September 2022 |work=Inside the Army |issue=5 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=15 February 1996 |volume=8 |jstor=43978852 |archive-date=September 20, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920180712/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43978852 |url-status=live))</ref> 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.<ref name="formal cancelation">((cite report |last1=Cameron |first1=Robert S. |title=1996 Annual Command History |date=11 March 1998 |page= |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADB236178.pdf |access-date=21 February 2022 |publisher=United States Army Armor Center and Fort Knox |pages=111–112 |archive-date=December 11, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221211025217/https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADB236178.pdf |url-status=live))((PD-notice))</ref> 

Army Chief of Staff [[Dennis Reimer]] canceled the AGS in January 1996.<ref name="OSD support"/> In an email explaining the cancelation to officers, Reimer said the AGS was a "well run program" and that the Army "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.<ref name="Reimer">((cite book |last1=Reimer |first1=Dennis J. |editor1-last=Carafano |editor1-first=James Jay |title=Soldiers are our Credentials: The Collected Works and Selected Papers of the  Thirty-third Chief of Staff, United States Army |date=2000 |page=25-26 |url=https://history.army.mil/html/books/070/70-69-1/cmhPub_70-69-1.pdf |access-date=21 February 2024))</ref>

Many officials felt blindsided by the Army's decision to kill the AGS.<ref name="Fully Fund">((cite news |title=Army Termination Decision Still Unannounced: Lawmakers Urge Perry to Fully Fund Armored Gun System in 1997 Budget |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43978837 |access-date=18 September 2022 |work=Inside the Army |issue=4 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=29 January 1996 |pages=1, 16 |volume=8 |jstor=43978837 |archive-date=September 20, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920174604/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43978837 |url-status=live))</ref> 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 [[United States Secretary of Defense|Defense Secretary]] [[William J. Perry]] about having learned of the cancelation through media reports.<ref name="OSD support"/> 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."<ref name="Fully Fund"/> 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."<ref name="OSD support"/>

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.<ref name="OSD support">((cite news |last1=Sherman |first1=Jason |title=Service Still Seeking OSD Support: Army's Decision to Terminate AGS Meets Stiff Resistance on Capitol Hill |work=Inside the Army |issue=6 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=12 February 1996 |volume=8 |pages=1, 9–10|jstor=43982648))</ref> However, in February the [[Joint Requirements Oversight Council]] (JROC) endorsed the Army's decision.<ref name="OSD Holding"/> 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.<ref name="OSD Holding"/>

The Army issued a stop-work order to United Defense in February 1996.<ref name="Jane's 18th"/> In May, the Army Vice Chief of Staff formally announced the cancelation of the AGS.<ref name="formal cancelation"/> 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.<ref name="OSD support"/>

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 [[FGM-148 Javelin|Javelin missile]].<ref>((cite news |last1=Arenstein |first1=Seth |title=AGS killed as Army budget rises |work=Defense Daily |volume=190 |issue=42 |publisher=Access Intelligence |date=4 March 1996 |url-access=registration |url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A18136176/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=b89a8e14 |access-date=5 August 2022))</ref> The Army considered a variety of plans to "heavy up" the 2nd ACR.<ref>((cite news |last1=Sherman |first1=Jason |title=According to MG Anderson: Army Considers How It Will Compensate for Loss of Armored Gun System |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43982686 |access-date=6 August 2022 |work=Inside the Army |issue=12 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=25 March 1996 |volume=8 |jstor=43982686 |archive-date=August 6, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220806042451/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43982686 |url-status=live))</ref> The service added heavy armor to the 2nd ACR and requested funding to purchase [[Boeing AH-64 Apache|Apache helicopter]]s.<ref>((cite news |title=Chief Requests Study of Assault Gun Requirement: Gen. Reimer Directs Army to Inactivate Would-be AGS Unit by Next July |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43979441 |access-date=6 August 2022 |work=Inside the Army |issue=36 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=9 September 1996 |volume=8 |pages=1, 11 |jstor=43979441 |archive-date=August 6, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220806044335/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43979441 |url-status=live))</ref> In the 82nd Airborne, the Army also planned to introduce the [[MGM-157 EFOGM|EFOGM]] missile and considered more widely fielding the Javelin missile.<ref>((cite news |last1=Sherman |first1=Jason |title=Reimer Wants Little Disruption for Soldiers: Without AGS, Army Plans to Phase Out Its Sole Light Armored Battalion |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43982760 |access-date=6 August 2022 |work=Inside the Army |issue=28 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=15 July 1996 |volume=8 |pages=1, 7 |jstor=43982760 |archive-date=August 6, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220806044334/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43982760 |url-status=live))</ref><ref>((cite news |title=Army Considers Speeding Javelin Fielding to Unit Affected by AGS Kill |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43982527 |access-date=6 August 2022 |work=Inside the Army |issue=14 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=8 April 1996 |volume=8 |jstor=43982527 |archive-date=August 6, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220806050211/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43982527 |url-status=live))</ref> Funding for EFOGM was deleted in 1998.<ref>((cite news |last1=Winograd |first1=Eric Q. |title=Enhanced Fiber-optic Guided Missile Killed in House, Senate Bills |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43981279 |access-date=6 August 2022 |work=Inside the Army |issue=19 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=18 May 1998 |volume=10 |page=5 |jstor=43981279 |archive-date=August 6, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220806051755/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43981279 |url-status=live))</ref> 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.<ref>((cite news |last1=Dupont |first1=Daniel G. |title=Panel Accuses Service of Misusing ACTD Concept: Army's Plans to Replace AGS With EFOG-M, LOSAT Under Fire in Congress |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43980251 |access-date=6 August 2022 |work=Inside the Army |issue=30 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=28 July 1997 |volume=9 |pages=1, 10–12 |jstor=43980251 |archive-date=August 6, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220806054400/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43980251 |url-status=live))</ref> However, this program was canceled in FY2005.<ref>((cite news |title=Future KE Missile Road Map Under Development: Army Evaluates Plans for Kinetic-energy Weapons After LOSAT Kill |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/24823265 |access-date=6 August 2022 |work=Inside the Army |issue=18 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=9 May 2005 |volume=17 |pages=1, 8 |jstor=24823265 |archive-date=August 6, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220806054401/https://www.jstor.org/stable/24823265 |url-status=live))</ref> 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.<ref name="Reimer"/>

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.((sfn|Zaloga|2009|p=43)) Maintaining the Sheridan was not thought to be practical.<ref name="OSD Holding">((cite news |last1=Sherman |first1=Jason |title=With Congress Out of Session . . .: OSD Holding Up AGS Termination Announcement; JROC Backs Army Decision |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43978916 |access-date=18 September 2022 |work=Inside the Army |issue=7 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=19 February 1996 |volume=8 |jstor=43978916 |archive-date=September 20, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920192938/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43978916 |url-status=live))</ref> 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 (United States)|3rd Infantry Division]] which were to be attached to the 82nd.((sfn|Zaloga|2009|p=43))

=== Milestones and schedule ===
{| class="wikitable floatright"
|+ AGS procurement budget
|-
! Year !! Orders !! Procurement (M) !! Advance Proc. (M)
|-
| FY1992<ref name="FY1992" >((cite report |author=Staff of the AUSA Institute of Land Warfare |date=June 1993 |title=Army Budget Fiscal Year 1994—An Analysis |url=https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/SR-FY1994-Army-Budget-Analysis.pdf |publisher=Association of The United States Army |page=42|access-date=))</ref> || – || – || –
|-
| FY1993<ref name="FY1992"/> || – || 4.7 (((Format price|((Inflation|US|4.7|1992|r=1)))) in ((Inflation/year|US))) || –
|-
| FY1994<ref name="FY1992"/> || – || 8.2 (((Format price|((Inflation|US|8.2|1993|r=1)))) in ((Inflation/year|US))) || 7.8 (((Format price|((Inflation|US|7.8|1993|r=1)))) in ((Inflation/year|US)))
|-
| FY1995<ref name="FY1996"/> || – || – || –
|-
| FY1996<ref name="FY1996" >((cite report |author=Staff of the AUSA Institute of Land Warfare |date=May 1995 |title=Army Budget Fiscal Year 1996—An Analysis |url=https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/SR-FY1996-Army-Budget-Analysis.pdf |publisher=Association of The United States Army |page=42|access-date=))</ref> || 26 (((Format price|((Inflation|US|26|1995|r=1)))) in ((Inflation/year|US))) || 141.6 (((Format price|((Inflation|US|141.6|1995|r=1)))) in ((Inflation/year|US))) || –
|-
| FY1997<ref name="FY1996"/> || 42 (((Format price|((Inflation|US|42|1996|r=1)))) in ((Inflation/year|US))) || 182.2 (((Format price|((Inflation|US|182.2|1996|r=1)))) in ((Inflation/year|US)))|| –
|}
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.((sfn|Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition)|1996|p=163))

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).((sfn|Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition)|1996|p=163))

=== Proposed revivals ===
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 (United States)|2nd Cavalry Regiment]].<ref name="surrogate">((cite news |last1=Dupont |first1=Daniel G. |title=Armored Gun System May Get (Limited) New Life |work=Inside the Army |issue=19 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=18 May 1998|volume=10 |page=7 |jstor=43981282))</ref>

[[File:Armored Gun System Platform Performance Demonstration.jpg|thumb|right|An M8 AGS rolls off a C-130 for a platform performance demonstration at Fort Knox ((circa|December 1999)).|alt=An AGS in woodland camouflage pattern rolls out of the rear cargo ramp of a C-130. The gun is forward. There is no armament mounted on the commander's hatch.]]

