LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[Raellus]

What are your opinions of these vehicles. I'm fond of the v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide since I originally got it when I was 11. Until recently, I thought that the LAV-75 was a purely made-up vehicle, existing IRL only on the drawing board. It turns out, a couple of prototypes were actually built. The army found the 75mm HV gun to be grossly underpowered- it had trouble killing even T-55 era tanks and its HE ammo wasn't very effective against bunkers- and the program went nowhere.

So, why would the U.S. army of T2K adopt such an inneffective vehicle? Expediency alone seems like a poor explanation, especially given the other options for a tracked, relatively lightweight tank/armored gun system for airborne/motorized divisions.(see below).

The Stingray makes more sense. IIRC, it actually entered production and was sold, in limited numbers, to Pakistan IRL (or at least they seriously considered buying it). With conventional armor, it wouldn't be too hard for U.S. car manufacturers (such as they were until quite recently) to transition from making cars and trucks to building Stingrays. It makes sense that the Stingray was kept (or put back) in production in '95 or '96 as a cornerstone of military aid to China. It also makes sense that production would continue when the U.S. actively entered the war and that allotmonts for export would subsequently find their way into American units.

The M8 makes more sense than the LAV-75 since the former was most seriously considered as a viable option to replace the M551 Sheridan than the other two options discussed above. On the other hand, I'm reluctant to accept the M8 since it's not mentioned at all in the v1.0 U.S. Vehicle Guide and therefore, in my mind, as part of the v1.0 timeline. The M8 is featured in the v2.0 and v2.2 materials, though.

And then, in our timeline, there's the 105mm AGS based on the Stryker IFV (itself based on the LAV-25 which is part of the T2K v1.0 timeline).

So, what do you think about these vehicles? Which do you feature/accept in your T2K universe and/or campaign?

[Targan]

I see no problem with the LAV-75 in T2K actually being the M8 AGS. In the same way that I treat the Tank Breaker in T2K as being the Javelin. Well okay, not exactly the same. But why not just replace whereever it says "LAV-75" with "M8"? I don't think it would be entirely unreasonable.

[kato13]

I had about 50 production LAV-75 versions being made (about the same number as the Sgt York). And they were fielded only in a single light tank company attached to the 101st Air Assault Division, since their weight is just near the load limit of a couple variants of the CH-47. The remaining few could almost be anywhere.

I have M8s in all my other Active US light units.

[chico20854]

The DC Group isn't taking a position on what the Armored Gun System (program name for the Lt. Lank/Infantry Support Tank fielded in light divisions) in service is. I'll leave it up to the GM. I'm personally partial to the LAV-75, although mostly through nostalgia for the v1 "old school".

One factor against the M8 is that it uses the Bradley drivetrain and comes off the Bradley production line. When it gets to industrial mobilization time, a M8 is equal to one less Bradley, whereas a LAV-75 or Stingray doesn't require such a tradeoff. Eventually this concern goes away if you convert the LAV-75 production line (in Muskegon, Michigan) or Stingray line over to M8 production. It's possible both would be produced and issued - the B-17 and B-24, the P-51, P-47 and P-63, the C-46 and C-47 all being WWII analogies on the aircraft side...

[Mohoender]

As chico has been talking about it, what about the stingray? I tend to use it as it saw limited but regular production for the Thai army (sole user to this days as far as i know). About the LAV, I have a tendency to use it with a TS-90 gun under a F-4 turret.

[Webstral]

As chico has been talking about it, what about the stingray? I tend to use it as it saw limited but regular production for the Thai army (sole user to this days as far as i know). About the LAV, I have a tendency to use it with a TS-90 gun under a F-4 turret.


I had had a very similar thought about upgrading the LAV-75's gun to a 90mm low-pressure gun. There is plenty of precedent among light AFV all around the world. We might justify having the upgrade made by imagining that the LAV-75 is among the first US AFV sent to China in 1995. Naturally, the Army pays close attention to battlefield performance. When the unsatisfactory kill power of the 75mm is revealed, the Army embarks on a crash program to upgrade the LAV's gun (and turret) using off-the-shelf components. High priority Regular Army units might well receive their upgraded LAVs by October 1996 if enough priority is placed on the work. Of course, the LAV-75 moniker isn't going to be very applicable at that point. LAV-90? Some other name?

Good thinking, Mo!

Webstral

[Raellus]

I'm all for any explanation that allows for the LAV-75 in the Twilight World but I'm not sure the 90mm LVG is going to be a whole lot more effective against either tanks (especially tanks) or hardened bunkers than the 75mm HVG.

The U.S. army fielded the M56, a 90mm gun armed SPATG during the '50s and '60s. The 90mm gun's performance against MBTs (I don't think they ever engaged enemy tanks in actual combat) proved disappointing and they were retired shortly after Vietnam.

The LAV-75 is built on a relatively small, light chasis but I wonder if it could handle a 105mm gun. That's about the minimum acceptable calibre nowadays for MBTs precicely because anything lighter will have trouble handling most MBTs built after the '60s. Due to the improved protection of current generation MBTs, the trend over the past 30 years has been for larger caliber guns. Supposedly, the Russian's new T-95/Black Talon MBT is equipped with either a 135 or 150mm main gun. After 1980, I can't see the army settling for anything under 105mm on weapon system designed to engage enemy MBTs.

[Adm.Lee]

I remember reading that the HV gun on the Scorpion was reasonably (marginally?) effective against some Soviet armor. Could have been propaganda, I don't think I've checked it out.

I always thought the LAV-75 was mythical, too, until I read about the M8... first when it was cancelled, and again when the Rangers in Mogadishu really, really wanted some! I assumed that was the LAV-75.

Today, I learned that they weren't one & the same. Huh.

While I'm on the subject, I heard from an active-duty friend about the trials that were done prior to the adoption of the LAV-25 --> Stryker. He told me that a dozen or so designs were tested, and the test teams (1 team, 2 samples for each design) were headed by NCOs, not officers. That impressed him! Of those tests, one of the primary benefits of the Stryker over the Bradley was that the passengers weren't bruised and fatigued after a long march.

Back to the game: my first campaign in v.1 Poland, I let the PCs find and fix a LAV-75, but without the gun. They had more than enough fun with the MGs, anyway. I think I refused to let them swap an 82mm mortar for the 75mm gun.

[Mohoender]

LAV fitted with TS-90 under F-4 turrets is not only due to my thinking but it bears more to real life. I don't think that the LAV-75 ever came to existence. However, the piranha/LAV TDG (production in 1990) is a reality as is the LAV-120 AMS and the Canadian Cougar. Then, it seems than the most recent Piranha IV can be fitted with a 105mm tank turret verry similar to that of the AMX-10RC.

About efficiency, the TS-90 gun has proved very efficient on low intensity conflict (Africa and South America). It equips the mexican Lynx and the french Panhard ERC-90 as well as several other vehicle. Unlike the cockrill 90mm gun you are reffering to, it can take out about everything but the most modern tanks and it would be a threat to many cold war tanks (T-55, T-62, M48, Type 59, AMX-30...).

[Raellus]

Considering the nomenclature of the LAV-75, the Army's system for naming new gear doesn't always make sense. Maybe they just kept the original designation (based on the original 75mm gun system), after up-gunning them all, in order to avoid confusion.

I remember reading that the HV gun on the Scorpion was reasonably (marginally?) effective against some Soviet armor. Could have been propaganda, I don't think I've checked it out.

Considering when the M56 was designed/fielded, that was probably against PT-76s and T-55/55s- T-62s at best. I don't know for sure but I'm guessing it wasn't that great against the T-62, else they would have used them longer. I should do a little more research, I guess.

Back to the game: my first campaign in v.1 Poland, I let the PCs find and fix a LAV-75, but without the gun. They had more than enough fun with the MGs, anyway. I think I refused to let them swap an 82mm mortar for the 75mm gun.

So you're one of those mean GMs, huh?;)

[Targan]

I always thought the LAV-75 was mythical, too, until I read about the M8... first when it was cancelled, and again when the Rangers in Mogadishu really, really wanted some! I assumed that was the LAV-75.

Today, I learned that they weren't one & the same. Huh.I was under the impression that the LAV-75 was based on the TAM.

While I'm on the subject, I heard from an active-duty friend about the trials that were done prior to the adoption of the LAV-25 --> Stryker. He told me that a dozen or so designs were tested, and the test teams (1 team, 2 samples for each design) were headed by NCOs, not officers. That impressed him! Of those tests, one of the primary benefits of the Stryker over the Bradley was that the passengers weren't bruised and fatigued after a long march.
Isn't the Stryker a lineal descendant of the LAV-25 followed by Australia's ASLAV?

[Raellus]

The LAV-75 was based, I believe, on the chasis of the M113 APC. I was looking at a Osprey book on the M151 Sheridan when I came across an actual photograph of what GDW called the LAV-75. I had to do a double-take. I read up on it and I'm pretty sure it said it was based on the M113 chasis. If I was a millionaire, I would have bought the book just for that one photo and paragraph.

On a cool little side note, I just Googled LAV-75 to see if I could find a pic of the actual LAV-75 (I can't remember the official designation of the prototype) to prove to Mo that it was real and the first two things that popped up were our forum threads!

[Mohoender]

Actually, you are right. It was real but never reached the production line. It was undergoing testing in the mid-1980's. My confusion on that one came from the fact that I know it from the prototypes name: High Survivability Test Vehicle (Lightweight) HSTV(L).

Here are its specifications:
Crew: 3
Weight: 20450kg
Length gun forward: 8.528m
Length hull: 5.918m
Width:2.794m
Height: 2.414m
Max road speed: 83km/h
Accelaration 0-48 km/h: 11.8 sec.
Fuel capacity: 409 liters.
Max cruising range: 160km
Fording: 1m
Gradient: 60%
Side slope: 30%
Turning radius: pivot to infinity.
It was equipped with a 75mm ARES gun and 2 SMG (coaxial and AA)
Ammo was 26 and 3200 for the SMGs.

The lighter version was called Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank (RDF/LT). this lighter version could also mount a 76mm gun under a two men turret.

An interesting thing with 75mm ARES is that it was also intended as a replacement for the turret on the M551 sheridan.

I got the Jane's on armour and artillery 1984-1985:D (found it in Brussel for about 25$:)). If you ever visit Brussel, go and check the second hand bookshops located in the islamist area next to the south railway station.

It seems that these programs were terminated because of the ARES gun fragility. After all, the Sgt York couldn't fire an accurate shot at a static balloon.:D LAV-AD, M6 Linebreaker... are much more impressive (IMO).

[Cdnwolf]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1128_Mobile_Gun_System

Something like that?

[Raellus]

Mo, as to using the TW-90 gun, it's not a bad weapon, but IMO I think it's still a little too underpowered to go up against the ubiquitous T-72 found nearly all over the world and I think the army really wanted to go with a crewless turret/autoloader to keep crew size/turret size down.

I've made my decision.

If they can fit a 105mm gun to the LAV-25/Stryker chasis (thanks for the pic, Cdnwolf), I'm reasonably sure that they can fit the same type of gun/turret to the M113 chasis.

So, in my T2K world, the LAV-75 has a 105mm gun. It looks just like the LAV-75 in the v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide except for the turret. The Army keeps the 75 designation due to inane bureucratic considerations.

That means no gumming up Bradley production by also trying to manufacture significant numbers of the M8 AGS and it maintains my prefered v1.0 timeline.

The Stingray is still around as per the USAVG. No M8 AGS in my T2K U.

[Mohoender]

Mo, as to using the TW-90 gun, it's not a bad weapon, but IMO I think it's still a little too underpowered to go up against the ubiquitous T-72 found nearly all over the world and I think the army really wanted to go with a crewless turret/autoloader to keep crew size/turret size down.



Definitely right. I like your idea of a 105mm gun. As a result, the ERC-90 is essentially used abraod. Units stationed in Europe are using the AMX-10RC.

[Webstral]

It certainly does seem like a 105mm gun is going to be the best option, provided it can be wedded to the chassis. I don't know enough about low-pressure ammunition and guns to know if our new light tank is going to require a low-pressure 105mm (I suspect so, but I'm no expert) and whether HEAT ammunition can be exchanged between various types of 105mm tank guns. I'd be curious to know what the 105mm gun and turret will do to the LAV's profile and weight.

What about a name for the new LAV, or at least a modifier? (LAV-75B?)

Webstral

[Raellus]

I don't see too much of a problem wedding a 105mm gun to the LAV-75 (M113) chasis. Like I said, if they can put a turretless 105mm gun on a wheeled LAV-25/Stryker chasis, they can probably fit the same turret to the LAV-25 chasis.

I don't know about ammo commonality between the low and high pressure 105mm guns. I was assuming there was cross-commonality but I have no evidence for that. Anyone?

I like your new designator. LAV-75B has a nice ring to it. Or LAV-75A1, maybe?

[Webstral]

LAV-75A1 seems more consistent with Army nomenclature. I'll use your idea.

It seems that the M1128 Mobile Gun System uses the L7 105mm rifled cannon�the same as many other NATO AFV. This is a powerful argument in favor of retrofitting the LAV-75 fleet with a 105mm gun firing the same ammunition as the M60A4. I don’t know about the turret. Someone else is going to have to conjecture on that one. The added firepower and simplified logistical requirements (no further requirement for 75mm rounds that can only service one type of vehicle present in only one or two battalions per division) will be very attractive to the Army.

