Wartime production

[Legbreaker]

And there I was thinking the LAV-75 was 1st ed and the M8 2nd ed and essentially the replacement/successor to the cancelled LAV-75.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

And there I was thinking the LAV-75 was 1st ed and the M8 2nd ed and essentially the replacement/successor to the cancelled LAV-75.

From what I remember the M8 showed up in Challenge Magazine between the two versions of the timeline - so thats a real question - is the LAV-75 V1 only and the M8 V2 only

Given the real timeline (i.e. not the game) the most likely answer would be that the M8 is the reality for both timelines (with the LAV-75 a rejected prototype) and should be used in place of the LAV-75 everywhere it is mentioned in the original game and modules

After all the M8 was greenlighted for production in reality - only cost cutting kept it from going into serial production - it had passed all testing and was approved by the Army - versus the LAV-75 which wasnt

Thus you would have the three different tank plants - the one making the M1, the one (or two) making the Stingray and the one making the M8

I know this has been discussed before but dont remember if there was ever a general agreement on this issue? (i.e. LAV-75 versus M8 for both timelines)

[kato13]

Given the real timeline (i.e. not the game) the most likely answer would be that the M8 is the reality for both timelines (with the LAV-75 a rejected prototype) and should be used in place of the LAV-75 everywhere it is mentioned in the original game and modules

I did close to this for my V1 game. I had a small production run of Lav-75s (40) to allow for the 101st to have a lt tank capable of being airlifted by CH-47s. I only had 13 deployed with the 101st in A company - 1/705 Armored (Tank destroyer)

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by kato13

I did close to this for my V1 game. I had a small production run of Lav-75s (40) to allow for the 101st to have a lt tank capable of being airlifted by CH-47s. I only had 13 deployed with the 101st in A company - 1/705 Armored (Tank destroyer)

I could see also possibly another run of them after the TDM if you allowed for both - i.e. Lima has been nuked and further production at the M1 plant is out of the question given the damage to the electrical grid in the area - with the nukes at Kennedy and in New Orleans probably doing the same for the the Stingray plants - so the Army needs tanks and the only place they can get them is either York PA (which couldnt expand production much given they are also making M109's, Bradley's and M88's) or the plant making the LAV-75 - and thus (at least as long as the power stays on and there are parts coming in) a new order is placed for the LAV-75 and whatever is made gets shipped overseas and nationwide in 1998-1999 - so you have a mix of Bufords and LAV-75 possibly

[Olefin]

fyi from https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm as to how many M8's the Army was looking to produce when the order was placed in 1996 in our timeline

The FMC XM8 was designed to combine a tank's firepower with a highly mobile, air-droppable vehicle. AGS was intended to be the Army's new combat vehicle, but in the form of a highly deployable, light-weight vehicle, with high fire-power and reconfigurable armor protection. The AGS was intended to replace the M551A1 Sheridan in the 82nd Airborne Division, and was expected to replace TOW-equipped HMMWVs in the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light). A total of 237 systems were planned for procurement. The cancellation of the M8 Armored Gun System left the US Army airborne forces dangerously low on firepower.

The total program cost, including development, was estimated to be $1.3 billion. The Army had planned to procure 26 low-rate initial production vehicles with 1996 funding of $142.8 million

[swaghauler]

Don't forget that there could be a real-world LAV 75... actually the LAV 76. The 76mm OTO Melara Naval Cannon has a turret that can be fitted to an AFV. The US could have copied the idea with surplus 76mm OTO Melara's. This may have been initially deployed as a heavy AA self-propelled Gun and then pressed into service as a "bunker buster" when AFVs become scarce.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

Don't forget that there could be a real-world LAV 75... actually the LAV 76. The 76mm OTO Melara Naval Cannon has a turret that can be fitted to an AFV. The US could have copied the idea with surplus 76mm OTO Melara's. This may have been initially deployed as a heavy AA self-propelled Gun and then pressed into service as a "bunker buster" when AFVs become scarce.

Sounds like a great idea to me