[[File:(X)M8 Armored Gun System Fort Knox.jpg|thumb|right|M8 at the Fort Knox platform performance demonstration ((circa|2000))]]
In October 1999, Army Chief of Staff [[Eric Shinseki]] laid out his vision for a lighter, more transportable force.<ref name="Vision">((cite news |last1=MacRae |first1=Catherine |title=Service Wants to Be Lighter, Faster, More Lethal: Army Chief of Staff's 'vision' Is Focused on Medium-weight Force |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43995956 |access-date=7 February 2022 |work=Inside the Army |issue=41 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=14 October 1999 |volume=15 |page=6 |jstor=43995956 |archive-date=December 9, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221209031541/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43995956 |url-status=live))</ref> The Army began the [[Interim Armored Vehicle]] (IAV) program to implement Shinseki's concept.<ref name="MGS proposed"/> [[United Defense|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.<ref name="MGS proposed">((cite news |last1=Burger |first1=Kim |title=IAV Source Selection May Come This Week: Chosen Vehicle Less Important Than New Concept, Observers Say |work=Inside the Army |issue=40 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=9 October 2000 |volume=12 |pages=7–9|jstor=43985072))</ref> United Defense provided an AGS armored in level 1, 2 and 3 for a platform performance demonstration from December 1999 to January 2000.<ref>((cite book |last1=Hunnicutt |first1=Richard Pearce |author1-link=R. P. Hunnicutt |title=Armored Car: A History of American Wheeled Combat Vehicles |date=15 September 2015 |orig-date=2002 |publisher=Echo Point Books & Media |location=Brattleboro, VT |isbn=978-1-62654-155-9 |page=295 |chapter=The LAV Program))</ref><ref>((cite news |last1=Baumgardner |first1=Neil |title=GD, GMC, UDLP Add Vehicles for Knox Demonstration Program |url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A58305531/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=ef89cf67 |access-date=15 January 2023 |work=Defense Daily |issue=51 |publisher=Access Intelligence |date=16 December 1999 |volume=204 |archive-date=January 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230120033653/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE((!))A58305531&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-ITOF&asid=ef89cf67 |url-status=live))</ref> 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.<ref name=protest/> The AGS lost out to the General Motors proposal, which was type classified as the [[Stryker]] [[M1128 Mobile Gun System]].<ref name=forecast>((cite web |title=M8 Armored Gun System - Archived 3/2004 |url=https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=433 |website=www.forecastinternational.com |publisher=Forecast International |access-date=28 March 2019 |archive-date=March 28, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190328042857/https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=433 |url-status=live))</ref> UDLP protested the award, alleging that the Army disregarded its own timeline requirements and that the requirements were unfairly biased for wheeled vehicles.<ref name=protest>((cite news |last1=Burger |first1=Kim |title=According to Company Protest Documents . . .: UDLP Alleges Bias Against Tracked Vehicles in Army's LAV III Pick |work=Inside the Army |issue=50 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=18 December 2001|volume=12 |pages=1–6 |jstor=43984197))</ref> The General Accounting Office denied UDLP's protest in April 2001.<ref>((cite news |last1=Winograd |first1=Erin Q. |title=GAO Releases Redacted Decision: UDLP Won't Pursue Further Action to Overturn Army's IAV Decision |work=Inside the Army |issue=18 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=7 May 2001|volume=13 |pages=1–7 |jstor=43985396))</ref>

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]].<ref name="AGS MGS hold"/> 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 [[Iraq War|war in Iraq]].<ref name="MGStest"/> 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.<ref name="AGS MGS hold">((cite news |title=GDLS given $500,000 to pursue air-drop test: Army to Delay Armored Gun System Delivery Until MGS Tests Complete |work=Inside the Army |issue=23 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=7 June 2004|volume = 16|jstor = 24822615))</ref> 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.<ref name="MGStest">((cite news |title=Cody: Answer Could Lie Outside Army: Army Re-evaluates Airborne Division's Request for AGS-like Platform |work=Inside the Army |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |issue=44 |date=1 November 2004|volume = 16|jstor = 24821748))</ref> 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.<ref>((cite news |last1=DiMascio |first1=Jen |title=Letter Notes Soldiers 'Dying in the Streets of Iraq': Rep. Hayes Presses DoD to Send Armored Gun System to 82nd Airborne |work=Inside the Army |issue=4 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=31 January 2005|volume=17 |jstor = 24822880))</ref> 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.<ref name="Mum">((cite news |title=Rep. Hayes Dissatisfied With Response to Query on AGS: Army Still Backing Stryker MGS to Fill Year-Old Request for Firepower |work=Inside the Army |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |issue=6 |date=14 February 2005|volume = 17|jstor = 24823120))</ref>

United Defense sought overseas customers without success. In 1994 United Defense partnered with [[Rheinmetall]] to market the AGS to NATO allies. Taiwan had been interested in acquiring as many as 700 of the system,<ref>((cite news |title=U.S. and Taiwan move closer on sale of Armored Gun System |url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A15505372/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=6c7f76b3 |access-date=5 August 2022 |work=Defense Daily |issue=60 |publisher=Access Intelligence |date=27 June 1994 |volume=183 |archive-date=January 15, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230115023203/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE((!))A15505372&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-ITOF&asid=6c7f76b3 |url-status=live))</ref> which would be produced domestically. In 1994, 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 vehicle by Taiwan.<ref name="Jane's 16th">((cite book |editor1-last=Foss |editor1-first=Christopher F |editor1-link=Christopher F Foss|title=Jane's Armour and Artillery 1995–96 |year=1995 |isbn=978-0-71061-260-1 |publisher=Janes Information Group |location=Surrey |pages=167–169 |edition=16th |chapter=Light Tanks))</ref> In 1996, United Defense had plans to ship one AGS prototype to Taiwan.<ref name="Taiwan">((cite news |title=Turkey, Taiwan Scheduled for Vehicle Demos: Foreign Interest in AGS Remains Firm Despite Army Termination Decision |work=Inside the Army |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=4 March 1996 |pages=1, 14–15|jstor = 43982669|last1=Sherman |first1=Jason |volume=8 |issue=9))</ref> In 1996, United Defense partnered with [[FNSS Defence Systems|FMC Nurol]] to offer the AGS to the [[Turkish Land Forces]], which was seeking a [[main battle tank]].<ref name="Taiwan"/><ref name="Turkey"/> By 1998, Canada, Germany, [[Malaysia]] and [[Singapore]] had expressed interest in the tank.<ref name="Turkey">((cite news |last1=Cahlink |first1=George |title=Army May Help Company's Cause: United Defense Markets Armored Gun System to Turkey, Other Nations |work=Inside the Army |issue=6 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=16 February 1998 |volume=10 |page=3|jstor=43982835))</ref> In 1999, officials from Japan observed the AGS before embarking on a light tank program of their own.<ref>((cite book |editor1-last=Foss |editor1-first=Christopher F |editor1-link=Christopher F Foss |title=Jane's Armour and Artillery 2002–2003 |publisher=Janes Information Group |location=Surrey |year=2002 |isbn=0-7106-2425-5 |pages=177–179 |edition=23rd |chapter=Light Tanks))</ref>