I suggest a brief revision of v1 history to justify the LAV-75A1.

Following the outbreak of the Sino-Soviet War, the US provides substantial numbers of the LAV-75 to the PRC. The PLA (People’s Liberation Army) is eager to accept the American AFV because it can arrive by air and thus be on the front lines earlier than platforms arriving by sea. The US is eager to provide LAV-75s because the system is new: too late for Operations Desert Storm and Provide Hope, the LAV-75 is an untried system. XVIII Airborne Corps in particular is eager to have the Sheridan replacement put through its paces against Soviet forces without exposing American troops to hazard.

By the end of 1995, reports from the battlefield paint a mixed picture. The automotive performance of the LAV is good�excellent where quality care can be provided. Fuel economy is good, and survivability against small arms and shell splinters is very good. Maneuverability is excellent. Kill power, on the other hand, is disappointing. In the assault gun role, the LAV is disappointing due to the mediocre power of its HE/HESH 75mm shell versus bunkers and fighting positions prepared inside concrete structures. As a light tank, the LAV is perfectly acceptable against all Soviet APC, IFV, and assault/mobile guns. However, the 75mm gun proves to have unreliable killing power against T-55s and T-62s. The front slope of the T-72 proves invulnerable to the LAV; only flank and rear shots with low deflection prove effective. The very good maneuverability of the LAV enables Chinese crews to obtain flanking shots heavier tanks might not achieve. However, this fact does little to make up for the lack of killing power of the 75mm gun.

US Army users of the LAV-75 bombard the Pentagon with requests for either a new mobile gun system/assault gun/light tank or an upgraded version of the LAV-75. Light divisions, such as 6th Infantry Division, 7th Infantry Division, and 10th Infantry Division, will be seriously compromised if their primary tank cannot defeat the kinds of armor US forces are most likely to encounter. China also requests upgrades and refits for its fleet of LAV-75s. The Pentagon orders a prototype LAV-75 with a 90mm gun and a prototype LAV-75 with a 105mm gun to be constructed and tested with maximum priority. Very quickly, the 105mm-equipped version proves its superiority in virtually every category. Orders go out for all LAV-75s in the US Army park to be upgraded simultaneously with new production for China.

By the time war erupts in Europe, all Regular Army divisions equipped with the LAV-75 have received the LAV-75A1 version. Some have come from new production, with the previous variants being sent back for refit. Other vehicles are post-production refit. When the war in Europe starts, the US puts a hold on all shipment and refit for the PLA. New and refitted LAV-75A1s are diverted to Army National Guard units and a national stockpile. It is from this stockpile that LAV-75A1s are distributed to formations in CONUS from 8/97 onward.

Webstral

[Raellus]

Outstanding, Web. Outstanding. :cool:

[James1978]

There was a brief thread on the Ares 75mm recently on TankNet - http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=28830. They seem to think that it could handle a baseline T-55 or T-62 well enough, but the gun became very inadequate against more modern tanks/armor or reactive armor. There are also some pictures of the rusting prototype of the HSTV-L.

[Abbott Shaull]

The LAV-75 was based, I believe, on the chasis of the M113 APC. I was looking at a Osprey book on the M151 Sheridan when I came across an actual photograph of what GDW called the LAV-75. I had to do a double-take. I read up on it and I'm pretty sure it said it was based on the M113 chasis. If I was a millionaire, I would have bought the book just for that one photo and paragraph.

On a cool little side note, I just Googled LAV-75 to see if I could find a pic of the actual LAV-75 (I can't remember the official designation of the prototype) to prove to Mo that it was real and the first two things that popped up were our forum threads!

Yes the LAV-75 chasis was a M113. Popular Mechanics...lol My dad use to get them, and they had article shortly after Reagan took office and the RDF, the predecessor of Central Command. In the article they looked at the vehicles that 9th Infantry Test Bed Division were giving try outs too. LAV-75 proto-types and LAV-25 were there as well as various versions of the FAVs. Many of the various configuration of the HMMWV were tested here too.

The Modular Division concept was only 20 too late. As I recall when the 25th was made into Light Infantry Division, it was like many of the Mechanized/Armored Division in the states that had 2 active units. Well as the 6th and 7th Light Infantry Division were stood up, and 10th Mountain. One problem with all 4 divisions was ideally they had round out Light Brigades, but many of the top brass was hoping if and when they were sent to combat that they would have something of the Stryker Brigades now or Light Motorized concept tested in the 9th. For the only other real option was to attach a Mechanized/Armored Brigade to these Divisions.

From what I could see the Brass didn't really support the Light Infantry concept nor did they care for the 9th either. Even though twenty year later the concepts developed in the 9th were dusted off and given a new look with a shrinking Army. In real life even the 82nd had lost it Armor Battalion in the 1990s. Too many sheridans had crashed and burned.

[Abbott Shaull]

In reality, with the Light Infantry Divisions, it was always hoped that the Stryker Brigades now would be developed and attached to these Division to give them some punch, but Armor/Mechanized felt it was better to "rush" a Brigade to beef them up if they needed.

Honestly like I said, modularization should of taken placed in the 80s. Grenada and Panama operations weren't exactly Corps size operations, and Panama was probably the first taste of borrowing units from several divisions to make a complete field unit that was needed. Again in 1990-1991 they did the same thing for Desert Shield/Storm, strong arguments should of prevailed then, but it wasn't until 2003 when it was realized it easier to keep the Division organization loose, but that another story.

[Matt Wiser]

TR, before he passed on, did V.1 stats for the M-8 AGS on his site. I saved the info, and in all my OBs, I use the M-8. RIP, my friend.

[ChalkLine]

I might add, that with war clouds looming the US army might not rid itself of the M551 Sheridan as well, and would make another upgrade package available.

In my mind, this would be applique armour bringing it up to 20 tonnes, a snorkel system as it could no longer swim. A new solid state system for its missile launcher system and an upgrade package for the vision systems implemented in the A1 upgrade to bring them up to standard. The Shillelagh

The 'visual mod' vehicles are recalled and rebuilt. However, as the 152mm gun/launcher is no longer built, these vehicles are fitted with surplus 105mm howitzers from the M108 SPG and used in the direct fire role. These vehicles are designated M551A3(IS) for infantry support, a tacit acknowledgement that the army can no longer provide close air support.

The MGM-51 Shillelagh is no longer produced, but 75,000 were built and were still in store. These missiles are repacked in modern materials to remove the cook-off danger and replaced in service. It should be noted that this missile has similar penetrative characteristics as the Hellfire missile, and until the TOW 2B entered service was the most destructive combat missile in US service (the reason they were retained in storage).

[Dog 6]

In my games I use Sheridan, LAV-75 and M-8. I have the US army built up to 80+ divisions. I have light motorized divisions and light armored divisions about 3 corps worth. working up my 4th ed OBO now. :)

[kato13]

In my games I use Sheridan, LAV-75 and M-8. I have the US army built up to 80+ divisions. I have light motorized divisions and light armored divisions about 3 corps worth. working up my 4th ed OBO now. :)

I've tried to do something similar a while back. Had military spending increase through 2000 at the same rate as the Reagan years. Delayed the war 5 years as well. Had trouble hitting the required personnel and some equipment bottlenecks, but I would be interested in seeing what you have.

[Dog 6]

I've tried to do something similar a while back. Had military spending increase through 2000 at the same rate as the Reagan years. Delayed the war 5 years as well. Had trouble hitting the required personnel and some equipment bottlenecks, but I would be interested in seeing what you have.

ok I'll send it along. pm ok?

[kato13]

ok I'll send it along. pm ok?

Sure.

[Dog 6]

meh I'll just upload it here

[kato13]

meh I'll just upload it here

Interesting equipment mix. If I can dig up my prewar battalion breakdown representing a full 20 year Reagan build up I will post it as well.

[Raellus]

I'm no expert on heavy industrial and tech production but I think that modern tanks, jets, missiles, etc. will not roll off of production lines anywhere near as fast as the much more low-tech armaments did in WWII. The U.S. armaments industry never geared up to its maximum production capacity during either of the Iraq wars but I seem to recall hearing of a couple of instances where USN ships literally ran out of Tomahawk and had to wait week for the trickle of new production missiles to find their way in to the fleet.

That said, refurbishing existing systems, even mothballed ones, like the Sheridan, would be a faster way to get weapons to the battlefield that producing new, current-gen systems from scratch. So yeah, I can see the Sheridan coming back into service.

I like the LAV-75 precisely because it is based on a well established, pre-existing chasis. I don't know if M113s could be "cut-down" and converted (probably not), but the tools, facilities, and workers presumably still existed in '96 to reopen production. For a military starved for new/replacement tanks, it would be a godsend.

Anyone know what the max production rate for the Abrams was, at its peak? I'm sure a full-fledged wartime arms industry could do better, but not, methinks, by that much. The materials, hi-tech components, and highly trained production workers are just too hard to come by.

[Dog 6]

I'm no expert on heavy industrial and tech production but I think that modern tanks, jets, missiles, etc. will not roll off of production lines anywhere near as fast as the much more low-tech armaments did in WWII. The U.S. armaments industry never geared up to its maximum production capacity during either of the Iraq wars but I seem to recall hearing of a couple of instances where USN ships literally ran out of Tomahawk and had to wait week for the trickle of new production missiles to find their way in to the fleet.

That said, refurbishing existing systems, even mothballed ones, like the Sheridan, would be a faster way to get weapons to the battlefield that producing new, current-gen systems from scratch. So yeah, I can see the Sheridan coming back into service.

I like the LAV-75 precisely because it is based on a well established, pre-existing chasis. I don't know if M113s could be "cut-down" and converted (probably not), but the tools, facilities, and workers presumably still existed in '96 to reopen production. For a military starved for new/replacement tanks, it would be a godsend.

Anyone know what the max production rate for the Abrams was, at its peak? I'm sure a full-fledged wartime arms industry could do better, but not, methinks, by that much. The materials, hi-tech components, and highly trained production workers are just too hard to come by.

yes the production rate for the M-1s was 512 a year from one plant one shift.
in my games I have 5 plants ruining 3 shifts.

[pmulcahy11b]

I'm no expert on heavy industrial and tech production but I think that modern tanks, jets, missiles, etc. will not roll off of production lines anywhere near as fast as the much more low-tech armaments did in WWII. The U.S. armaments industry never geared up to its maximum production capacity during either of the Iraq wars but I seem to recall hearing of a couple of instances where USN ships literally ran out of Tomahawk and had to wait week for the trickle of new production missiles to find their way in to the fleet.

There was that same problem in the Bonsia and Kosovo missions -- by the end of Kosovo, there were practically no ALCMs left in the US inventory, and they were converting a bunch of them by removing the nuclear warhead and replacing it with conventional explosives. The JDAM was new to the US at the time and almost all of them got used up.

Towards the end of Desert Storm, there were worries that if the conflict went on a couple of weeks longer, Coalition forces might run out of smart bombs altogether.

[pmulcahy11b]

Let me ask a question I've asked before, but we have some new members now: How long and how well could target drones like the QF-4 and other QF-series aircraft be refurbished into manned aircraft?

[Dog 6]

Let me ask a question I've asked before, but we have some new members now: How long and how well could target drones like the QF-4 and other QF-series aircraft be refurbished into manned aircraft?

as far as i know not long. a few days to a few weeks depending on the manpower put in to it.

[ChalkLine]

In a standard canon for comparison, I institute what I call 'The Missile Drought' six months into the war. At this point combat usage exceeds peacetime stocks so you see a lot of older systems come out of the cupboard such as the Dragon and older TOWs.

The new production is supposed to bridge this gap quickly, but the ICBM strikes start to erode capability and new production areas can't be dispersed quickly enough.

[Webstral]

yes the production rate for the M-1s was 512 a year from one plant one shift.
in my games I have 5 plants ruining 3 shifts.

Would you be willing to post a reference for this level of production? I've read that peace-time production was more like 30 tanks per month, or 360 per annum. I know it seems picky, but 150 Abrams is 150 Abrams.

Of course, once things kick off in the Far East, the factory probably will start running round-the-clock. Whether new plants open depends on a LOT of factors, most of which have to do with one's interpretation of the decisions by a relative handful of players whose attitudes could be all over the map. Are we going to sell as many M1s as we can manufacture to China? Are we going to sell any? Is China going to want any more M1s after the 1995 counteroffensive? (i.e., to what degree will they prioritize having very good and very expensive tanks over budgetary concerns and logistical issues?) How many M1s will China want? If China doesn't want new M1s, will the DoD place more orders anyway, since the tax revenues from China's massive arms orders will help pay for a US arms increase? If the DoD places more orders anyway, how many tanks does the DoD want over what timeframe? Do the Saudis and other M1 customers want more tanks? The speculative questions go on and on.

Webstral

[Dog 6]

Would you be willing to post a reference for this level of production? I've read that peace-time production was more like 30 tanks per month, or 360 per annum. I know it seems picky, but 150 Abrams is 150 Abrams.