[[File:BAE Systems Mobile Protected Firepower testbed.jpg|thumb|An XM1302 Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) testbed at the U.S. Army Armor & Cavalry Collection at [[Fort Moore]], Georgia, in 2023]]
[[File:BAE MPF Testbed arrives at ACC.webm|thumb|An MPF testbed arrives at the U.S. Army Armor & Cavalry Collection in 2023.]]
In 2015, the U.S. Army articulated a requirement for a [[Mobile Protected Firepower]] system to replace the Mobile Gun System.<ref name="MPF strategy">((cite news |last1=Sprenger |first1=Sebastian |title='Mobile Protected Firepower' weapon sought: Service Begins Tipping Its Hand On Combat Vehicle Modernization Strategy |jstor=24841371 |work=Inside the Army |volume=27 |issue=32 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=17 August 2015 |pages=1, 10–11))</ref> 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&nbsp;mm or 120&nbsp;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.<ref name="downselect">((cite news |last1=Tressel |first1=Ashley |title=BAE, General Dynamics move forward in MPF competition |jstor=26587496 |work=Inside the Army |volume=30 |issue=51 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=24 December 2018 |pages=1, 4–5))</ref> BAE began delivering the prototype vehicles to the Army in December 2020,<ref name="sterenfield"/> although the last of these were delivered behind schedule after testing had begun.<ref name="COVID delays">((cite news |last1=Judson |first1=Jen |title=US Army's light tank competition enters final stretch |url=https://www.defensenews.com/land/2021/10/11/ausa-us-armys-light-tank-competition-enters-final-stretch/ |access-date=11 November 2022 |work=Defense News |date=11 October 2021 |archive-date=January 14, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230114025535/https://www.defensenews.com/land/2021/10/11/ausa-us-armys-light-tank-competition-enters-final-stretch/ |url-status=live))</ref> The Army's evaluation of BAE and General Dynamics prototypes at Fort Bragg continued through August.<ref name="sterenfield">((cite news |last1=Sterenfeld |first1=Ethan |title=BAE starting to deliver MPF prototypes |url=https://insidedefense.com/insider/bae-starting-deliver-mpf-prototypes |access-date=23 March 2022 |work=Inside Defense |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=16 December 2020 |archive-date=May 12, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220512222735/https://insidedefense.com/insider/bae-starting-deliver-mpf-prototypes |url-status=live))</ref><ref name="GDLS Griffin selected">((cite news |last1=Judson |first1=Jen |title=General Dynamics unit wins contract to build new light tank for infantry |url=https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/06/28/us-army-unveils-contract-to-build-new-light-tank-for-infantry-forces/ |access-date=30 June 2022 |work=Defense News |date=28 June 2022 |archive-date=January 14, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230114025535/https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/06/28/us-army-unveils-contract-to-build-new-light-tank-for-infantry-forces/ |url-status=live))</ref> In February 2022, BAE was eliminated from the competition due to noncompliance issues, leaving the [[General Dynamics Griffin]] as the only remaining MPF entry.<ref>((Cite web|last=|first=|date=2 March 2022|title=US Army eliminates BAE Systems from 'light tank' competition|url=https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-army-eliminates-bae-systems-from-light-tank-competition |website=[[Janes Information Services]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220306185924/https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-army-eliminates-bae-systems-from-light-tank-competition|archive-date=6 March 2022|url-status=live))</ref> In June 2022, the Army selected the Griffin as the winner of the MPF competition.<ref name="GDLS Griffin selected"/> The GDLS Griffin was later type classified as the [[M10 Booker]].<ref name="Booker naming">((cite news |last1=Judson |first1=Jen |title=US Army's new combat vehicle named for soldiers killed in Iraq, WWII |url=https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/06/10/us-armys-new-combat-vehicle-named-for-soldiers-killed-in-iraq-wwii/ |access-date=25 June 2023 |work=Defense News |date=10 June 2023))</ref>

== Design ==
The AGS operational requirements were identified early in the process. In order, they were: deployability, lethality, survivability, and sustainability.<ref name="MANPRINT" >((cite journal |last1=Flanagan |first1=Captain Timothy |title=How Manpower and Personnel Integration Was Applied to the Armored Gun System |journal=Armor |date=May–June 1995 |issue=3 |volume=104 |page=37 |url=https://www.dvidshub.net/publication/issues/33794|access-date=13 July 2023))</ref>

The basic hull of the AGS is made of welded [[5083 aluminum alloy]],((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310)) with a modular armor system that allows the vehicle to be equipped according to requirements.<ref name="Jane's 16th"/> 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.((sfn|Freeman|1991|p=20))((refn|group=nb|name= Eighth|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.<ref name="LVAD">((cite report |title=Transportability of Major Weapon and Support Systems – GAO Report |date=27 December 1993 |url=https://media.defense.gov/1993/Dec/27/2001714706/-1/-1/1/94-024.pdf |publisher=General Accounting Office |access-date=January 15, 2020 |archive-date=January 15, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200115124750/https://media.defense.gov/1993/Dec/27/2001714706/-1/-1/1/94-024.pdf |url-status=live))((PD-notice))</ref>))

Subcontractors as of 1996 consisted of [[Chrysler Corporation]] (Pentastar), [[Computing Devices Canada]], [[Detroit Diesel]], [[General Electric Company]], General Motors Corporation ([[Hughes Aircraft Company|Hughes Electronics]]), Textron Inc.: (Cadillac Gage) and Watervliet Arsenal.((sfn|Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition)|1996|p=225))

=== Protection ===
The CCVL hull was all-welded aluminum with bolt-on steel [[composite armor]]. [[Appliqué armor]] could also be installed by the user.<ref name="Jane's 7th"/> This may have been [[Modular Expandable Armor System]] from [[IBD Deisenroth Engineering]].<ref name="forecast"/>

[[File:M8 Armored Gun System lvl 3 armor PV-4.jpg|thumb|right|AGS PV-4 seen here with level III armor. Note the passive armor boxes.((refn|group=nb|name=first))((refn|group=nb|name=second|A similar-looking undated image of an AGS is described by Christopher F Foss as having level ''2'' armor and [[Explosive reactive armor|''explosive reactive'' armor]].<ref name="Jane's 2008"/>))|alt=An AGS as seen from a high angle. The sides of the turret, track skirts and glacis plate are covered by thick boxes. The commander's station is armed with an M2 Browning .50 caliber machine gun.]]
The AGS was designed with three modular armor levels:

*The Level I (basic) armor package consisted of [[ceramic armor]] tiles<ref name="weight loss"/> and protected the vehicle against small-arms fire and shell splinters. It was designed for the rapid deployment role and could be airdropped from a [[Lockheed C-130 Hercules|C-130]]. All-up weight was ((convert|39,800|lb|kg|abbr=on)).<ref name="Miller">((cite book |last1=Miller |first1=David Maxwell Owens |title=The Illustrated Directory of Tanks of the World |date=2000 |publisher=Salamander |location=London |isbn=1840651768 |pages=478–480 |url=https://archive.org/details/illustrateddirec0000mill_x4g1 |access-date=7 March 2022))</ref>
*The Level II armor package consisted of additional plates of [[titanium]], [[hardened steel]] and [[expanded metal]].<ref name="weight loss"/>((refn|group=nb|name=level 2|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. <!-- the turret or the hull behind the turret? --> High hard steel covers the tracks. High hard steel, perforated metal and [[aluminum 5083]] covers the chassis rear.<ref>((cite archive |first=Phillip |last=Lett |type=textual record |file=22. Armored Gun System |box=18 |collection=Phillip Lett Collection |collection-url=https://www.lib.auburn.edu/archive/find-aid/740.htm |institution=Auburn University |location=Auburn, AL |accession=02-038))</ref>)) At an all-up weight of ((convert|44270|lb|kg|0|abbr=on)), Level II-armored AGS could still be carried by C-130 but could not be air-dropped.<ref name="Jane's 16th"/>
*Level III armor consists of bolt-on armor boxes and is designed for contingency operations. It provides protection against light handheld anti-tank weapons. Level III-armored AGS systems cannot be transported by C-130. All-up weight is ((convert|52,000|lb|kg|abbr=on)).<ref name="Miller"/>

As of 2003 United Defense was evaluating combining level I and II armors.<ref name="forecast"/>

[[File:BAE XM1302 MPF M257 smoke grenade launchers 2.jpg|thumb|upright|MPF M257 smoke grenade launchers]]
[[File:M8 AGS level III armor.jpg|thumb|right|An AGS with level III armor]]
The crew is protected from ammunition explosion by blowout panels on the roof and a [[Bulkhead (partition)|bulkhead]] separating the ammunition from the crew.<ref name="Jane's 16th"/> The ammunition compartments in the hull are also protected by blowout panels.<ref name="AGS ANSWERS" /> Explosion/[[fire-suppression system|fire suppression]] is provided by a [[Santa Barbara Dual Spectrum]] system.((sfn|Cullen|Foss|1997|p=170)) [[Halomethane|Halon]] fire-suppression protects the crew compartment while a powder system is installed in the engine compartment.<ref name="MANPRINT"/> Unlike the CCVL,<ref name="Jane's 7th"/> the AGS crew is equipped with [[Overpressure (CBRN protection)|Nuclear Biological Chemical (NBC) overpressure system]].((sfn|Nagl|1992|p=28)) 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.<ref name="AGS ANSWERS" >((cite journal |last1=Moler |first1=Colonel Charles F. |last2=Knox |first2=Colonel Richard L. |title=AGS Answers |journal=Armor |date=March–April 1993 |issue=2 |volume=102 |page=3-4 |url=https://www.dvidshub.net/publication/issues/33917|access-date=13 July 2023))((PD-notice))</ref>  NBC protection is provided by filtered air through tubing to M25/[[M42 (gas mask)|M42 masks]].<ref name="AGS QUESTIONS" >((cite journal |last1=Hartline |first1=Colonel Franklin Y. |title=AGS Questions |journal=Armor |date=March–April 1993 |issue=2 |volume=102 |page=2-3 |url=https://www.dvidshub.net/publication/issues/33917|access-date=13 July 2023))((PD-notice))</ref> The Army omitted a requirement for [[radiation hardening]] from the AGS.<ref name="top priority">((cite news |last1=Richard |first1=Lardner |title=Service Emphasizes Lighter Forces: in New World, Armored Gun System Ranks as Army's Top Procurement Priority |work=Inside the Pentagon |issue=11 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=2 March 1992 |volume=8 |pages=1, 11–13|jstor=43987842))</ref>

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.<ref name="Jane's 1987" /> The AGS had two 8-barrel smoke grenade launchers<!-- what model? --> which could fire a variety of obscurants.<ref name="Jane's 16th"/> The MPF variant has two 8-barrel M257 model firing M19 [[smoke grenade]]s.<ref name="XM1302 Chieftain"/>

The CCVL was protected from 30&nbsp;mm kinetic-energy rounds over the frontal arc.<ref name="CCVL unveiled">((cite news |last1=Lopez |first1=Ramon |title=CCVL unveiled |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_janes-international-defense-review-idr_1985_18_9 |access-date=13 June 2023 |work=International Defense Review 1985 |issue=9 |publisher=Interavia S.A. |issn=0020-6512))</ref> The United Defense Mobile Gun System variant included 7.62&nbsp;mm integral armor protection over most of the vehicle, and 14.5&nbsp;mm AP protection over the frontal 60-degree arc.<ref name="deny">((cite report |title=Decision |date=9 April 2001 |url=https://www.gao.gov/products/b-286925.3%2Cb-286925.4%2Cb-286925.5 |publisher=General Accounting Office |access-date=June 23, 2022 |archive-date=February 28, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210228071843/https://www.gao.gov/products/B-286925.3,B-286925.4,B-286925.5 |url-status=live))((PD-notice))</ref> BAE equipped the Mobile Protected Firepower variant of the AGS with underbody blast protection from [[roadside bomb]]s.<ref name="MPF engine">((cite news |title=MPF: Light Tank Competitors BAE & GD Head For Soldier Tests |url=https://breakingdefense.com/2020/10/mpf-light-tank-competitors-bae-gd-head-for-soldier-tests/ |access-date=22 May 2022 |work=Breaking Defense |date=19 October 2020 |archive-date=May 22, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220522081907/https://breakingdefense.com/2020/10/mpf-light-tank-competitors-bae-gd-head-for-soldier-tests/ |url-status=live))</ref>

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 [[radar jamming and deception|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.<ref name="Raven" />

=== Mobility ===
((multiple image|perrow = 2|total_width=300
| image1 = XM8 Armored Gun System airdrop Yuma-9.jpg
| image2 = XM8 Armored Gun System airdrop Yuma-10.jpg
| image3 = XM8 Armored Gun System airdrop Yuma-2.jpg
| image4 = XM8 Armored Gun System airdrop Yuma-7.jpg
| footer = An XM8 is airdropped at [[Yuma Proving Ground]] in October 1994
))

Power is provided by a Detroit Diesel [[Detroit Diesel Series 92|6V-92TA]] 6-cylinder [[multifuel]] diesel engine developing ((convert|550|hp|abbr=on)) at 2,400 rpm with [[JP-8 fuel]], and ((convert|580|hp|abbr=on)) at 2,400 rpm with DF2 diesel.((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310))<ref name="Jane's 18th"/>((refn|group=nb|name=JP8|According to MPF project manager LTC Peter George, JP-8 was expected to be used in general.<ref name="XM1302 Chieftain"/>)) This had 65 percent commonality with the eight-cylinder version fitted on the [[Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck]] (HEMTT).<ref name="Jane's 16th"/> The AGS's power-to-weight ratio was greater than the American [[M1 Abrams|M1A1 Abrams]] main battle tank. The top speed is [[Governor (device)|governor-limited]] to ((convert|45|mph|0|abbr=on)). The fuel capacity is ((convert|150|USgal||abbr=on)), giving the AGS a projected range of ((convert|300|mi|abbr=on)) at a cruising speed of ((convert|25|mph|km/h|abbr=on)).((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=172)) The General Electric hydromechanical HMPT-500 [[Transmission (mechanical device)|transmission]] is also used by the [[Bradley Fighting Vehicle]].((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310))((sfn|Nagl|1992|p=28–29)) The transmission has three forward speeds and one reverse.((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310))

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.((sfn|Nagl|1992|p=29)) An auxiliary power unit was considered, but ultimately omitted from the final design to save weight.<ref name="Moler">((cite journal |last1=Moler |first1=Charles F. |title=The TRADOC System Manager for the AGS Comments on 'The AGS in Low-Intensity Conflict' |journal=Armor |issue=4 |volume=103 |date=July–September 1994 |url=https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/1994/JUL_AUG/ArmorJulyAugust1994web.pdf |access-date=23 March 2022 |archive-date=March 23, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220323235558/https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/1994/JUL_AUG/ArmorJulyAugust1994web.pdf |url-status=live))</ref> The M8's tracks are double-pin modified T150 with six inches of pitch.((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310))

The AGS [[torsion bar suspension]] is similar to that in the Abrams.<ref name="MANPRINT"/> The MPF's torsion bar suspension is in common with the Bradley and [[Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle]].<ref name="XM1302 Chieftain" />

[[File:BAE Mobile Protected Firepower testbed at U.S. Army and Cavalry Museum.webm|thumb|right|An MPF testbed with [[MTU Friedrichshafen|MTU]] engine visible idles at the U.S. Army Armor and Cavalry Collection in 2022]]
Many different engines, including a [[gas turbine]], were considered for follow-on versions of the CCVL.<ref name="Jane's 7th"/> The Detroit Diesel engine was replaced in the Mobile Protected Firepower variant with an [[MTU Friedrichshafen|MTU]] diesel engine,<ref>((cite news |last1=Tegler |first1=Eric |title=Two Light Tank Prototypes Battle for the Future of Army Firepower |url=https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a35634134/army-mpf-tank/ |access-date=1 June 2023 |work=Popular Mechanics |publisher=Hearst Magazine Media |date=7 March 2021))</ref> this one also developing ((convert|550|hp|abbr=on)).<ref name="MPF engine"/> This was mated to an [[Allison Transmission|Allison]] 3040 MX transmission.<ref name="XM1302 Chieftain"/>

FMC designed the CCVL to be capable of LAPES ([[low-altitude parachute-extraction system]]) airdrop from a C-130.<ref name="Jane's 6th"/> <!-- What happened to this requirement? --> The Army required two variants of the AGS. One capable of the LVAD from the [[Boeing C-17 Globemaster III|C-17 Globemaster III]] (intended for the 82nd Airborne),<ref name="Decker"/> and a heavier variant with roll-on/roll-off capability from the [[Lockheed C-5 Galaxy|C-5 Galaxy]], C-17, [[Lockheed C-141 Starlifter|C-141 Starlifter]] and [[Lockheed C-130 Hercules|C-130 Hercules]].<ref name="top priority"/> In 1990, the Army had demoted the requirement for LAPES from a required capability to a desired one.((sfn|Freeman|1991|p=17)) 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.<ref name="weight loss"/> 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.<ref name="weight loss"/> 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.<ref>((cite news |title=Citing Problems With Armored Gun System, Black Hawk Retrofits: IG: Transcom Should Get Transportability Oversight Responsibility |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43989447 |access-date=31 May 2023 |work=Inside the Army |issue=4 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=27 January 1994|volume=10 |jstor=43989447))</ref>

[[File:M8-AGS-Aberdeen (cropped).gif|thumb|right|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.<ref name="weight loss"/> All versions are air-transportable by C-130, C-141, C-17 and C-5 (one, two, three and five systems respectively).((sfn|Preston|2004|p=30)) For LVAD, the vehicle is stripped to a weight of no more than ((convert|17.8|ST|abbr=on)). The vehicle height is reduced by removing or retracting the commander's cupola.((sfn|Hagen|1997|p=27)) Up to 10 rounds of 105&nbsp;mm ammunition can be carried in ready capacity.<ref>((cite journal |last1=Mauser |first1=George E. |title=The Armored Gun System (AGS) Autoloader |journal=Armor |issue=1 |volume=105 |date=January–February 1996 |page=10 |url=https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/1996/JAN_FEB/ArmorJanuaryFebruary1996web.pdf |access-date=24 March 2022 |archive-date=March 24, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220324002759/https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/1996/JAN_FEB/ArmorJanuaryFebruary1996web.pdf |url-status=live))</ref> The MPF variant retained airlift capability: one could fit on the C-130 and three on the C-17.<ref name="MPF engine"/>

A 1993 TRADOC study called for modifying 53 HEMTTs as Contingency Force [[Armoured recovery vehicle|Recovery Vehicle]]s to assist with recovering the AGS.<ref>((cite news |title=TRADOC Study Finds Billions of Dollars in Unfunded CSS Requirements |jstor=43975662 |work=Inside the Army |issue= 46 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=15 November 1993 |volume = 5 |page=17))</ref> In 1994, the Army began seeking an [[Armoured vehicle-launched bridge|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.<ref>((cite news |title=Army wants new medium assault bridges |url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A15831869/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=a4526007 |access-date=15 January 2023 |work=Defense Daily |issue=13 |publisher=Access Intelligence |date=20 October 1994 |volume=185 |archive-date=January 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230120033649/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE((!))A15831869&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-ITOF&asid=a4526007 |url-status=live))</ref>

The M8 can carry approximately up to a [[squad]] of nine mounted infantry [[tank desant|on top]].((sfn|Department of the Army|1994|p=4-22))

The MPF variant has a combat weight of ((convert|26|ST|MT|0|abbr=on)).<ref name="XM1302 Chieftain"/>

=== Firepower ===
[[File:XM8 preproduction model firing.jpg|thumb|right|An XM8 preproduction model firing its gun ((circa|September 1994))]]
The AGS is armed with the Watervliet Arsenal [[M35 (tank gun)|M35]] rifled [[autoloader|autoloading]] 105&nbsp;mm caliber soft-recoil tank gun with an [[M240 machine gun|M240]] 7.62&nbsp;mm caliber machine gun mounted [[Coaxial weapon|coaxially]].((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310))