Of course, once things kick off in the Far East, the factory probably will start running round-the-clock. Whether new plants open depends on a LOT of factors, most of which have to do with one's interpretation of the decisions by a relative handful of players whose attitudes could be all over the map. Are we going to sell as many M1s as we can manufacture to China? Are we going to sell any? Is China going to want any more M1s after the 1995 counteroffensive? (i.e., to what degree will they prioritize having very good and very expensive tanks over budgetary concerns and logistical issues?) How many M1s will China want? If China doesn't want new M1s, will the DoD place more orders anyway, since the tax revenues from China's massive arms orders will help pay for a US arms increase? If the DoD places more orders anyway, how many tanks does the DoD want over what timeframe? Do the Saudis and other M1 customers want more tanks? The speculative questions go on and on.

Webstral
the planed "Production run" was 12000 M-1s. we made it up to 8k or so.

it was "Jane's Defense Weekly" from the 1980's. i'll look around this weekend for it. also "Jane’s Armour & Artillery" in the late 80's had it.
also this: www.microarmormayhem.com/NATO_ORDER_OF_BATTLE_mod_7.doc
look at "Appendix 3"

[Legbreaker]

While everyone is certainly able to make their own decisions about "their" T2K world, I can't see 5 plants being possible. Yes, the one plant would almost certainly be running 24/7, but the construction, or conversion of other plants takes time, resources and money.

As an example of what may have occured, take a look at the last few years in Iraq. US troops couldn't get even some of the more basic items such as armour for their Humvees. Admittedly this is a much lower level "conflict" (if the word can be applied), however, I doubt public opinion would be all that much different in a full scale war - they'd be wanting and demanding their soldiers have the best possible protection, etc.

1500 tanks per year, or roughly 125 per month, per plant seems rather excessive to me. Five similar plants means 625 per month - how many armoured divisions is that?

Presuming all the plants could be built, workers and engineers found, materials supplied, etc, how do you transport all those tanks through hostile waters to the front lines? At approximately 60 tonnes each, plus spares, that's one hell of a lot of shipping!

And then there's cost. $4.35 million per unit according to wiki is a hell of a lot of cash for the US government to be throwing out there! Now multiply that by the 625 per month, plus the plant construction costs, shipping, etc and you've got a recipe for bankruptcy. Ok, so it's war and money tends to be a bit less of an issue, but it's still an issue....

On the general war production topic, would production really ramp up all that quickly? Until around September 1997, NATO appeared to have the upper hand, having already penetrated into the Soviet Union itself. Meanwhile, the Soviets were fighting on several fronts - China (winding down but still a drain on resources), the middle east, south eastern Europe (Romania, etc) and of course central Europe. Poland was effectively out of the fight as far as production and many of the soviet "allies" were suffering badly.

It is my belief that Nato's main problems at the time was supplying the front lines with ammunition, fuel and food rather than replacement tanks, etc. This situation of course was to change dramatically moments after the first nukes were used...

It took several years for the Allies in WWII to be ready for D-Day. Yes, there was action taking place elsewhere in the world (northern Africa springs to mind), but the tanks, planes, ammunition, etc still needed time to be produced and shipped over to England. With the lower technical complexity of 1940's armaments, I can see production being a lot quicker than in the early stages of WWIII.

[Dog 6]

I had a Reagan 1980's build up that didn't stop with the end of the cold war. I do stand by the numbers. I have a prewar production of 500 LAV-75, 480 M-8's and 900 Stingray's. 20 armored divisions, like 40 mech divisions.

sorry you don't like it.

[Legbreaker]

As I said, everyone's welcome to approach things the way they want. If you want that many tanks rolling off the production line, go for it.
On the other hand, I like to limit things so that there isn't a tank over every hill and when PCs find new toys to play with, they're a bit more interesting, unique, and valuable.

[Dog 6]

As I said, everyone's welcome to approach things the way they want. If you want that many tanks rolling off the production line, go for it.
On the other hand, I like to limit things so that there isn't a tank over every hill and when PCs find new toys to play with, they're a bit more interesting, unique, and valuable.

cool. I play large games with each player controlling divisions at a min battalion sized unit. they and I like lots of tanks :D

[Targan]

cool. I play large games with each player controlling divisions at a min battalion sized unit. they and I like lots of tanks :D
So it is T2K at a wargaming level? Interesting.

[kato13]

The tank production numbers seem huge, but I have planned for similar. Not necessarily for T2k, but for a general fantasy WWIII scenario. I think you would have to have Reagan win the presidency in 1976 and some type of incredible economic boom. Perhaps some sort of economical way for the US and Canada to process their massive Oil shale reserves came our of the oil shocks of the ealry 70s.

As a programming and numbers nut it is always fun for me to take numbers to the extreme and see where the points of failure are. I think the tanks could have been made but for each one you would also need almost one and a half M2s variants, half an M113, 30+ trucks and at least 120 personnel (plus another 100 in the Reserves). Personnel in a non conscripted US army always seems to be the limiting factor in my calculations. And if you have a booming economy the problem becomes even more difficult as recruitment becomes harder.

[Raellus]

Leg reiterates a couple of really good points.

First of all, producing a current-gen tank like the M1A1 takes a lot of skill, resources, and money. It's not like WWII were a Ford automotive factory could be relatively easily converted to producing M4 Shermans, and its assembly lines staffed with former autoworkers or relatively inexperienced "Rosie the Riveter" types. The engine technology in the M4 was similar to existing tractors and trucks and the most hi-tech components were the simple gun sights.

Now compare that with the Abrams. It's gas turbine engine is a lot more complex than a tractor or truck engine. It's "Chobam" [sic] composite armor is much more difficult to make than molded steel armor. It's gun systems are incredibly complex. All of this also requires highly skilled labor to produce and assemble.

So, best case scenario, it's going to take months just to get the "extra" M1 factories up and running. Are they already up by '96, making M1s for China? I don't think so. I'm not sure the Chinese could afford many full-priced Abrams and I don't think the U.S. gov would be willing to subsidize the sales (think Lend-Lease). Then there's the political implications of providing a nation-at-war with current-gen weapons sytems. There could be the perception in the administration that this could constitute a causus beli in the eyes of the USSR, dragging the U.S. into the war. For these reasons, I think less expensive, less complex tanks like the Stingray, LAV-75/LAV-75A1, and or M8 AGS are all more likely options. So, it's going to be a while before additional M1 factories are set up and running at full capacity. By then, the TDM pretty much makes the whole issue moot.

Lastly, there's the question of cost. I've mentioned this already in the Defense of the Red Army thread a few weeks back, but even a relatively robust economy like the U.S.'s (at least in the mid-'90s) is going to have a helluva time sustaining maximum production rates for hi-tech systems like the M1A2, F22, JTF, Seawolf, etc. They are just too expensive and difficult to produce. WWII levels of production are simply unsustainable with modern weapon systems. Production-wise, the Soviets would be in a much better position with their comparitively more simple tanks.

But hey, that's just my take on the matter. It's totally up to others whether they want to pump it up the numbers for their T2KU. More power to ya.

[kato13]

I agree that given the standard T2k timeline those numbers would be impossible to achieve. Even if you throw all the resources possible at it. One of my favorite quotes related to that concept is "Nine women can't make a baby in a month". But the alternate history buff in me likes to see how far back you need to go and how you could get there. Are they tremendously optimistic, absolutely, but I tried to apply the same optimism to the USSR (by discovering massive gold, diamond and oil reserves) in the scenarios where I just wanted to see what two titans at their maximum possible capabilities would do against each other. In my case this really does apply more to wargaming (TWW and Harpoon series) than to T2k but since there is quite a bit of crossover in the underlying data, it seems appropriate to discuss here.

[Dog 6]

"Nine women can't make a baby in a month". love that. :D

[chico20854]

Would you be willing to post a reference for this level of production? I've read that peace-time production was more like 30 tanks per month, or 360 per annum. I know it seems picky, but 150 Abrams is 150 Abrams.


1080 a year from both plants combined.

That and other weapons production rates are at
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/62xx/doc6210/doc21b-Entire.pdf

The "maximum economic production rate" represents making full use of the production machinery. Higher rates are possible with an expansion of industrial plant. Whether that is possible in a T2k context is debatable - there are a host of issues with trying to start up new production capacity. There's a lot on this issue if you dig a little on google - when the US shut down new tank production in the 90s there was a lot of concern on what would be needed to reactivate a cold production line.

One of the bottlenecks (can't find the reference offhand) is that the DU armor production facility turned out no more than 25 sets of armor a month, so only 300 of the 1080 tanks produced per year have the HA armor set.

[Dog 6]

1080 a year from both plants combined.

That and other weapons production rates are at
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/62xx/doc6210/doc21b-Entire.pdf

The "maximum economic production rate" represents making full use of the production machinery. Higher rates are possible with an expansion of industrial plant. Whether that is possible in a T2k context is debatable - there are a host of issues with trying to start up new production capacity. There's a lot on this issue if you dig a little on google - when the US shut down new tank production in the 90s there was a lot of concern on what would be needed to reactivate a cold production line.

One of the bottlenecks (can't find the reference offhand) is that the DU armor production facility turned out no more than 25 sets of armor a month, so only 300 of the 1080 tanks produced per year have the HA armor set.

WOW thanks!

looks like I'll have to build more plants.

[Legbreaker]

looks like I'll have to build more plants.
Be interesting to see how you intend to deal with all the issues that would require - cost, materials, skilled labour, transportation, and above all, time.

[Dog 6]

Be interesting to see how you intend to deal with all the issues that would require - cost, materials, skilled labor, transportation, and above all, time.


LOL me 2. :D

cost is the only issue I see.

[Graebarde]

LOL me 2. :D

cost is the only issue I see.

I think a bigger factor to new construction is TIME. The time it takes to BUILD the new facility. From the time the decision is made, the location selected, construction of the buildings and related infastructure to support the facility. Two years would be fast I think, and if the decision was made too late, the bombs will make it moot.

Of course if you use v1 timeline, the cold war never ended. SO there would be a possability of continued production and perhaps increased number of plants. Still not sure why in the general context however as there was not the rush to do it until the spontanious war started by the Germans.

[Raellus]

I think a bigger factor to new construction is TIME. The time it takes to BUILD the new facility. From the time the decision is made, the location selected, construction of the buildings and related infastructure to support the facility. Two years would be fast I think, and if the decision was made too late, the bombs will make it moot.

Of course if you use v1 timeline, the cold war never ended. SO there would be a possability of continued production and perhaps increased number of plants. Still not sure why in the general context however as there was not the rush to do it until the spontanious war started by the Germans.

Agreed. And don't discount the time it would take to train new factory employees. Once again, I don't see a production increase to support the Chinese so more than maybe one new plant likely wouldn't become a priority until the Germans make their move. And then, as you mentioned, it would take a while before any additional plants were up and running at full capacity.

[pmulcahy11b]

I think a bigger factor to new construction is TIME. The time it takes to BUILD the new facility. From the time the decision is made, the location selected, construction of the buildings and related infastructure to support the facility. Two years would be fast I think, and if the decision was made too late, the bombs will make it moot.

I can agree with that -- IIRC, in World War 2 they took the P-51 from the drawing board to a production-level prototype in 68 days. Try that with even a HMMWV-type vehicle today -- you'll be sorely disappointed. Equipment is just more complicated these days.

[Dog 6]

I can agree with that -- IIRC, in World War 2 they took the P-51 from the drawing board to a production-level prototype in 68 days. Try that with even a HMMWV-type vehicle today -- you'll be sorely disappointed. Equipment is just more complicated these days.

guess I'll have to start building them in the 80's some how. probably have to fudge the money for them too.

oh and btw pmulcahy11b why no SA-11 on your website?

[kato13]

oh and btw pmulcahy11b why no SA-11 on your website?

Paul acknowledged your first mention of this. With 1000s of items something is bound to fall through the cracks. Just a note this is a perfect thing for a PM as it is really not related to this thread (and was mentioned elsewhere).

[Dog 6]

Paul acknowledged your first mention of this. With 1000s of items something is bound to fall through the cracks. Just a note this is a perfect thing for a PM as it is really not related to this thread (and was mentioned elsewhere).

he did? Hmmm must have missed it . my bad.

[stilleto69]

Ah, but remember when it comes to the Government "Who cares how much it's going to cost, think of all the jobs it will create."

I mean if you really want to look at it the government would just pass an Appropriation Bill, and worry about the 'cost' later. In their eyes the increased weapon production means jobs in their community "Bringing home the Pork".

[Dog 6]

Ah, but remember when it comes to the Government "Who cares how much it's going to cost, think of all the jobs it will create."

I mean if you really want to look at it the government would just pass an Appropriation Bill, and worry about the 'cost' later. In their eyes the increased weapon production means jobs in their community "Bringing home the Pork".

very good point.

[kato13]

Ah, but remember when it comes to the Government "Who cares how much it's going to cost, think of all the jobs it will create."

I mean if you really want to look at it the government would just pass an Appropriation Bill, and worry about the 'cost' later. In their eyes the increased weapon production means jobs in their community "Bringing home the Pork".