[[File:EX35 gun in XM4 turret basket.png|thumb|right|A prototype [[M35 (tank gun)|EX35]] gun mounted in the FMC XM4 Armored Gun System (CCVL) turret basket ((circa|1984))]]
[[File:AGS Autoloader.png|thumb|right|M8 AGS autoloader diagram]]
[[File:AGS Autoloader Operation.png|thumb|M8 AGS autoloader operation]]
The M35, known as the EX35 and XM35 during development,<ref name="Jane's 18th">((cite book |editor1-last=Foss |editor1-first=Christopher F |editor1-link=Christopher F Foss|title=Jane's Armour and Artillery 1997–98 |year=1997 |isbn=978-0-71061-542-8 |publisher=Jane's Information Group |location=Surrey |pages=171–173 |edition=18th |chapter=Light Tanks))</ref>((sfn|Freeman|1991|p=23–24)) was originally designed and developed by [[Benét Laboratories]], Watervliet Arsenal in 1983 for the Marine Corps Mobile Protected Gun Program.((sfn|Freeman|1991|p=23–24)) The M35 is about ((convert|1800|lb|kg|0|abbr=on)) lighter than the [[M68 (tank gun)|M68]] used on the [[M60 tank]].<ref name="weight loss"/>

[[File:Close Combat Vehicle Light fire wall.png|thumb|right|On the AGS, (CCVL pictured here) a compartment wall separates the commander and gunner from the autoloader magazine and the breech of the 105&nbsp;mm main gun.]]
The M35 fires all NATO standard 105&nbsp;mm ammunition in inventory.((sfn|Nagl|1992|p=28)) The M35 has a rate of fire of approximately 12 rounds per minute. The autoloader magazine has a ready capacity of 21 rounds.((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=178)) The M8 AGS holds nine more rounds in two hull storage compartments.<ref name="AGS ANSWERS" />((refn|group=nb|name=hull storage|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."<ref name="AGS QUESTIONS" />)) The MPF also has 21 ready rounds and only seven rounds in hull storage.<ref name="XM1302 Chieftain 2"/>

The AGS has a [[laser rangefinder]] from the M1 Abrams,((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310)) and the Computing Devices Canada Mission Management Computer System [[fire-control system]] is the same used in the [[Challenger 2]].<ref name="Jane's 16th"/>((sfn|Cullen|Foss|1997|p=344)) 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.<ref name="MANPRINT"/> Prototype versions of the AGS gun had a pepperpot muzzle brake which was anticipated would be deleted in the production version.<ref name="Jane's 18th"/>

The gun is stabilized with a Cadillac Gage two-axis system.((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=172)) Gun depression and traverse are hydraulic, with a manual back up for emergencies.<ref name="Jane's 16th"/> Depression and elevation is −10 degrees, except over a rear 60-degree arc, where it is limited to 0 degrees.<ref name="Jane's 16th"/>

The CCVL was originally armed with Rheinmetall's soft-recoil version of the M68A1. It held 19 ready rounds, plus 24 in hull storage.((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=172))

The [[autoloader]] was designed by FMC's Naval Systems Division.<ref name="Lightweight, fights great"/> 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.((sfn|Nagl|1992|p=27–28)) Automatic and single-shot modes are available.<ref name="Jane's 16th"/> 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.<!-- Nicholas Moran says the MPF is loaded through the driver's hatch. --> Once the autoloader has loaded the next round, the gun returns to the elevation of the last target.((sfn|Nagl|1992|p=27–28)) The autoloader will not engage if the door between the tank commander and the autoloader is open.<ref name="MANPRINT"/> If the autoloader is disabled, provisions exist for the crew to load the AGS under armor from the gunner's position.((sfn|Nagl|1992|p=27–28))<ref name="Jane's 18th"/>((refn|group=nb|name=manual loading|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.<ref name="AGS ANSWERS" />)) 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.((sfn|Tibbetts|1994|p=31))

The gunner Hughes day/night [[Thermal weapon sight|thermal sight]] was stabilized.((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=172)) The CCVL had a commander's independent thermal viewer, but this was later eliminated to save weight.<ref name="Moler"/>((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=178))

The M35 fires all NATO-standard 105&nbsp;mm caliber ammunition.<ref name="Jane's 16th"/> The AGS can defeat 75 to 80 percent of tanks it may encounter on the battlefield.<ref name="Initial production">((cite news |last1=Foote |first1=Sheila |title=Army okays initial production of Armored Gun System |url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A17513496/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=552953e0 |access-date=18 January 2023 |work=Defense Daily |issue=21 |publisher=Access Intelligence |date=31 October 1995 |volume=189 |archive-date=January 15, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230115023208/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE%7CA17513496&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-ITOF&asid=552953e0 |url-status=live))</ref> The AGS has the potential to engage [[main battle tank]]s, but these more heavily armored vehicles are less likely to be the AGS's main targets. The planned targets for the AGS ranged from [[bunker]]s and other artificial structures to [[armored personnel carrier]]s and [[light armored vehicle]]s.((sfn|Wank|1993|p=6))

On the AGS, a [[M2 Browning|Browning M2]] 12.7&nbsp;mm (.50) caliber heavy machine gun is mounted in a fully traversable ring-style mount on the commander's hatch.<ref name="traversable mount">((cite news |title=Despite a slight design change, AGS forges ahead |url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A12672794/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=2041fb21 |access-date=15 January 2023 |work=Defense Daily |issue=12 |publisher=Access Intelligence |date=19 October 1992 |volume=177 |page=94+ |archive-date=January 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230120033703/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE((!))A12672794&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-ITOF&asid=2041fb21 |url-status=live))</ref>((refn|group=nb|name=ninth|Originally a non-traversable [[pintle mount]],((sfn|Nagl|1992|p=28)) this was changed to a 360° traversable design in 1992. This necessitated a redesign of the hatch.<ref name="traversable mount"/>)) Unlike in the M1A1, the M8 tank commander must expose himself through the hatch to operate the machine gun.((sfn|Department of the Army|1996|p=69)) Other possible weapons were a [[M240]] 7.62&nbsp;mm caliber machine gun or an [[Mk 19 grenade launcher|MK 19]] 40&nbsp;mm grenade launcher.((sfn|Nagl|1992|p=28)) The CCVL has no commander's machine gun.<ref name="Jane's 1987" />

The coaxial M240 7.62&nbsp;mm caliber machine gun on the CCVL has 1,600 ready rounds with 3,400 carried in reserve.<ref name="Jane's 1987" /> On the AGS this weapon has 1,000 ready rounds and 3,500 carried in reserve.<ref name="Jane's 1996" /> On the MPF, the coaxial 7.62&nbsp;mm caliber machine gun has 1,000 ready rounds.<ref name="XM1302 Chieftain 2"/>

=== 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, a loader has other responsibilities that would need to be taken on by the three crew members and dismounted infantry.<ref name="MANPRINT"/>

=== Miscellaneous ===
[[File:FM 17-18 Light-Armor-Operations.pdf|thumb|upright|FM 17-18 Light Armor Operations]]
The AGS has a [[MIL-STD-1553|1553 data bus]]. This is not present in the CCVL.<ref name="Jane's 16th"/> The AGS is equipped with an infantry phone.<ref name="AGB 96"/>

There are separate hatches for the tank commander, gunner, and driver.<ref name="XM1302 Chieftain 2">((cite AV media |people= [[Nicholas Moran]], LTC Peter George |date=8 July 2023 |title= Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: BAE XM1302, Part 2 |type=Video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsKVr7woLwI |access-date=8 July 2023))</ref><!-- Also AGS? -->

The MPF variant has four [[backup camera|blind spot cameras]] for situational awareness.<ref name="XM1302 Chieftain 2"/> 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.<ref name="Raven">((cite news |last1=Freeburg Jr. |first1=Sydney J. |title=Army Adapts Aircraft EW To Protect Tanks: BAE Raven |url=https://breakingdefense.com/2019/02/army-adapts-aircraft-ew-to-protect-tanks-bae-raven/ |access-date=11 August 2023 |work=Breaking Defense |publisher=Breaking Media |date=21 February 2019))</ref>

=== Comparison of tanks ===
[[file:M8 AGS dimensions.png|center|600px|AGS dimensions.]]
{| class="wikitable"
|- style="text-align:center;"
!
! CCVL<ref name="Jane's 7th"/>
! M8 AGS((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=310))
! XM1302 MPF
! Vickers/FMC Mk 5<ref name="Jane's 7th"/>
! M551A1 Sheridan (TTS)((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=309))
! M1A1 Abrams<ref>((cite book |last1=Hunnicutt |first1=Richard Pearce |author1-link= R. P. Hunnicutt |title=Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank |date=15 September 2015 |orig-date=1990 |publisher=Echo Point Books & Media |location=Battleboro, VT |isbn=978-1-62654-166-5))</ref>
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Hull Length
| ((convert|6.197|m|in|0|abbr=on|order=flip|adj=ri2))
| ((convert|242|to|247|in|m|2|abbr=on)) <!-- Check this. Doesn't match diagram. -->
| N/A
| ((convert|6.2|m|in|0|abbr=on|order=flip))
| ((convert|248|in|m|2|abbr=on))
| ((convert|312|in|m|2|abbr=on))
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Width
| ((convert|2.692|m|in|0|abbr=on|order=flip|adj=ri2))
| ((convert|104|in|m|2|abbr=on)) (over fenders) <!-- Check this. Doesn't match diagram. -->
| N/A
| ((convert|2.69|m|in|0|abbr=on|order=flip))
| ((convert|110|in|m|2|abbr=on))
| ((convert|144|in|m|2|abbr=on))
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Height
| ((convert|2.349|m|in|0|abbr=on|order=flip|adj=ri2)) (turret roof)
| ((convert|100|to|101|in|m|2|abbr=on)) (over cupola)
| N/A
| ((convert|2.62|m|in|0|abbr=on|order=flip)) (overall)
| ((convert|116|in|m|2|abbr=on)) (over MG)
| ((convert|114|in|m|2|abbr=on)) (over MG)
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Ground Clearance
| ((convert|0.406|m|in|0|abbr=on|order=flip|adj=ri2))
| ((convert|15|to|17|in|m|2|abbr=on))
| N/A
| ((convert|0.41|m|in|0|abbr=on|order=flip))
|colspan="2" style="text-align:center;"| ((convert|19|in|m|2|abbr=on))
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Top Speed
| ((convert|70|kph|0|abbr=on|order=flip))
| ((convert|45|mph|0|abbr=on))
| N/A
| ((convert|70|kph|0|abbr=on|order=flip))
| ((convert|43|mph|0|abbr=on))
| ((convert|41.5|mph|0|abbr=on))
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Fording
| ((convert|1.32|m|in|0|abbr=on|order=flip))
| ((convert|40|in|m|1|abbr=on))
| N/A
| ((convert|1.0|m|in|0|abbr=on|order=flip))
| Floats
| ((convert|48|in|m|1|abbr=on)) (w/o kit)
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Max Grade
|colspan="2" style="text-align:center;"| 60 percent
| N/A
|colspan="3" style="text-align:center;"| 60 percent
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Max Trench
| ((convert|2.133|m|ft|0|abbr=on|order=flip|adj=ri2))
| ((convert|7|ft|abbr=on))
| N/A
| ((convert|2.13|m|ft|0|abbr=on|order=flip))
| ((convert|8|ft|abbr=on))
| ((convert|9|ft|abbr=on))
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Max Wall
| ((convert|0.762|m|in|0|abbr=on|order=flip|adj=ri2))
| ((convert|32|in|m|2|abbr=on))
| N/A
| ((convert|0.76|m|in|0|abbr=on|order=flip))
| ((convert|33|in|m|2|abbr=on))
| ((convert|49|in|m|2|abbr=on))
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Range
|colspan="2" style="text-align:center;"| ((convert|300|mi|abbr=on))
| N/A
| ((convert|300|mi|abbr=on))
| ((convert|350|mi|abbr=on))
| ((convert|289|mi|abbr=on))
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Power
| ((convert|575|hp|abbr=on)) at 2400 rpm
| ((convert|550|hp|abbr=on)) at 2400 rpm ([[JP-8]])
| ((convert|550|hp|abbr=on))<ref name="XM1302 Chieftain"/>
| ((convert|552|hp|abbr=on)) at 2300 rpm
| ((convert|300|hp|abbr=on)) at 2800 rpm
| ((convert|1500|hp|abbr=on)) at 3000 rpm
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Power-to-Weight Ratio
| ((convert|26.7|hp/t|hp/ST|1|abbr=on|order=flip))
| ((convert|28.3|to|21.2|hp/ST|kW/t|1|abbr=on))
| N/A
| ((convert|28|hp/t|hp/ST|1|abbr=on|order=flip))
| ((convert|17.9|hp/ST|kW/t|1|abbr=on))
| ((convert|23.1|hp/ST|kW/t|1|abbr=on))
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Torque
| N/A
| ((convert|1446|lbft|N.m|-1|abbr=on)) at 1500 rpm
|colspan="2" style="text-align:center;"| N/A
| ((convert|615|lbft|N.m|-1|abbr=on)) at 2100 rpm
| ((convert|3934|lbft|N.m|-1|abbr=on)) at 1000 rpm
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Weight, Combat Loaded
| ((convert|19414|kg|lb|0|abbr=on|order=flip))
| ((convert|36900|to|52000|lb|kg|-1|abbr=on))
| ((convert|26|ST|MT|0|abbr=on))<ref name="XM1302 Chieftain"/>
| ((convert|19750|kg|lb|0|abbr=on|order=flip))
| ((convert|33600|lb|kg|-1|abbr=on))
| ((convert|130000|lb|kg|-1|abbr=on))
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Ground Pressure
| ((convert|0.69|kg/cm2|psi|1|abbr=on|order=flip))
| ((convert|9.1|to|12.2|psi|kg/cm2|2|abbr=on))
| N/A
| ((convert|9.8|psi|kg/cm2|2|abbr=on))
| ((convert|6.9|psi|kg/cm2|2|abbr=on))
| ((convert|14.4|psi|kg/cm2|2|abbr=on))
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Main Armament
| [[M68 (tank gun)|M68A1]] 105&nbsp;mm gun
|colspan="2" style="text-align:center;"| [[M35 tank gun|M35]] 105&nbsp;mm rifled
| 105&nbsp;mm low recoil force gun
| M81E1 [[Rifling|rifled]] 152&nbsp;mm gun/launcher
| [[M256 (tank gun)|M256]] 120&nbsp;mm smoothbore
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Elevation
|colspan="2" style="text-align:center;"| +20° / −10° (limited depression over rear arc)
| N/A
| +20° / −10° (limited depression over rear arc)
| +19.5° / −8°
| +20° / −10°
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Traverse Rate
| N/A
| 8.5 seconds/360°
| N/A
| 9 seconds/360°
| 10 seconds/360°
| 9 seconds/360°
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Elevation Rate
| N/A
| 11°/second
|colspan="2" style="text-align:center;"| N/A
| 4°/second
| 25°/second
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Main Gun Ammo
| 43 (19 ready)
| 30 (21 ready)
| 28 (21 ready)<ref name="XM1302 Chieftain 2"/>
| 41 (19 ready)
| 29 (including 9 missiles)
| 40
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Firing Rate
|colspan="2" style="text-align:center;"| 12rds/minute
|colspan="2" style="text-align:center;"| N/A
| 4rds/minute
| 6rds/minute
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Crew
|colspan="3" style="text-align:center;"| 3 (commander, gunner, driver)
|colspan="3" style="text-align:center;"| 4 (commander, gunner, loader, driver)
|- style="text-align:center;"
! Protection
| All-welded aluminum hull and turret with bolt-on steel [[composite armor]]
| [[5083 aluminum alloy]] hull and turret with [[ceramic armor|ceramic]] tile((refn|group=nb|name=level 2))
| N/A
| Aluminum hull and turret with applique steel plates
| [[7039 aluminum alloy]] hull, [[Rolled homogeneous armour|rolled homogeneous]] steel turret
| Rolled homogenous steel, with armor arrays in the turret and hull
|}

==Variants==

;Close Combat Vehicle Light
[[File:CCVLMagnetTest.webm|thumb|right|thumbtime=60|Using a magnet to determine which components of the CCVL are ferrous]]
FMC began developing the Close Combat Vehicle Light 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.<ref name="Jane's 1987"/>

;M8 Armored Gun System/Buford<ref>((cite news |last1=South |first1=Todd |title=Army picks two companies to build prototypes for a new cannon-toting vehicle to back up infantry |url=https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/12/18/army-picks-two-companies-to-build-prototypes-for-a-whole-new-cannon-toting-vehicle-to-back-up-infantry/ |access-date=2 March 2023 |work=Army Times |date=17 December 2018))</ref>((refn|group=nb|name=third|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]].<ref>((cite book |last1=Clancy |first1=Tom |author1-link=Tom Clancy |title=Armored Cav: A Guided Tour of an Armored Cavalry Regiment |year=1994 |publisher=Berkley Books |location=New York |isbn=0-425-15836-5 |pages=283 |url=https://archive.org/details/armoredcavguided00clan |access-date=5 October 2022))</ref>))
The AGS eliminated the commander's independent thermal viewer of the CCVL.((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=178))<ref name="Moler"/> The Watervliet Arsenal M35 replaced the M68A1 gun.<ref name="Jane's 16th"/> Six prototypes were produced, with a seventh vehicle under construction at the time of cancelation for demonstration to potential foreign buyers.<ref>((cite journal |last1=Cameron |first1=Robert S. |title=Pushing the Envelope of Battlefield Superiority |journal=Armor |issue=November-December 1998 |page=11 |url=https://www.dvidshub.net/publication/issues/33756 |access-date=8 January 2024))((PD-notice))</ref>

[[File:Vickers-FMC Mark 5 battle tank.jpeg|thumb|right|The Vickers/FMC Mark 5 <!-- scan this -->]]
;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&nbsp;mm low recoil force gun, and could accept a number of other 105&nbsp;mm guns as well.<ref name="Jane's 7th">((cite book |editor1-last=Foss |editor1-first=Christopher F |editor1-link=Christopher F Foss|title=Jane's Armour and Artillery 1986–87 |year=1986 |isbn=978-0-71060-849-9 |publisher=Jane's Publishing Company |location=London |pages=113–114 |edition=7th |chapter=MBTs/Medium Tanks))</ref>