I just did a few calculations of continued Reagan era spending, inflation adjustment, and the Current stimulus/Bank Bailout Packages. By my calculations if a theoretical Reagan Republican Legislature was willing to make the similarly sized fiscal decisions they are being made currently (for bank bailouts and stimulus package) the Military Budget could have been expanded an additional 29% beyond the Reagan Levels during the 1985-1996 fiscal years.

In my mind that establishes the theoretical upper limit of what could be accomplished. Just as today's excessive spending is starting to see significant political resistance (even with a single party in charge), I believe the same would have been seen then.

Not that I feel that is likely (the Republican legislature part occuring that early seems really far fetched), but I always like to start with a maximum or minimum limit to make sure I don't pass it.

[Dog 6]

I just did a few calculations of continued Reagan era spending, inflation adjustment, and the Current stimulus/Bank Bailout Packages. By my calculations if a theoretical Reagan Republican Legislature was willing to make the similarly sized fiscal decisions they are being made currently (for bank bailouts and stimulus package) the Military Budget could have been expanded an additional 29% beyond the Reagan Levels during the 1985-1996 fiscal years.

In my mind that establishes the theoretical upper limit of what could be accomplished. Just as today's excessive spending is starting to see significant political resistance (even with a single party in charge), I believe the same would have been seen then.

Not that I feel that is likely (the Republican legislature part occuring that early seems really far fetched), but I always like to start with a maximum or minimum limit to make sure I don't pass it.

Thanks kato that helps a lot. :D

[pmulcahy11b]

I mean if you really want to look at it the government would just pass an Appropriation Bill, and worry about the 'cost' later. In their eyes the increased weapon production means jobs in their community "Bringing home the Pork".

The really bad part of defense spending and Bring Home the Pork is that Congress will try to get components of weapons systems built in as many places as possible. Look at the F-22 Raptor -- components were built in 47 states. IIRC, for the M-1A2 SEP, components are built in 14 states, and testing is done in 3 others. This would become a detriment in wartime, particularly after the November Nuclear Strikes.

[pmulcahy11b]

I just thought of something -- Saudi and Egyptian Abrams production. While they are built locally, there are some things the US Government will not allow the Saudi and Egyptian workers to do. GDLS personnel in both countries install the frontal armor, the computers and software, the GPS systems, and (in the case of Saudi M-1s) the Battlefield Management System. Those components are built in the US and they are practically NOFORN (No Foreign Personnel) -- foreign personnel are only allowed to look at an abbreviated version of the tech manuals for those components.

This may lead to versions of the Abrams during the Twilight War that are sort of "M-1A2 minus" versions -- with reverse-engineered, not as efficient components and armor.

[ChalkLine]

This may lead to versions of the Abrams during the Twilight War that are sort of "M-1A2 minus" versions -- with reverse-engineered, not as efficient components and armor.

Or with other systems, similar to how some Russian vehicles have French protection systems factory installed.

[Legbreaker]

Money doesn't grow on trees. When the global economy is being pulled in all directions and virtually every government is trying to borrow money from the same international banks to fund their own war effort, those funds just aren't going to be as available as they once were.

Sure the governments might manage to bluff their way past creditors, etc for a time, but eventually the whole national economy will fall like a house of cards and politicians would be scrambling to protect themselves.

Now where's the pork?

[Raellus]

I just did a few calculations of continued Reagan era spending, inflation adjustment, and the Current stimulus/Bank Bailout Packages. By my calculations if a theoretical Reagan Republican Legislature was willing to make the similarly sized fiscal decisions they are being made currently (for bank bailouts and stimulus package) the Military Budget could have been expanded an additional 29% beyond the Reagan Levels during the 1985-1996 fiscal years.

So, it could be done. The salient question then becomes, why? Even had the Cold War continued past '89-'91, what would have motivated the administration to spend that additional 29% over the relatively high Reagan defense spending levels on tank production? (and what about Raptor, Crusader, Seawolf, etc.?) I can see an increase in defense spending once the Soviets invade China but, once again, it's going to take time to build up the infrastructure (factories, skilled workers, etc.) to start turning those extra millions of dollars into tanks, especially since, as Paul pointed out, production in the U.S. tends to be very decentralized and much coordination is required. By the time those factories started nearing peak production, the TDM would effectively kill it.

[Targan]

One factor against the M8 is that it uses the Bradley drivetrain and comes off the Bradley production line. When it gets to industrial mobilization time, a M8 is equal to one less Bradley, whereas a LAV-75 or Stingray doesn't require such a tradeoff.
I have discovered during some reading that this is only partially correct. The suspension and track system contains elements from the M113A3, the M2 Bradley and some M8-specific components. The hydromechanical transmission is from the Bradley but the engine, the 6V-92TA 6 cylinder Detroit Diesel, has 65% parts commonality with the 8V-92TA 8 cylinder Detroit Diesel used in the M977 HEMTT truck. The Cadillac Gage Stingray and Stingray II light tanks actually use the M977 HEMTT's 8V-92TA engine as well.

[Abbott Shaull]

I just thought of something -- Saudi and Egyptian Abrams production. While they are built locally, there are some things the US Government will not allow the Saudi and Egyptian workers to do. GDLS personnel in both countries install the frontal armor, the computers and software, the GPS systems, and (in the case of Saudi M-1s) the Battlefield Management System. Those components are built in the US and they are practically NOFORN (No Foreign Personnel) -- foreign personnel are only allowed to look at an abbreviated version of the tech manuals for those components.

This may lead to versions of the Abrams during the Twilight War that are sort of "M-1A2 minus" versions -- with reverse-engineered, not as efficient components and armor.

One of the ironies of this is many of the civilian stuff that these same industries were trying to retract the foot print of their manufacturing establishments and shedding the parts that they had been making in-house. With the ironic twist that did spin-off several things that did spread their overall foot print of their goods.

[Raellus]

A couple of nights ago, I watched a new show on the History Channel hosted by R. Lee Ermey (the drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket) called Lock N' Load about the evolution of AFVs. The last AFV profiled was the Stryker-based version of the AGS.

The unmanned "turret" with the 105mm gun looked like it would fit perfectly on the M113-based LAV-75 chasis. A 105mm armed LAV-75 (the LAV-75A1) would make a good light tank alternative to the heavier, more expensive, and slower to produce M1 Abrams series for the American airborne, motorized, and leg infantry divisions going into the Twilight War/WWIII. The 105mm gun would be able to provide infantry with effective direct fire support and would be able to take on and defeat the armor of most Soviet MBTs.

It would sort of be like the long-barreled 75mm Sturmgeshutz "assault guns" of the WWII German Army. They were originally designed to provide direct fire support to infantry but later became de facto TDs and were often called upon to perform the same role as proper tanks. They were based on an existing tank chasis (the Pz.III) and were much cheaper and faster to produce than the Panther or Tiger.

The more I think about it, the more I like the 105mm LAV-75. It's not entirely canonical (v1.0) but it still makes sense on almost every level.

[James1978]

A couple of nights ago, I watched a new show on the History Channel hosted by R. Lee Ermey (the drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket) called Lock N' Load about the evolution of AFVs. The last AFV profiled was the Stryker-based version of the AGS.

The unmanned "turret" with the 105mm gun looked like it would fit perfectly on the M113-based LAV-75 chasis. A 105mm armed LAV-75 (the LAV-75A1) would make a good light tank alternative to the heavier, more expensive, and slower to produce M1 Abrams series for the American airborne, motorized, and leg infantry divisions going into the Twilight War/WWIII. The 105mm gun would be able to provide infantry with effective direct fire support and would be able to take on and defeat the armor of most Soviet MBTs.

. . . . .

The more I think about it, the more I like the 105mm LAV-75. It's not entirely canonical (v1.0) but it still makes sense on almost every level.
Something like this?

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g253/cjfischer/Expeditionary_Tank.jpg

[Raellus]

Something like this?

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g253/cjfischer/Expeditionary_Tank.jpg

Bless you, James! That's it!

[James1978]

Bless you, James! That's it!

I'd seen the picture years ago, but it took some guessing to Google-up a picture of the darn thing. From what I can find, the Expeditionary Tank was the Teledyne Vehicle Systems (later General Dynamics Land Systems) entry into the AGS competition that the M-8 ended up winning back in the 80's. GDLS continued development of the Low Profile Turret and an evolved version is what ended up on the M1128 MGS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1128_Mobile_Gun_System).

So in T2Kverse, the basic turret was out still out there and being refined by GDLS and would probably be ready to be put into production to up-gun the LAV-75 when the need arose.

[Webstral]

Bless you, James! That's it!

Ye gods, what a beauty!

Webstral

[TiggerCCW UK]

Is it just me or does it look like the tanks from Tron?

[Mohoender]

Is it just me or does it look like the tanks from Tron?

Indeed it does.:)

[boogiedowndonovan]

I'm a fan of the 2.0 and 2.2 timeline, so I use the M8 AGS.

Anyone know what happened to the M8 AGS prototypes? Supposedly there were 4 prototypes. According to Army Times, they were pulled out of storage and sent to Afghanistan as an interim gun system?

anybody have any more info on this?

Also, according to wikipedia, United Defense was developing a hybrid electric powered 120mm armed version of the M8 AGS.

[boogiedowndonovan]

found this M8 AGS video on youtube. I'm guessing the language is Turkish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yqxr3tqtog

[Raellus]

Anyone know what happened to the M8 AGS prototypes? Supposedly there were 4 prototypes. According to Army Times, they were pulled out of storage and sent to Afghanistan as an interim gun system?


I hadn't heard that, but it's intriguing. Please let us know what you find out.

If no one minds, I'm going to petition the proprietors of the nearest thing to official T2K canon, Paul M. and Chico (the DC group rep), to canonize the LAV-75A1. I'd like to use Web's backstory (Chinese combat experience with export models of the original LAV-75 leading to requests for a bigger gun, with the subsequently more successful, upgunned version being ordered by the U.S. for its "light" divisions) and James'78's "photographic evidence" to support my original 105mm-armed LAV-75concept.

In case you hadn't noticed it, I'm in love with the LAV-75A1 concept.

[Targan]

If no one minds, I'm going to petition the proprietors of the nearest thing to official T2K canon, Paul M. and Chico (the DC group rep), to canonize the LAV-75A1.

I have come around to your way of thinking now Raellus and I don't mind. I think there is room for the M8 as well in the Twilight universe but perhaps the M8 never made it past the production prototype phase and therefore the only examples in the Twilight universe would be within the CONUS.

[pmulcahy11b]

Hmmmmm...let's start with the name. I don't like "LAV-75A1," since the vehicle doesn't use the 75mm autocannon. But IIRC, "LAV-105" is already taken by one of Cadillac-Gage's vehicles. Maybe something like "M-1200" (it should be OK since the Stryker would not exist in the T2K timeline). And maybe give it an actual name -- we could call it the "Ridgeway," since they decided not to give that name to the M-8 AGS. What do you think?

[Targan]

Why was the M-8 designated the M-8? Why would the LAV-75A1 not be designated the M-something too?

[Webstral]

I'm fine with giving the upgunned LAV-75 a new designation entirely. During earlier discussions, a few of us liked the irony in "LAV-75A1", as military bureaucracy would be trumping common sense. An M-series name would be fine, with the caveat that it be generally understood that the upgunned AFV replaces the LAV-75 for most if not all purposes.

Webstral

[Jason Weiser]

Well, why not call it the M20 Ridgeway. It's a nice round number and it works for the most part.

[Webstral]

M20 is fine with me. I prefer Longstreet to Ridgway, but I realize that there is a certain tendency to shun Confederate generals as namesakes. Also, Ridgway doesn't get nearly the credit he deserves. There is a certain irony in naming the upgunned LAV-75 Ridgway, given that the impetus for creating the upgunned version was the experience of Communist Chinese in their war against the USSR.

Webstral

[Adm.Lee]

Shouldn't you tweak the M# down? Why jump from M8 to M20? Besides, wasn't there previously an M20 in WW2? (Yes, I know the numbers reset after ca.1962, but still....)

Lee.

[Raellus]

Hmmmmm...let's start with the name. I don't like "LAV-75A1," since the vehicle doesn't use the 75mm autocannon. But IIRC, "LAV-105" is already taken by one of Cadillac-Gage's vehicles. Maybe something like "M-1200" (it should be OK since the Stryker would not exist in the T2K timeline). And maybe give it an actual name -- we could call it the "Ridgeway," since they decided not to give that name to the M-8 AGS. What do you think?

If it helps the 105mm-gunned LAV-75 get your nod, Paul, I can live with a name change.

Web and I both kind of liked the irony of the LAV-75A1 designation and it makes some sense considering that, according to our backstory, the Chinese had already purchased a number of 75mm HVG-armed LAV-75s and fielded them in combat. They subsequently pushed for an upgunned version, appreciating the LAV-75's mobility and reliability but bemoaning its lack of firepower. A complete change in designation might lead to a little confusion. On the other hand, if the original LAV-75 was a disappointment but the upgunned version a success, perhaps a new name would be in order (to avoid any stigma attached to the original).

As for the name, I like Ridgeway and the Chinese connection is appropriately ironic (in a good way). Longstreet sounds cool but I don't think the modern, integrated (was there a Political Correctness movement in the v1.0 T2K timeline?) army would go for it since he was a Confederate and a loser (I mean, he was on the losing side in his particular American war).

How about this compromise: the Chinese called the upgunned, 105mm-armed LAV-75 the LAV-75A1 but the U.S. Army decided to call it the M20 Ridgeway. It's your call, Paul, as long as whatever we end up deciding ends up on your awesome website.:)

[boogiedowndonovan]

How about this compromise: the Chinese called the upgunned, 105mm-armed LAV-75 the LAV-75A1 but the U.S. Army decided to call it the M20 Ridgeway. It's your call, Paul, as long as whatever we end up deciding ends up on your awesome website.:)

Wasn't the M-8 AGS called the Buford after Civil War Union general John Buford?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Buford

If you're not going with the M-8 in your campaign, why not use that as the name of the LAV-75?

In regards to the Chinese name for the LAV-75, why not stick with PLA naming convention? Type 75? Type 75A1?

[Raellus]

In regards to the Chinese name for the LAV-75, why not stick with PLA naming convention? Type 75? Type 75A1?

Great suggestion! PLA Type 75A1 it is.

Wasn't the M-8 AGS called the Buford after Civil War Union general John Buford?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Buford

Dunno. Maybe so. Still, I don't know if that would have stuck had the M-8 AGS been selected for production. Besides, I really like Ridgeway for the upgunned LAV-75A1/M20.

If you're not going with the M-8 in your campaign, why not use that as the name of the LAV-75?

I don't want people to get confused and imagine the RL M-8 AGS. I think an entirely new designation is in order.

[Adm.Lee]

Just to be a little more pedantic, Gen. Ridgway spelled his name without an "e".

I support using his name, BTW, although if it's to be a cavalry vehicle, the yellow-legs might prefer Buford to a parachute-infantry general.

Lee

[Targan]

I support using his name, BTW, although if it's to be a cavalry vehicle, the yellow-legs might prefer Buford to a parachute-infantry general.

But it is an air transportable vehicle isn't it? Makes perfect sense to me.

I like this concept of the vehicle being the Type 75 to the PLA and the M-20 Ridgeway to the US. I like where this whole darned thread has gone to. Kudos, people.

[Webstral]

The AT power of a Ridgway MGS/light tank/assault gun would change a lot for 10th Mountain, 82nd Airborne, and other light formations equipped with the rebuilt LAV-75. Although the front glacis of a T-80 with ERA might be impervious to fire from a Ridgway, frontal shots against just about anything else on the Soviet side have a better-than-equal chance of penetrating. Flanking shots against the T-80 should do the trick. Well-handled Ridgways in the Gulf would go a long way towards offsetting the enemy's heavier and more numerous MBT. I can see where they would be quite useful in Korea, too, albeit in more of an assault gun role than a light tank.

Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

Just to be a little more pedantic, Gen. Ridgway spelled his name without an "e".

I support using his name, BTW, although if it's to be a cavalry vehicle, the yellow-legs might prefer Buford to a parachute-infantry general.

Lee

Unfortunately, we can't go totally ironic and name it after the commander of the US Army troops in China during the Boxer Rebellion -- his name was Chaffee too (not the same Chaffee that the M-24 was named after.)

When the Army rejected the name of Ridgway for the M-8, they called it the Buford instead, so that's a no-go too.

How about some more irony -- call it the Custer!

BTW, I'm already working on the stats, under the working name of LAV-75A1 - M-20. On my computer, it's in the "Best LCV that Never Were.doc" file.

We also have BG George Stoneman, commander of Union Cavalry for the Army of the Potomac in the Civil War, and by most accounts quite effective and innovative -- the Stoneman might be a good name.

[Dog 6]

The Stoneman has my vote. :)

[Raellus]

BTW, I'm already working on the stats, under the working name of LAV-75A1 - M-20. On my computer, it's in the "Best LCV that Never Were.doc" file.

Awesome! Will Web's and my origin story be included in the notes? A quick summary: Attacked by the Soviets, China buys the LAV-75 (PLA Type 75- thanks BDD!), finds it's mobility and reliability good but its 75mm main gun only marginally effective against newer Soviet MBTs; requests an upgunned version, receives shipments of 105mm-gunned LAV-75s (PLA Type 75A1) and gives it glowing reports. Based on these reports, the newly commited U.S. army orders the vehicle for its Airborne, Airmobile, Light, Mot. divisions, giving it the designation M-20 Ridgway*.

We also have BG George Stoneman, commander of Union Cavalry for the Army of the Potomac in the Civil War, and by most accounts quite effective and innovative -- the Stoneman might be a good name.

I'm a bit embarrased to admit that I've never heard of Stoneman.

*Since the tank would be intended to serve in the Airborne divisions as well as the light, motorized, and leg infantry divisions, Ridgway wouldn't be too much of a stretch. He's well known and generally has a good reputation among both historians and vets. My dad served in the 1st Cav in the Korean War and he was quite impressed when Ridgway took over. He claims most of the troops he had contact with preferred Ridgway to McArthur.

[pmulcahy11b]

Awesome! Will Web's and my origin story be included in the notes? A quick summary: Attacked by the Soviets, China buys the LAV-75 (PLA Type 75- thanks BDD!), finds it's mobility and reliability good but its 75mm main gun only marginally effective against newer Soviet MBTs; requests an upgunned version, receives shipments of 105mm-gunned LAV-75s (PLA Type 75A1) and gives it glowing reports. Based on these reports, the newly commited U.S. army orders the vehicle for its Airborne, Airmobile, Light, Mot. divisions, giving it the designation M-20 Ridgway*.

I'm doing the stats part -- the back story will be after that. I downloaded this thread to a PDF; what other threads should I download that are relevant to the LAV-75A1?

I'm thinking that using the name "Ridgway" will be OK, since the Army decided to not use it on the M-8 AGS. I'm also thinking that the LAV-75A1 might be able to take lugs for ERA on the hull, or possibly add-on armor packages. What do you think?

[Raellus]

I'm doing the stats part -- the back story will be after that. I downloaded this thread to a PDF; what other threads should I download that are relevant to the LAV-75A1?

I'm thinking that using the name "Ridgway" will be OK, since the Army decided to not use it on the M-8 AGS. I'm also thinking that the LAV-75A1 might be able to take lugs for ERA on the hull, or possibly add-on armor packages. What do you think?

Based on the drawing of the original LAV-75 in the v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide and the photo James1978 posted in this thread, it looks like it would rely mostly on its low profile to survive. It has a very well sloped front hull glacis but lugs for ERA to help protect the crew from top-attack HEAT munitions or top-fired RPGs would probably be a good idea. Also the photo J'78 posted shows side skirts. I guess this is just a long-winded way to answer "yes" to your questions.

As for other threads relating to the LAV-75, I really don't remember any. There may have been some discussion in a thread discussing an updated/modified U.S. Army ORBAT/TOE but I can't remember the thread title.

[Targan]

I'm thinking that using the name "Ridgway" will be OK, since the Army decided to not use it on the M-8 AGS. I'm also thinking that the LAV-75A1 might be able to take lugs for ERA on the hull, or possibly add-on armor packages. What do you think?

I love it. Good work Paul.

I think that we should assume that the M-20 Ridgway would have the same number and types of add-on armor packages as the M-8. Both for simplicity's sake an also because they are similar vehicles and we already know what is possible.

[Dog 6]

ok so we got the LAV-75A1 as the M-20? also any thoughts on Production?

[Legbreaker]

PLA Type 75A1
Is it just my imagination, or have the Chinese usually named equipment after the year?
For example, a Type 89 would have been issued/developed/whatever in 1989.

Stoneman sounds like a great name, but it conjures up visions of something slow, heavy and devastating - more of a heavy, defensive tank than a light, airportable unit designed for light units.

Of course it is just a name....

Regarding the ERA, perhaps the M-20 (I presume that's what we're designating it) was the "base" model but was quickly upgraded to the M-20A1 with lugs, thermal sights, and whatever else we can justify. Models produced later on (if any) may have reverted to the simplier M20 due to lack of necessary electronics, etc.

Production of the LAV-75 would have been reasonable since it was exported to China. However, requipping entire regiments, let alone divisions is not something that would be very easy during a war.

Firstly there's retooling the production lines - not all that difficult since the hull is essentially the same as the LAV-75. Then there's alteration to the supply chain with new parts, possibly ammo (don't know how much 105mm is used after M60s and the like were phased out). Retraining crews is another bottleneck to consider.

Perhaps as little as 20% of the required number of M-20's were produced before the nukes shut everything down. Production slowed by not just the above, but also the competing resource needs of other vehicles, munitions, energy, etc.

[Targan]

Regarding the ERA, perhaps the M-20 (I presume that's what we're designating it) was the "base" model but was quickly upgraded to the M-20A1 with lugs, thermal sights, and whatever else we can justify. Models produced later on (if any) may have reverted to the simplier M20 due to lack of necessary electronics, etc.

Love it.

[pmulcahy11b]

Is it just my imagination, or have the Chinese usually named equipment after the year?
For example, a Type 89 would have been issued/developed/whatever in 1989.

That's a good point -- the Chinese might put into service with its own designation (I would guess Type 96 or 97). They have already done this with the stuff they copied or bought from the Russians and French, and with the Black Hawk helicopters they bought from the US. They don't seem to have a problem with several different vehicles having the same designation, though that may be a translation problem.

[Raellus]

Is it just my imagination, or have the Chinese usually named equipment after the year?
For example, a Type 89 would have been issued/developed/whatever in 1989.

That would make our LAV-75 the Type 96. This could get confusing.

Regarding the ERA, perhaps the M-20 (I presume that's what we're designating it) was the "base" model but was quickly upgraded to the M-20A1 with lugs, thermal sights, and whatever else we can justify. Models produced later on (if any) may have reverted to the simplier M20 due to lack of necessary electronics, etc.

I think that thermal sights are pretty much standard issue on most modern MBTs/AFVs c.'97. I don't think the U.S. Army would order one without it. The wheeled M1128 Stryker AGS uses a very similar (if not identical) unmanned turret and it has thermal sights.

Production of the LAV-75 would have been reasonable since it was exported to China. However, requipping entire regiments, let alone divisions is not something that would be very easy during a war.

Firstly there's retooling the production lines - not all that difficult since the hull is essentially the same as the LAV-75. Then there's alteration to the supply chain with new parts, possibly ammo (don't know how much 105mm is used after M60s and the like were phased out). Retraining crews is another bottleneck to consider.

Perhaps as little as 20% of the required number of M-20's were produced before the nukes shut everything down. Production slowed by not just the above, but also the competing resource needs of other vehicles, munitions, energy, etc.

I don't think early production would be a problem, especially since production lines would have been open since '96. I see the 105mm as being under development (perhaps for a different or completing AGS) already in '96. With the design in place (R&D, prototypes, testing, etc.), starting production wouldn't take too long.

In the v1.0 timeline, the M60 is still in service in infantry divisions, so there would be some 105mm ammo already available just in U.S. army circles. The Leopard I, still in service with Canada (and IIRC, Belgium and Holland) and W. German reserve units, also uses 105mm ammo so presumably there would be ammo producing capacity abroad as well. I would also imagine that setting factories to produce a well established ammo type wouldn't be too difficult or time consuming.

I don't see the Chinese being interested in replacing their 75mm-armed "Type X" LAV-75, just supplementing those that remain. They seem so hard pressed, they'd use anything they could get their hands on. Beggars can't be choosers and all. There's lots of precedence for this. For example, the Sherman served with short 75 & 76mm guns, long 75s, 17-pounders all during WWII. Upgrades happen but that doesn't necessarily mean older versions will be retrofitted.

Once the U.S. enters the war, all LAV-75A1 production would be diverted from any existing Chinese orders/consignments to meet U.S. army requirements. I agree that the TDM would halt production well short of what Army was hoping to acquire. 20% sounds pretty reasonable. Only a few U.S. divisions in v1.0 canon are listed as using the LAV-75.

[Webstral]

20% is a number out of a hat. It may be reasonable, or it may not be reasonable. 20% of how many? What is the pre-war production rate? How do events in China affect the production rate? How many are produced after 12/96? These are all a bit unknown to settle on any figure without some thought, be that number 0%, 100%, or something in between.

We don't know how many divisions with LAV-75s in their TO&E as given in the US Army Vehicle Guide (v1) have a full complement of them in 1995. LAV-75 already in service can be upgraded to the 105mm standard without being fabricated from scratch. I don't know how long upgrading a single LAV-75 would take from the moment a particular vehicle was tapped for movement to the refit location to the time the vehicle returned. A more useful timeframe might be how long it takes from the moment an LAV-75 rolls in the door at its refit location to the time it rolls back out with a 105mm gun. At any rate, do we really have enough information to say 20%--or any other figure--with any authority?

I will say one thing in favor of the 20% assumption. It's not overly optimistic. Optimism kills.

Webstral

[Legbreaker]

I picked 20% as a percentage of what the army actually wanted. What the numbers are is something that will require more research and thought.
I see only say 1 in 4-5 units eligible to receive the vehicle actually getting them. If upgrading began later in the war, I'd think very few of the 75mm guns would have been replaced - shipping them back to the production facilities, regunning them and shipping them across to Europe again, all during a period of a shortage of armour, any armour, seems a bit much too swallow. Any "field modifications" would be few and far between due to the difficulty of essentially rebuilding the top half of the vehicle in a combat zone without adequate machinery, also contributing to the low numbers of 105mm armed machines.