[[File:Artist's impression of LOSAT launch from CCVL chassis.jpg|thumb|right|An artist's impression of a LOSAT system firing from an AGS chassis<ref name="Jane's 1996"/>|alt=A woodland camouflaged AGS LOSAT system fires a missile. A backblast emanates from the rear of the turret. The turret appears more boxy than the original AGS turret.]]
;[[MGM-166 LOSAT|Line of Sight Anti-Tank]] (LOSAT)
In 1994, [[Loral Vought Systems]] was awarded a contract worth up to $42.5 million ($((Format price|((Inflation|US|42500000|1994)))) in ((Inflation/year|US))) to integrate the LOSAT missile onto an AGS chassis.<ref name="first airdrop"/> In lieu of the turret, a missile pod with 12 kinetic energy missiles was installed.<ref>((cite report |last1=Steeb |first1=Randall |last2=Matsumura |first2=John |last3=Covington |first3=Terrell |last4=Herbert |first4=Thomas |last5=Eisenhard |first5=Scot |last6=Melody |first6=Laura |title=Rapid Force Projection Technologies A Quick-Look Analysis of Advanced Light Indirect Fire System |date=1996 |page=6 |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA322530.pdf |access-date=3 June 2022 |publisher=Arroyo Center National Defense Research Institute |archive-date=June 3, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220603040900/https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA322530.pdf |url-status=live))</ref> At least one full-scale mockup of the AGS LOSAT had been constructed by 1995. Delivery of the AGS LOSAT was scheduled for 1996.<ref name="Jane's 1996">((cite book |editor1-last=Foss |editor1-first=Christopher F |editor1-link=Christopher F Foss |title=Jane's Armour and Artillery 1996–97 |publisher= Janes Information Group |location=Surrey |year=1996 |isbn=978-0-71061-374-5 |pages=193–195, 546 |edition=17th |chapter=Light Tanks, Tank Destroyers))</ref> After the cancelation of the AGS, the Army switched the chassis of the LOSAT to the [[Humvee]].<ref>((cite news |last1=Dupont |first1=Daniel G. |title=But Army May Still Fight for LOSAT: Pentagon Comptroller Terminates Advanced Tank-Killing Missile System |work=Inside the Army |issue=47 |publisher=Inside Washington Publishers |date=25 November 1996 |volume=8 |page=12 |jstor=43979626))</ref>

;Austere export variant.
One demonstrator produced in 1995 by United Defense for evaluation by Taiwan.<ref name="forecast"/>

[[File:M8 Thunderbolt AGS fires its 120 mm gun in a California test.png|thumb|right|An AGS with level II armor fires its 120&nbsp;mm main gun. Note the presence of track skirts.((refn|group=nb|name=first|Pictures of the visual differences between the armor levels can be found in a work by R. P. Hunnicutt.((sfn|Hunnicutt|2015a|p=183–186))))|alt=A black or dark-colored AGS fires its main gun at a range. The commander's hatch is open and there is no commander's armament present.]]
;M8 Enhanced Capabilities Demonstrator/Thunderbolt
A single technology demonstrator was built by United Defense and demonstrated in 2003.<ref name="Thunderbolt">((cite web |title=United Defense Unveils Thunderbolt 120&nbsp;mm Demonstrator |url=http://www.uniteddefense.com/pr/pr_20031006c.htm |date=6 October 2003 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031010094626/http://www.uniteddefense.com/pr/pr_20031006c.htm|archive-date=October 10, 2003|url-status=dead |publisher=United Defense))</ref> The ECD had a hybrid electric drive instead of a diesel engine. The tracks were a rubber band type. Armament was an [[XM291]] 120&nbsp;mm [[Electrothermal-chemical technology|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.<ref name="Jane's 2008">((cite book |editor1-last=Foss |editor1-first=Christopher F |editor1-link=Christopher F Foss |title=Jane's Armour and Artillery 2008–2009 |publisher= Janes Information Group |location=Surrey |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-71061-374-5 |pages=193–195 |edition=29th |chapter=Light Tanks))</ref>

;Lightning Bolt
In August 2004, BAE conducted live fire testing of the Lightning Bolt at [[Camp Roberts, California|Camp Roberts]], California. Like the ECD, the Lightning Bolt incorporated a hybrid electric drive and XM291.<ref>((Citation |last = Goodell |first = Brad |title = Electrothermal Chemical (ETC) Armament System Integration Into a Combat Vehicle |journal = IEEE Transactions on Magnetics |volume = 43 |issue = 1 |pages = 456–459 |publisher = IEEE |date = January 2007 |doi = 10.1109/TMAG.2006.887524 |bibcode = 2007ITM....43..456G |s2cid = 35796526 |url = https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4033055 |access-date = September 28, 2022 |archive-date = September 28, 2022 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220928004842/https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4033055 |url-status = live))</ref>

;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#National|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&nbsp;mm cannon/turret (and alternatively, 105&nbsp;mm) on a variety of chassis. These chassis were the 
[[Bionix AFV|Bionix IFV]] and the Universal Combat Vehicle Platform that the [[SSPH Primus|Primus]] self-propelled howitzer was based on.<ref>((cite journal|title=Singapore studies indigenous 120&nbsp;mm main battle tank |url=http://www.navy.mi.th/nrdo/jane/dev_m/singapore_studies_May04.jpg |journal=[[Jane's International Defence Review]] |date=2004-04-05 |access-date=2008-09-29 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927000359/http://www.navy.mi.th/nrdo/jane/dev_m/singapore_studies_May04.jpg |archive-date=September 27, 2007))</ref>

;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&nbsp;mm gun and turret of the ECD/Thunderbolt.<ref name="Jane's 2008"/>

((external media
| float  = right
| width  = 300px
| image1 = [https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article/bae-systems-awarded-development-contract-for-mobile-protected-firepower Photos of the BAE Mobile Protected Firepower prototype]
| image2 = [https://www.flickr.com/photos/cmwebbjr/albums/72157633721035273 An M8 Armored Gun System awaiting restoration at the Museum Support Center at Anniston]
| video1 = [https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/multimedia/mpf03-20180222-135746 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.<ref>((cite AV media| people =Christopher F Foss |date =29 October 2015 |title =AUSA 2015 BAE Systems M8 Expeditionary Light Tank |type =video |url =https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulDLnTB__vA |access-date = 10 August 2023 |format =video |location =Washington, D.C. |publisher =Janes Information Group))</ref>

;Mobile Protected Firepower demonstrator
BAE Systems showed this vehicle at AUSA Global Force in 2019. This demonstrator integrated [[IMI Systems]] [[Iron Fist (countermeasure)|Iron Fist]] hard kill and BAE Raven soft kill [[active protection system]]s 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.<ref name="MPF TD">((cite news |last1=Maundrill |first1=Beth |title=AUSA Global 2019: BAE Systems looks to impress with technology demonstrator vehicle |url=https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/ausa-global-2019-bae-systems-looks-impress-technol/ |access-date=10 August 2023 |work=Shephard |date=28 March 2019))</ref>

;XM1302 Mobile Protected Firepower
BAE Systems entered an updated variant of the M8 in the U.S. Army XM1302 [[Mobile Protected Firepower]] program.<ref name="XM1302 Chieftain">((cite AV media |people= LTC Peter George, Nicholas Moran |date=24 June 2023 |title= Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: BAE XM1302, Part 1 |type=Video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apVtDqn5734 |access-date=24 June 2023))</ref><ref name="downselect"/> 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 Friedrichshafen|MTU]] powerpack, band composite rubber track, and a new fire-control system. BAE added improved underbody armor, as well as the [[Iron Fist (countermeasure)|Iron Fist]] [[active protection system]] and BAE's Terra Raven soft-kill system.<ref>((cite AV media |author-first=Vago |author-last=Muradian |date=October 2019 |title=BAE's Signorelli on New Light Tank, Archer Wheeled Artillery, AMPV Update, Heavy Tank Concepts |type=Video interview |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G55lErHksIQ&list=WL&index=4&t=393s |access-date=11 November 2022 |location=Huntsville, Alabama |time=1:30 |publisher=Defense & Aerospace Report |quote="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." |archive-date=November 11, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221111214957/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G55lErHksIQ&list=WL&index=4&t=393s |url-status=live))</ref>

== Surviving examples ==
As of 2015, all six XM8s exist in various states of repair.<ref>((cite news |last1=Weisgerber |first1=Marcus |title=With Russia in Mind, BAE Revives Light Tank from the '90s |url=https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/10/russia-mind-bae-revives-light-tank-90s/122731/ |access-date=10 November 2023 |work=Defense One |publisher=Government Media Executive Group |date=12 October 2015 |language=en))</ref> 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.<ref>((cite AV media| last1=Moran |first1=Nicholas |date =8 May 2022 |title =Unofficial High Speed Tour of the US Armor and Cavalry Collection, Ft Benning| type =video |url =https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mls-W9nXebQ |access-date = 28 May 2023 |time =44:20 |location = Fort Benning, Georgia |publisher =YouTube))</ref>

== Gallery ==
The Close Combat Vehicle Light at the [[National Museum of Military Vehicles]] in 2020.
<gallery mode=packed>
File:Close Combat Vehicle Light rear.jpg|Rear
File:Close Combat Vehicle Light gun mantlet.jpg|[[Gun mantlet]]
File:Close Combat Vehicle Light roadwheel.jpg|Roadwheels
File:Close Combat Vehicle Light pepperpot muzzle.jpg|Pepperpot [[muzzle brake]]
File:Close Combat Vehicle Light smoke grenade launcher.jpg|Smoke grenade launcher
File:Close Combat Vehicle Light laser rangefinder.jpg|Laser rangefinder
File:National Museum of Military Vehicles fire extinguisher.jpg|Fire extinguisher pull handles
</gallery>