[ChalkLine]

Has anyone got any stats on the XM800T?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3200/3293788130_7f03f82284.jpg

[Raellus]

I see only say 1 in 4-5 units eligible to receive the vehicle actually getting them. If upgrading began later in the war, I'd think very few of the 75mm guns would have been replaced - shipping them back to the production facilities, regunning them and shipping them across to Europe again, all during a period of a shortage of armour, any armour, seems a bit much too swallow. Any "field modifications" would be few and far between due to the difficulty of essentially rebuilding the top half of the vehicle in a combat zone without adequate machinery, also contributing to the low numbers of 105mm armed machines.

This is where a little tweaking of v1.0 canon is required. In our backstory for the LAV-75A1/M20 Ridgway, the decision to upgrade the existing LAV-75 fleet is taken before the U.S. enters the war. At that time, the LAV-75 was still a very new system. Furthermore, most of the units equipped with the LAV-75 hadn't been deployed yet. Refitting the existing American LAV-75 fleet would indeed delay its combat deployment, but this would be seen as an acceptable trade-off to deploying a weapon system that had already proven (in China) to have inadequate performance against most Soviet armor. Many of the M20s making their way overseas would be new production vehicles, anyway.

There's an intriguing bit of canon that could justify our little project. On page 40 of the v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide, in the plate description for a 9th Infantry Division (Motorized) LAV-75, it states,

"As it happened, the LAV-75 proved admirably suited to the 3-73rd's [of the 82nd Airborne Division] mission and, with a few alterations, was adopted [emphasis added]."

I'd like to propose that those "few alterations" included a new, 105mm-armed turret, side skirts, and lugs for ERA.

Egads, Chalkline! What is that? It's pretty neat looking. I'd guess it's some sort of cavalry scout vehicle.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Egads, Chalkline! What is that? It's pretty neat looking. I'd guess it's some sort of cavalry scout vehicle.

XM800 Project to provide an Armored Reconnaissance Scout Vehicle - XM800W (Wheeled) from Lockheed & XM800T (Tracked) from FMC (makers of the M113)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM800_Armored_Reconnaissance_Scout_Vehicle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qitsOkEsMlU video of XM800T
http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_army_rolling_along/sets/72157614123484556/ more pics of XM800T
http://www.warwheels.net/X800WarsvINDEX.html XM800W

It looks as though Lockheed used what it learnt from the the XM800W to make the XM808 Twister
http://www.warwheels.net/XM808TwisterINDEX.html

[Legbreaker]

Looks a bit like a Sheridan body and a LAV-25 turrent.

[pmulcahy11b]

I've decided to do the LAV-75 and its variants as a combined entry. This means that the LAV-75A1 got bumped to LAV-75A4 (so far -- I'm doing research on the fly).

[ChalkLine]

Egads, Chalkline! What is that? It's pretty neat looking. I'd guess it's some sort of cavalry scout vehicle.

It was supposed to be the companion vehicle to the M2/3 precursor. It went a lot further than the LAV-75 in design, and it's one of my personal favourites.

[chico20854]

I picked 20% as a percentage of what the army actually wanted. What the numbers are is something that will require more research and thought.
I see only say 1 in 4-5 units eligible to receive the vehicle actually getting them. If upgrading began later in the war, I'd think very few of the 75mm guns would have been replaced - shipping them back to the production facilities, regunning them and shipping them across to Europe again, all during a period of a shortage of armour, any armour, seems a bit much too swallow. Any "field modifications" would be few and far between due to the difficulty of essentially rebuilding the top half of the vehicle in a combat zone without adequate machinery, also contributing to the low numbers of 105mm armed machines.

I stand by the statement. Any work which purports to be canonical should not ignore in part or in full anything already written and published.

Individual players and GMs have differing takes on the world, but again, that's their interpretation, their creation. It is not canon and cannot be passed off as the "real" Twilight:2000 world.

Those views, like T2K itself has become, are an alternate reality. In many ways they are similar, but change too much and it completely changes the balance of power. Change too much and it's no longer T2K but something entirely different.

!

[kato13]

!

I noticed the inconsistency as well.

[Legbreaker]

I'm not purporting the "M-20" is canonical at all. The LAV-75 on the other hand, is, at least in regard to V1.0.

As has been said by many, upgunning it to a 105mm is both possible, and believable if the arguement that it was supplied to China is supported.

Note also that a single system like this with a limited production run is not likely to change the course of the Twilight timeline very much at all, unlike wholesale rewriting of divisional structures, unit histories, etc. It's these broad brush changes in the name of Canon that I'm opposed to, not changes individuals wish to apply to their own game world.

In other words, the M20 can be taken or left by everyone, just like the DC group work.

[pmulcahy11b]

I'm not purporting the "M-20" is canonical at all. The LAV-75 on the other hand, is, at least in regard to V1.0.

We went way beyond canon a long time ago; we are basically the only ones still developing T2K (not T2K13, of course).

[Kellhound]

Agreed.

Canon is the base for YOUR version of T2K, after all. :cool:

[Mohoender]

Agreed.

Canon is the base for YOUR version of T2K, after all. :cool:

It's the base for all of us.:)

[Jason Weiser]

In other words, the M20 can be taken or left by everyone, just like the DC group work.

That's very interesting coming from you Leg. You might want to reconsider your vehemence towards certain members in light of this statement by yourself.

[pmulcahy11b]

I haven't statted out the A4 completely yet (it'll will probably be finished by the end of the day), but my offhand guess is that the A4 will end up 1-2 tons heavier than a LAV-75. The original LAV-75 used a 650hp gas turbine; I replaced it on the A4 with a 750hp diesel (I put "a modified form of a Caterpillar heavy tractor engine" and gave the engine a name that sounds like a Caterpillar engine, but is not actually used by the company.

OK, never mind. The LAV-75A4, with it's more advanced armor and smaller engine, actually comes out 0.3 tons lighter than a LAV-75. Should I keep the more powerful engine anyway? It actually coming out to about $70,000 less than the LAV-75.

The LAV-75A4 is part of a "super-entry" that includes the other LAV-75 variants as well.

I also wondered about the ammunition load; it works out to 36 105mm rounds, with the autoloader only being able to hold 20. If you want, we can make the A4 a little bigger (I was thinking 200mm wider, 100mm higher, and about a meter longer). This would allow for larger fuel tanks and more ammunition stowage. (The fuel tanks are already a bit larger, since the Caterpillar engine I used as a base is smaller than the gas turbine engine.)

[Legbreaker]

What date are you looking at the A4 variant being produced?

20 ready rounds seems quiet good for what is essentially a light combat vehicle. Late in the war, a larger capacity in both fuel and ready rounds is likely to be less important although it would certainly make sense if several years of peace were available to further develop the vehicle.

[Raellus]

I've read that the M1128 MGS carries 18 rounds of ammo for its 105mm gun. That really doesn't seem like a whole lot. I'm pretty sure on that episode of Lock 'n Load that I mentioned, they said 8 rounds in a magazine between the commander and gunner but I may have misheard. I'm sure all concerned would prefer to carry more rather than less ammo and would do what they could to make this happen.

[Legbreaker]

Consider that it usually only takes one hit from a large cal cannon to destroy the target. Consider also that 20 shots is likely to last a long time on the modern battlefield since it first shot hits are now the norm.
Just a few decades ago, the "bracketing" method developed by the British in WWII was really the only way to go - you fired long, you fired short, then once you'd assessed the range correctly, fired your kill shot (hopefully).
Ranging machineguns first introduced in the Centurion (I think) made the job a bit quicker and easier, followed by coincidence rangefinders, etc, etc....

[ChalkLine]

Still, 18 shots is not a lot on a wheeled gun system that is intended to move fast and cover a lot of ground. If it was a tracked infantry support weapon I could see it being useful as they tend to be placed on haulers for road marches.

Of course, who in T2K has ever fired off 18 main gun rounds? :)

[Legbreaker]

For that matter, who in T2K has ever fired off 18 single rifle shots in the one engagement?
Not many is my guess...

[Raellus]

True, fellows, but consider the matter of resupply. 18 rounds in one engagement is indeed a veritable cornucopia of heavy-duty firepower. 18 rounds stretched over 3-4 engagements, though... not so much.

When operating far out in front of logistical trail, cut off by an enemy envelopment, or, say, after the TDM takes multiple links out of the supply chain, 18 rounds is going to go pretty fast. I bet the vehicle crews and the unit commanders are going to be wishing for more ammo carrying capacity in their light tanks/AGSs.

[ChalkLine]

True, fellows, but consider the matter of resupply. 18 rounds in one engagement is indeed a veritable cornucopia of heavy-duty firepower. 18 rounds stretched over 3-4 engagements, though... not so much.

When operating far out in front of logistical trail, cut off by an enemy envelopment, or, say, after the TDM takes multiple links out of the supply chain, 18 rounds is going to go pretty fast. I bet the vehicle crews and the unit commanders are going to be wishing for more ammo carrying capacity in their light tanks/AGSs.

No worries mate, we'll store the extra ammo on the outside of the hull :D

[Legbreaker]

I bet the vehicle crews and the unit commanders are going to be wishing for more ammo carrying capacity in their light tanks/AGSs.
Very true. Shame the majority of vehicles are designed in peace time with the assumption that there actually will be a supply chain...

:S

[pmulcahy11b]

What date are you looking at the A4 variant being produced?

20 ready rounds seems quiet good for what is essentially a light combat vehicle. Late in the war, a larger capacity in both fuel and ready rounds is likely to be less important although it would certainly make sense if several years of peace were available to further develop the vehicle.

IIRC, it comes in sometime in mid-1996 (Word 2002 just takes way too long to open; excuse me for not looking right now, but there's no "looking real quick" with Word 2002 on Vista). The 20 rounds are in the autoloader; another 16 would be beside the driver and just behind the turret basket.

With the 750hp engine, the LAV-75A4 turns out to be practically an armored equivalent of a race car, without a giant fuel consumption, and even with the heaviest applique armor package. The armor is nothing to write home about, but I "replaced" some of the aluminum armor with aluminum/ceramic sandwich armor. This considerably lightened the vehicle while slightly improving the protection level.

[Targan]

I haven't statted out the A4 completely yet (it'll will probably be finished by the end of the day), but my offhand guess is that the A4 will end up 1-2 tons heavier than a LAV-75. The original LAV-75 used a 650hp gas turbine; I replaced it on the A4 with a 750hp diesel (I put "a modified form of a Caterpillar heavy tractor engine" and gave the engine a name that sounds like a Caterpillar engine, but is not actually used by the company.

In my post which resurrected this thread a few weeks ago I mentioned the engine used in the M8 which is a 6 cylinder diesel closely related to the HEMTT's engine. I'd go with that engine or something very similar.

Ah what the heck, I'll just quote myself from that post:

I have discovered during some reading that this is only partially correct. The suspension and track system contains elements from the M113A3, the M2 Bradley and some M8-specific components. The hydromechanical transmission is from the Bradley but the engine, the 6V-92TA 6 cylinder Detroit Diesel, has 65% parts commonality with the 8V-92TA 8 cylinder Detroit Diesel used in the M977 HEMTT truck. The Cadillac Gage Stingray and Stingray II light tanks actually use the M977 HEMTT's 8V-92TA engine as well.

[pmulcahy11b]

In my post which resurrected this thread a few weeks ago I mentioned the engine used in the M8 which is a 6 cylinder diesel closely related to the HEMTT's engine. I'd go with that engine or something very similar.

I thought of doing that, but that engine is physically a bit too large. The 850-hp Caterpillar diesel engine I based the fictional engine on is physically a little smaller than the gas turbine that is in the LAV-75.

[Legbreaker]

What role is the M-20/LAV75/etc supposed to have? How the vehicle is intended to be used (pre nukes, not post) is going to have a great impact on armour protection, speed, etc.

For example, a scout vehicle is likely to be lightly armed and armoured, fast moving and probably amphibious. If the M-20 was intended for light units (airborne, leg mobile, etc) to have some basic armoured support, then speed isn't likely to be of high importance.

I like Targan's idea of using the 6V-92TA 6 cylinder Detroit Diesel or perhaps the 8V-92TA 8 cylinder Detroit Diesel. Makes sense to use something already in production (would certainly help the supply chain), but availability could be a problem with these other vehicles also needing them.

Obviously size of the engine bay as Paul mentions is a limiting factor also unless we're looking at rebuilding the hull as well (not something likely to be done after the nukes).

[Webstral]

Great work, Paul. Thanks for putting in the time and effort. Without refuting any of the observations so far, I’d like to add a couple of notes.

[Paul, you mention a 36-round capacity for the design but a 20-round capacity for the autoloader. Does this mean that the autoloader carries 20 rounds while 16 more rounds are carried in elsewhere in the hull, or is 20 the maximum number of rounds the design can carry because of the autoloader?] Paul, you answered this while I was working. Thanks.