BAE XM1302 MPF test vehicle 2 at the U.S. Army Armor and Cavalry Collection.
<gallery mode=packed>
File:BAE XM1302 MPF rubber band track.jpg|Rubber band track
File:BAE XM1302 MPF USAA&CC.jpg|
File:BAE XM1302 MPF weapon mount 2.jpg|Commander's hatch
File:BAE XM1302 MPF M257 smoke grenade launchers.jpg|M257 smoke grenade launchers<ref name="XM1302 Chieftain 2"/>
File:BAE XM1302 MPF MTU engine lowered ramp.jpg|rear
File:BAE XM1302 MPF weapon mount.jpg|[[Pintle mount|Pintle]] weapon mount<ref name="XM1302 Chieftain 2"/>
File:BAE XM1302 MPF wire cutter.jpg|Wire cutters
File:BAE XM1302 MPF.jpg|[[Kidde|Kidde Control Electronics]] Panel fire suppression system
File:BAE XM1302 MPF MTU engine.jpg|MTU engine
File:BAE XM1302 MPF driver.jpg|Driver's hatch
</gallery>

== 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==
((reflist|group=nb))

== References ==
((reflist))

== Bibliography ==
((refbegin))
* ((cite book |title=Light Armor Operations (FM 17-18) |date=8 March 1994 |author=Department of the Army |url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/FM_17-18_Light-Armor-Operations.pdf |access-date=31 May 2023)) ((PD-notice))
* ((cite book |author1=Department of the Army |title=Tank Platoon (FM 17-15) |date=April 1996 |url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/FM-17-15-Tank-Platoon.pdf |access-date=31 May 2023 |chapter=656))
* ((cite book |editor-last1=Bowman |editor-first1=Stephen L. |editor-last2=Kendall |editor-first2=John M. |editor-last3=Saunders |editor-first3=James L. |title=Motorized Experience of the 9th Infantry Division 1980–1989 |date=1989 |publisher=Fort Lewis, Wash. |location=Fort Lewis |oclc=37397056 |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA370233.pdf |access-date=August 15, 2022 |archive-date=November 24, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201124170613/https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA370233.pdf |url-status=live)) ((PD-notice))
*((cite book |editor1-last=Cullen |editor1-first=Tony |editor2-last=Foss |editor2-first=Christopher F |editor2-link=Christopher F Foss |title=Jane's Armour and Artillery Upgrades 1997–98 |date=1997 |publisher=Jane's Information Group |location=Surrey |edition=10th))
* ((cite thesis |last=Freeman |first=Major Marshall A. |date=5 April 1991 |title=The Army Needs a Strategic Armored Gun System—Now! |type=War College Individual Study Project |publisher=U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA236965.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220512222853/https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA236965.pdf |url-status=live |archive-date=May 12, 2022 |access-date=10 March 2022)) ((PD-notice))
* ((cite thesis |last=Hagen |first=Lieutenant James A. |date=18 December 1997 |title=Employment of Light Infantry in Contingency Operations: What Do We Do Without Light Armor |type=Monograph |publisher=U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth, Kansas |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA340099.pdf |access-date=1 June 2022 |archive-date=June 2, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220602225620/https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA340099.pdf |url-status=live)) ((PD-notice))
* ((cite book |last1=Hunnicutt |first1=Richard Pearce |author1-link= R. P. Hunnicutt |title=Sheridan: A History of the American Light Tank |volume=2 |date=2015a |orig-date=1995 |publisher=Echo Point Books & Media |location=Battleboro, VT |isbn=978-1-62654-154-2))
* ((cite journal |last1=Nagl |first1=Captain John A. |title=Sheridan Replacement Offers Better Firepower Plus Worldwide Mobility |journal=Armor |date=July–August 1992 |issue=4 |volume=101 |pages=26–29 |url=https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/1992/JUL_AUG/ArmorJulyAugust1992web.pdf |access-date=23 March 2022 |publisher=United States Army Armor Center |location=Fort Knox, KY |archive-date=December 23, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181223052124/http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/1992/JUL_AUG/ArmorJulyAugust1992web.pdf |url-status=live)) ((PD-notice))
* ((cite report |author=Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition) |date=1996 |title=Weapon Systems 1996 |url=https://asc.army.mil/docs/wsh2/1996-wsh.pdf |access-date=26 January 2023)) ((PD-notice))
* ((cite thesis |last=Preston |first=Major Andrew D. |date=26 May 2004 |title=Putting Armor Back Into the 82nd Airborne Division: Revisiting the AGS Decision |type=Monograph |location=Fort Leavenworth, Kansas |publisher=U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA429275.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210506201647/https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA429275.pdf |url-status=live |archive-date=May 6, 2021 |access-date=23 March 2022)) ((PD-notice))
* ((cite thesis |last=Shufelt Jr. |first=Major James W. |date=1 May 1993 |title=Mobile Firepower for Contingency Operations: Emerging Concepts for U.S. Army Light Armor Forces |type=Monograph |location=Fort Leavenworth, Kansas |publisher=U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA262562.pdf |access-date=18 January 2024)) ((PD-notice))
* ((cite thesis |last=Tibbetts |first=Major John R. |date=17 December 1994 |title=The Impact of the Human Dimension on a Three-Man-Crew Tank |type=Monograph |location=Fort Leavenworth, Kansas |publisher=U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA293406.pdf |access-date=23 March 2022)) ((PD-notice))
* ((cite thesis |last=Wank |first=Lieutenant Colonel James A. |date=15 April 1993 |title=The Armored Gun System - An Acquisition Streamlining Model for the U.S. Army? |type=Personal study |publisher=U.S. Army War College |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA264858.pdf |access-date=1 June 2022 |archive-date=June 2, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220602221132/https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA264858.pdf |url-status=live)) ((PD-notice))
* ((cite book |last1=Zaloga |first1=Stephen J. |author1-link=Steven Zaloga |title=M551 Sheridan, US Airmobile Tanks 1941–2001 |date=2009 |publisher=Osprey Publishing Ltd. |location=Oxford |isbn=978-1-84603-391-9))
((Refend))

== External links ==
*((url|https://rmsothebys.com/en/auctions/lc14/the-littlefield-collection/lots/r0083-armored-gun-system-close-combat-vehicle-light-ccvl/574444|CCVL auction from the Littlefield Collection))
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apVtDqn5734 Nicholas Moran reviews the BAE XM1302 MPF]
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsKVr7woLwI Moran reviews the interior of the BAE XM1302 MPF]

((Cold War tanks))
((Post-Cold War tanks))

[[Category:Light tanks of the United States]]
[[Category:Airborne tanks]]
[[Category:Fire support vehicles]]
[[Category:Tanks with autoloaders]]
[[Category:Cold War tanks of the United States]]
[[Category:Light tanks of the Cold War]]
[[Category:Post–Cold War light tanks]]
[[Category:Post–Cold War tanks of the United States]]
[[Category:Abandoned military projects of the United States]]
[[Category:United Defense]]
[[Category:BAE Systems land vehicles]]
[[Category:FMC Corporation]]
Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):
M8 Armored Gun System (edit)
Template:Abbr (view source) (protected)
Template:Br separated entries (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Template:Circa (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Citation (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite AV media (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite archive (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Cite book (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite journal (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite magazine (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite news (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite report (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite thesis (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite web (view source) (protected)
Template:Cold War tanks (edit)
Template:Convert (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:DMCA (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (articles) (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:External media (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:FULLROOTPAGENAME (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Format price (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Format price/digits (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Good article (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Has short description (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:I sup (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Icon (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Inflation (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Inflation/US (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Inflation/US/dataset (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Inflation/US/startyear (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Inflation/year (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox weapon (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Isnumeric (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:Military navigation (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Multiple image (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Multiple image/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Template:PD-notice (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Template:Post-Cold War tanks (edit)
Template:Post–Cold War tanks (edit)
Template:Refbegin (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Refbegin/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Refend (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Refn (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Template:Sfn (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Short description (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck (view source) (protected)
Template:Source-attribution (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Template other (view source) (protected)
Template:Tooltip (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Tooltip/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Top icon (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Trim (view source) (protected)
Template:URL (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:US tanks (edit)
Template:Url (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Use mdy dates (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:WPMILHIST Infobox style (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Yesno (view source) (protected)
Template:Yesno-no (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Yesno-yes (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Cite archive (view source) (semi-protected)
Module:Convert (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Convert/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Convert/text (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Disambiguation/templates (view source) (protected)
Module:Footnotes (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Footnotes/anchor id list (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Footnotes/anchor id list/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Footnotes/whitelist (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Format link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:GetParameters (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote list (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Icon (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Icon/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Infobox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Infobox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:InfoboxImage (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Labelled list hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Math (view source) (protected)
Module:Military navigation (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Multiple image (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/disambiguation (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/setindex (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/softredirect (view source) (protected)
Module:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Module:Separated entries (view source) (protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:String2 (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:TableTools (view source) (protected)
Module:URL (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:WPMILHIST Infobox style (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Wikitext Parsing (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)
Return to M8 Armored Gun System.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_Armored_Gun_System"