What is the impact of the (possible) new hull on the manufacturing process? What is the impact of the new hull, if any, on the other components? Commonality is a virtue, as is making the most of the existing assembly lines. I have no idea how difficult it would be to resize the hull, but I think the decision-makers at the top would make this an important consideration.

I agree with others that the crews are going to want as much ammunition as possible. How great a weight the Pentagon attaches to crew preferences is an open question. An encouraging point, however, is that with increasing use of computers in designing AFV, the engineers have been increasingly inclined to bring in crews to provide feedback even before the first models are constructed. If the A4 is being designed in late 1995, crew feedback may play a major role. By this point, it shouldn’t be too hard to round up a few disabled Chinese veterans and some American crews.

As for the intended role of the Ridgway (I’m throwing my voice behind this moniker), the US Army Vehicle Guide (v1) tells us that the original LAV-75 was organized into light tank/assault gun battalions. Light tanks might be used for reconnaissance, but assault guns are definitely not intended for that role. Traditionally, light tanks play a tank destroyer role (albeit a light tank destroyer in most cases) and a fire support role. By definition, assault guns are infantry support weapons first, anti-tank weapons second. Obviously, troops will use the Ridgway in whatever capacity it can serve. However, it’s the big brass who set specifications and create TO&E. We should look as well at the formations that have been issued the LAV-75 in the TO&E: five light divisions (one battalion each), an airborne division (one battalion), and a motorized division (two battalions). If we see the light divisions operating in roughly parallel modes to the heavier infantry divisions of the National Guard (42nd and 43rd being good examples), then we might see the LAV-75 filling the role of the divisional tank battalion for a motorized (not mechanized) infantry division. Yes, I know this is a bit of a stretch. Still, the basic idea is that a tank battalion offers the division commander a heavy-hitting force in case he finds himself up against a mechanized opponent or just needs some muscle to tip the scales. Pack this thinking aboard aircraft, and you have a possible interpretation for the LAV-75 role.

Although speed is not typically a value associated with assault guns or tank destroyers, we might see the Pentagon wanting an agile light tank in that single divisional tank battalion. A fast AFV with the firepower to tackle everything but the very best Bloc tanks can be moved from place to place on the battlefield very rapidly. Alternatively, a fast assault gun quickly can be moved from place to place across a two-brigade light infantry advance.

Therefore, it seems to me that the Pentagon would prioritize agility over increasing the 36-round capacity. If the Ridgway is operating in close coordination with the infantry, resupply will be a lot easier than if the Ridgway is supposed to be out in front.

9th ID is a bit of a mystery to me. It may be that there are two battalions so that one can remain under divisional control, while another is split up among the brigades. Or there might be another reason entirely. I’m at a bit of a loss, so I’ll stick to what I understand and opine that the A4 is supposed to act like an air-transportable tank within the light divisions.

Of course, the Pentagon is going to be influenced by how things have been working out for the Chinese. If the motorized/light infantry divisions with a single tank battalion are seen to have been cost-effective in the Far East, the whole concept will be much more attractive than if the Chinese equivalent of the 25th ID has been used in a fashion that is doctrinally similar but has been waxed anyway. Lots of variables here. Mind, it’s probably not possible to do anything about the TO&E of US Army formations in the time allotted anyway. The Pentagon isn’t likely to want to be caught flat-footed by an unexpected escalation of the Sino-Soviet War; a significant reorganization might not be in the cards.

Webstral

[Legbreaker]

Mind, it’s probably not possible to do anything about the TO&E of US Army formations in the time allotted anyway. The Pentagon isn’t likely to want to be caught flat-footed by an unexpected escalation of the Sino-Soviet War; a significant reorganization might not be in the cards.

My thoughts exactly. It's doubtful there would have been enough time to reorganise and retrain whole units so it's more likely older vehicles would simply have been replaced on a 1 for 1 basis as the new M-20/LAV became available. Crews would probably be drawn from reinforcements and draftees rather than veterans. As it's highly unlikely that the full complement of M-20s would have been supplied, it's probable than an armoured battalion would still consist of say 3 companies of the older vehicle and just one of the M-20.

It's also possible that the M-20 was only issued to one or two divisions, with other divisions having to wait their turn to receive them (and due to the nukes, never seeing them).

For ease of supply and maintence I'm for the second choice. To allow for them to be encountered pretty much anywhere, the first choice is probably the better.

[Raellus]

As for role, once again I'd like to bring up the Sturmgeschutz III comparisons. Originally designed solely as an infantry support assault gun, the Ausf F version, with a long-barreled 75mm gun, was soon found to be a valuable AT asset and increasingly served in that role as German MBT production lagged behind that of the Soviets. By the later stages of the war, they were pretty much being used as de facto tanks.

I see the LAV-75/M20 intended to fill a similar role to the Stug III Ausf F: infantry support, SP AT gun, and, in a pinch, MBT.
From what the V1.0 U.S. Vehi Guide mentions about it, it sounds like the LAV-75 was originally designed primarily to provide direct fire support to light and airborne/airmobile infantry units and provide them with some organic mobile AT capabilities above and beyond their usual Jeep and Humvee-mounted TOWs and man-portable ATGMs.

As for ammo carrying capacity, I would think that a vehicle designed to serve behind enemy lines (82nd Airborne) or with light or motorized infantry divisions- all of which don't have quite as extensive a dedicated logistical infrastructure as a Mech or Armored division- would need to carry plenty of its own ammo into battle or risk running out at a very bad time. 36 sure is a lot better than 18. By my calculations, it's TWICE the ammo!;)

[Raellus]

Once again, in order to reconcile our M20 Ridgway with established T2K canon...

There's an intriguing bit of canon that could justify our little project. On page 40 of the v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide, in the plate description for a 9th Infantry Division (Motorized) LAV-75, it states,

"As it happened, the LAV-75 proved admirably suited to the 3-73rd's [of the 82nd Airborne Division] mission and, with a few alterations, was adopted [emphasis added]."

I'd like to propose that those "few alterations" included a new, 105mm-armed turret, side skirts, and lugs for ERA.

Said "alterations" would then have been retrofitted to existing vehicles and incorporated into new production.

[Legbreaker]

It appears to me (and I could well be missing something obvious) that the LAV-75 (and M8) were passed over in favour of M1s, M2s and M3s as well as a number of other less widespread vehicles. Therefore, it's hard to say definatively which units may have received the LAV-75/M20.

Of course we do have the Sheridan as a precursor, but as it was phased out a little too early in our presumed timeline, and was only assigned to the 82nd Div anyway (I think)....

Perhaps new subunits (company size - battalion seems a bit big for my liking) are needed to fit the M20 (or M8) into the unit structure? :S

Ideas anyone?

[ChalkLine]

With a halt to MBT construction, it's likely that other divisions would have heavy and light armour units as more divisions were raised.

[Jason Weiser]

Here's another item to support Rae's hypothesis. The M20 is going to be going into engagements, even with the 105mm, where it will be routinely outgunned by enemy MBTs..yeah, I know, the M20 has no business taking on MBT as a matter of course, but like the TDs of WWII, since when does one always have a choice in this matter? Frontally speaking, a 105mm is going to knacker anything less than a T-72, anything more modern than that, that's where it might get a bit squirrly. So, a second or third round from said 105mm as a quick followup against Mr. T-80 is a damn good thing IMHO.

[pmulcahy11b]

For better or worse, here it is:

http://www.pmulcahy.com/best_stuff_that_never_was/best_lcv_that_never_were.htm

I await your comments and corrections.

[Targan]

Excellent Paul. Great work.

[Legbreaker]

Not bad at all.

Do the early models really warrant +4 fire control though? Early to mid 80's US MBTs appear to have only had around a +3...

Another point worth considering is would the US really allow high tech fire control systems to be included in the vehicles sent to china and possibly captured by the Soviets?

[pmulcahy11b]

Not bad at all.

Do the early models really warrant +4 fire control though? Early to mid 80's US MBTs appear to have only had around a +3...

Another point worth considering is would the US really allow high tech fire control systems to be included in the vehicles sent to china and possibly captured by the Soviets?

Well...

1) The fire control system of the LAV-75 was well ahead of its time, with a very advanced ballistic computer that was loaded with software to match, a pulse coded-beam laser rangefinder, sensors to take into account weather, temperature, and barrel droop and a bunch of little sensors that were tied together by the computer to give the gunner an excellent chance of a first-shot hit. This is a big part of what scuttled export sales.

2) Good point...and I don't have an answer for that one. Someone help me out here!

[Dog 6]

WOW


Good job Paul! :D

[Raellus]

Thanks, Paul! Outstanding work. :cool:

I'd really love to run a little battle sim pitting a handful of M20 Ridgways against a Soviet or PACT armored division c. 2000 (T2K) and see if I could stop them. I know that a lot of folks here don't like the Eastern European Sourcebook but the Czech Mate scenario, replacing the M8 AGSs with M20s would make a good foundation for such a war game.

[Webstral]

Paul,

Great work! Wonderful attention to detail.

Webstral

[Targan]

It has occurred to me that another possibility for improving the anti-armour capability of the LAV-75 could be to bolt one or two ATGM launchers to the outside of the turrets. Thats what they did with the cavalry versions of the Bradley didn't they?

I'm not suggesting that we change what has already been decided among us for the LAV-75A4/M-20 Ridgway (because I think it rocks), but might the Chinese and or US Army have a few ATGM-armed variants floating around? I don't know how hard it would be to fit the electronics required (that might stop my idea cold for all I know) but it seems to me to certainly be easier to bolt on a (manually reloaded) ATGM launcher than to replace the entire turret, auto loader and magazine with a 105mm version.

[ChalkLine]

It has occurred to me that another possibility for improving the anti-armour capability of the LAV-75 could be to bolt one or two ATGM launchers to the outside of the turrets. Thats what they did with the cavalry versions of the Bradley didn't they?

I'm not suggesting that we change what has already been decided among us for the LAV-75A4/M-20 Ridgway (because I think it rocks), but might the Chinese and or US Army have a few ATGM-armed variants floating around? I don't know how hard it would be to fit the electronics required (that might stop my idea cold for all I know) but it seems to me to certainly be easier to bolt on a (manually reloaded) ATGM launcher than to replace the entire turret, auto loader and magazine with a 105mm version.

It kinda depends if the vehicles are shipped before or after the missile drought starts to take hold. I can see the first series having a Javelin on it, as it's a fire-and-forget missile that fits in well with its mobile role, but after that the launcher may be deleted due to a lack of munitions.

[Targan]

It kinda depends if the vehicles are shipped before or after the missile drought starts to take hold. I can see the first series having a Javelin on it, as it's a fire-and-forget missile that fits in well with its mobile role, but after that the launcher may be deleted due to a lack of munitions.

I totally agree with that. I'm not suggesting that the missile armed variety would have been produced in large numbers. I'm thinking that they would have trialled a few different options including the 105mm armed conversion and an ATGM armed conversion.

It may have even been that early on the ATGM armed variant might have been more appealing (because on the face of it it would be an easier conversion) but the 105mm version ended up being the preferred option because of the missile drought.

There may have even been several different ATGM armed variants, a Javelin-armed one for the US Army and maybe several different options for the PLA (TOW II, Javelin, some European or even Soviet-derived ATGM packages).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I'm personally inclined to think that any ATGM version for the PLA would be wired for Sino/Soviet missiles or older Western systems, for a few reasons (or more simply, fitted with a hardpoint to allow a Chinese launcher to be mounted so that it can be fired by a crew member from the hatch - much in the same manner as the Milan on the Marder).

1. While certainly wanting to help the Chinese reduce Soviet numbers, would the USA really want to give them current (for the timeline) ATGM technology? Especially when the Chinese already have their own versions of Soviet ATGMs in service.
2. If using a Western ATGW why not supply an older (obsolete?) system, this would provide a way of disposing of older generation missiles that are still "reasonably" capable of tackling Soviet armour without sacrificing newer technology (that the Soviets may capture in the field and reverse engineer, think of Iran's F-4, F-5 and F-14 aircraft after the fall of the shah).
3. The West already has an idea of how Soviet and NATO ATGWs work against the others armoured vehicles because the Arabs and Israelis have provided plenty of examples (and to a much lesser extent, so have other wars in Africa) so they wouldn't need the Chinese operational experience so much.
4. If the Soviets are causing trouble, wouldn't you want to keep all your most capable gear ready for your own use, just in case they start to wander into your neighbourhood?

Just some thoughts...

[ChalkLine]

. . . snip good points . . . just some thoughts...

Once again, it sort of comes down to when the LAVs go to China.
I think canonically 'Tank Breakers' go to China in the early phase. Of course nowadays we know that the Chinese are the world's worst technology thieves, and giving them a GPS isn't a good idea. Giving them a Javelin just means your enemies, the PRC aren't shy about selling your technology to your enemies, are going to be zapping you with cut price versions of your own weapons.

During the next phase of the war, when there's a general engagement with the USSR, the seized stocks of weaponry could be mounted on export vehicles.

After that phase, well you won't be giving weapons to anyone. Every vehicle, every captured weapon, all will be needed for your own people.

[cavtroop]

It has occurred to me that another possibility for improving the anti-armour capability of the LAV-75 could be to bolt one or two ATGM launchers to the outside of the turrets. Thats what they did with the cavalry versions of the Bradley didn't they?



No, the M3 has the same launcher as the M2. Only difference, is the M3 carries more missiles in storage (no need for dismounts, so more room for ammo).

[Raellus]

It makes sense for the U.S. to send its surplus Dragons and early-model TOWs before sending Tank-Breaker (Javelin) but I can see the U.S. sending the the latest ATGMs as China appears to be at the breaking point- "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that.

There is precedent both ways- holding back and providing the top of the line. In a time of emergent world war, I can see the U.S. sending current gen gear- maybe not big ticket items like the M1A1 or top-of-the-line F-16 models (hence the LAV-75 shipments). But an ATGM that could thin out the most modern Soviet MBTs? Hells yeah!

In WWII, Lend Lease saw the Soviets (never on very good terms with the Western Allies) receiving both crap M3 Lees (the Russians called them "Graves for Seven Brothers") and Valentines and the same current M4 Shermans being used by U.S. and Commonwealth armored divisions c. '43-'44.

[Webstral]

It makes sense for the U.S. to send its surplus Dragons and early-model TOWs before sending Tank-Breaker (Javelin) but I can see the U.S. sending the the latest ATGMs as China appears to be at the breaking point- "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that.



The v1 chronology mentions the US sending the Assault Breaker system, which would have been state-of-the-art, even in a 1995 that saw continued high levels of defense spending from 1986 onward.

Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

The v1 chronology mentions the US sending the Assault Breaker system, which would have been state-of-the-art, even in a 1995 that saw continued high levels of defense spending from 1986 onward.

Webstral

To give a better idea of how state-of-the-art and devastating the Assault Breaker is, the Assault Breaker program eventually produced the CBU-97 SFW bomb.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/cbu-97.htm

It's probably the most devastating antiarmor weapon ever devised. You drop a CBU-97 over an armored brigade, and it pretty much ceases to exist.

This is OT for this thread, but this is one of those weapon programs that would make the Soviets say, "Oh shit! We better invade now before they come up with something worse!"

[Targan]

So Paul, what do you say to say to one or more variants of the LAV-75 that tried using an ATGM launcher or two to increase the vehicle's anti armor capability instead of the 105mm conversion. I'm not saying they would have ever been as numerous as the M20 Ridgway/LAV-75 105mm conversions (I love your work on those) but there might be a few ATGM-equipped LAV-75s in the US or China (or both) that were being used for evaluation before the "missile drought" made the 105mm conversion the better option.

Would you be prepared to consider doing a write up for a couple of LAV-75 ATGM conversions Paul?

[Legbreaker]

China has some very good missiles at their disposal - HJ-8, HJ-9, HJ-13 and HJ-73/AT-3. I'd be more inclined to see the original LAV-75 fitted out with launchers for them, or simply replace damaged turrents with missile, rocket and recoilless weapons.

[pmulcahy11b]

So Paul, what do you say to say to one or more variants of the LAV-75 that tried using an ATGM launcher or two to increase the vehicle's anti armor capability instead of the 105mm conversion. I'm not saying they would have ever been as numerous as the M20 Ridgway/LAV-75 105mm conversions (I love your work on those) but there might be a few ATGM-equipped LAV-75s in the US or China (or both) that were being used for evaluation before the "missile drought" made the 105mm conversion the better option.

Would you be prepared to consider doing a write up for a couple of LAV-75 ATGM conversions Paul?

I can do that; what missiles do you want me to use?

The Dragon can actually be easily added to existing LAV-75s if they have a commander's machinegun. There is a rare, little-known mount replacement that allows a Dragon to be mounted in place of a commander's machinegun on tanks that have a US-compatible commander's machinegun mount. I've never seen one in the flesh, but we were told about it during gunnery class and it's in the TMs.

Scratch that; the Stryker MGS turret we used on the LAV-75A4 will not allow the use of that Dragon mount; due to the installation (it is actually about 3 feet ahead of the commander in a mount integral to the turret).

[Legbreaker]

there is a rare, little-known mount replacement that allows a dragon to be mounted in place of a commander's machinegun on tanks that have a us-compatible commander's machinegun mount. I've never seen one in the flesh, but we were told about it during gunnery class and it's in the tms.
This of any assistance?
774775

776

777

Note that the M2HB is at right angles to the Dragon. It obviously does not require replacing the machinegun....

[pmulcahy11b]

This of any assistance?
774775

776

777

Note that the M2HB is at right angles to the Dragon. It obviously does not require replacing the machinegun....

Right out of the manual!

[pmulcahy11b]

As for missile armament for the LAV-75A4 (or I guess A5) -- I've been doing some thinking. Canon does say that the US sent Tank Breakers to China; that makes Javelins a possibility. A less sensitive alternative would be the TOW II system. And since it is vehicle-mounted, a heavier missile like the Hellfire is (to me) the best choice.

Or we could go nuts and arm it with the Hypervelocity Missile.

[Raellus]

TOW or Hellfire would probably require some sort of box mounting but could be fired from the safety of inside the vehicle. This would add to the weight, bulk, and maybe profile of the LAV.

The other option is an external Dragon or Tank Breaker mount for the commander like the one posted by Leg. I like this a bit better. The gun/missile combo makes the M20 particularly versatile. Add a 7.62mm coax and an M2 for the commander and the Ridgway will be able to take on almost all comers.

I'm not sure but I think Targan may be thinking about a version armed only with ATGMs, kind of the like the M901/M113 ITV. If this is the case, bigger is better and I would go with Hellfire. The v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide presents a similar concept with Hellfires mounted on a Bradley chasis (the M920 Hellfire AT vehicle on p.33). The Hellfires are exposed, though, and I would guess that would eventually lead to system degredation due to exposure to the elements and such.

On the other hand, such a vehicle wished-for by Targan already exists in canon. On page 32, there's the M917 ADATS vehicle based on the LAV-75 chasis. To my understanding, the ADATS system was intended for both SAM and AT capabilities. IIRC the ADATS system was never adopted but I kind of like it in the T2K universe. I say go with that. Targan, what do you think?

[Targan]

I'm not sure but I think Targan may be thinking about a version armed only with ATGMs, kind of the like the M901/M113 ITV. If this is the case, bigger is better and I would go with Hellfire. The v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide presents a similar concept with Hellfires mounted on a Bradley chasis (the M920 Hellfire AT vehicle on p.33). The Hellfires are exposed, though, and I would guess that would eventually lead to system degredation due to exposure to the elements and such.

On the other hand, such a vehicle wished-for by Targan already exists in canon. On page 32, there's the M917 ADATS vehicle based on the LAV-75 chasis. To my understanding, the ADATS system was intended for both SAM and AT capabilities. IIRC the ADATS system was never adopted but I kind of like it in the T2K universe. I say go with that. Targan, what do you think?

I'm aware of the ADATS vehicle (one turned up in my campaign, ex-Canadian vehicle somehow obtained by the 78th ID in New Jersey). That's not what I was suggesting. I had in mind original pattern LAV-75 variants with some sort of ATGM launcher added to it, either of the type that is bolted on and fired electronically from within the vehicle or of the type that is fired from a hatch.

We've already talked about how early in the Sino-Soviet War the experience of the Chinese original pattern LAV-75s in combat led to the US creating the M-20 Ridgway with a 105mm turret because the basic LAV-75 was found lacking when in combat with Soviet MBTs right? Well what I'm suggesting is that they might well have trialled a number of different variant options, not only the LAV-75A4/M20 Ridgway with the 105mm gun, but also basic LAV-75s with box-type ATGM launchers, LAV-75s with hatch fired ATGM launchers, heck maybe even a few US-only M20 Ridgway evaluation vehicles with ATGMs added too.

[Raellus]

I'm aware of the ADATS vehicle (one turned up in my campaign, ex-Canadian vehicle somehow obtained by the 78th ID in New Jersey). That's not what I was suggesting. I had in mind original pattern LAV-75 variants with some sort of ATGM launcher added to it, either of the type that is bolted on and fired electronically from within the vehicle or of the type that is fired from a hatch.


Sorry. I misunderstood. Not trying to read into what you wrote.

I think some sort of universal hatch mount along the lines of what Leg posted that could accept either the Dragon, the Tank-breaker/Javelin, or similar model ATGM (the Soviets made one- I can't recall its exact NATO designation right now- that was configured almost exactly like the Dragon) already used by the PRC would be the simplest option. Maybe the initial batches of LAV-75 were sent with Dragons, then later, when things started going really badly for the Chinese, the U.S. acquiesced and sent the newer Tank-breaker/Javelin either before or with (or both) the upgunned LAV-75A4. The ADATS-armed LAV-75 would fill the requirement for an exclusively missile armed version.

[ChalkLine]

Really, if you send LAV-75s with ATGMs you don't need to upgun the ARES turret.

(By the way, the ARES turret is really modular. There's lot of images of it mounted on Stingray, M551 and even M8 chassis)

Here's a site with many images (http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/tankita2.html), although it's a wacky group associated with the infamous 'M113 'Gavin' Sparks'

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Targan, did you mean the M113 based ADATS? Because I think Raellus was refering to the 1st edition US vehicle guide where it has the LAV75 based version. GDW made stats for two fictional versions, anti-tank and anti-aircraft gun.
The pics are from the 1st ed US vehicle guide

[Targan]

I think some sort of universal hatch mount along the lines of what Leg posted that could accept either the Dragon, the Tank-breaker/Javelin, or similar model ATGM (the Soviets made one- I can't recall its exact NATO designation right now- that was configured almost exactly like the Dragon) already used by the PRC would be the simplest option. Maybe the initial batches of LAV-75 were sent with Dragons, then later, when things started going really badly for the Chinese, the U.S. acquiesced and sent the newer Tank-breaker/Javelin either before or with (or both) the upgunned LAV-75A4. The ADATS-armed LAV-75 would fill the requirement for an exclusively missile armed version.

I agree with all that.

Really, if you send LAV-75s with ATGMs you don't need to upgun the ARES turret.

True. That is sort of what started me down this line of thinking. If the reason for creating variants of the original LAV-75 was that the 75mm gun wasn't killing Soviet MBTs it stands to reason that fitting an ATGM to the LAV-75 might be the simplest way to give it tank-killing capabilities. But when the missile drought kicks in the 105mm variant would become the better option. That still means that at some point there probably would have been a number of variants being trialled if not fielded, including both the 105mm variant and also one or even several LAV-75+ATGM launcher variants. See where I'm coming from? I'm not saying anything we've come up with so far is deficient.

Targan, did you mean the M113 based ADATS? Because I think Raellus was refering to the 1st edition US vehicle guide where it has the LAV75 based version. GDW made stats for two fictional versions, anti-tank and anti-aircraft gun.

Actually you are correct, the one that turned up in my campaign was the M-113 version (that was actually used by the Canadian Army IRL, although I've never checked to see if it is still in service with them). But I was aware of the fictional ADATS vehicle depicted in the US Vehicles Guide. In my campaign that LAV-75 chasis ADATS vehicle would only have been fielded by the US Army in very limited numbers, the M-113 version used by the Canadians would have been far more numerous.

[Fusilier]

Actually you are correct, the one that turned up in my campaign was the M-113 version (that was actually used by the Canadian Army IRL, although I've never checked to see if it is still in service with them). But I was aware of the fictional ADATS vehicle depicted in the US Vehicles Guide. In my campaign that LAV-75 chasis ADATS vehicle would only have been fielded by the US Army in very limited numbers, the M-113 version used by the Canadians would have been far more numerous.

I agree with this. The 34 ADATS in Canada are mounted on the M113. They are still in use but were going to be modified to a Canadian LAVIII and modernized. This is no longer the case and in any regards wouldn't have fit into the timeframe anyways... so M113 it is.

With surplus M113s (replaced) it seems probably to mount something like this rather than build a completely new model.

[Legbreaker]

My thoughts are that the 105mm armed LAV would not have been sent to China as by the time it was developed, that conflict was effectively won and lost.
HOWEVER, it's certainly conceivable that a number of LAV-75 were modified in country to fit missile launchers, either in a box such as the Bradley, or rail mount such as BMP. The Dragon (or Chinese version) mount would be another relatively common modification.

By the time the M-20 was ready for production the US army would be in need of all of them (with a few maybe going to the marines). This is not to say a few prototype M-20s weren't sent to China for testing, but I'd think they would be very few and far between.

Hmm, According to the "Authorised Levels of Principal Combat Vehicles & Weapons" on pages 17-20 of the 1st ed US Army Vehicle Guide, 392 LAV-75s were required to fit out units with the vehicle assigned to them. I would estimate an actual production run of around 450 would have been desired to provide training vehicles and a few replacements.

If production was commenced early enough (mid to late 80's) virtually the entire order may have been produced before the war. Perhaps the 105mm was already on the drawing board when the Soviet/China war broke out and so those vehicles sent to China were already several years old and due for upgrading anyway?

If however the production run was delayed until a year or two before hostilities, production is likely to have been much less, with a substantial proportion rolling out of the factories and directly onto ships bound for China.

Of course we've nothing in canon I can see that states any LAVs were sent, so it might well be that US units went to war with the LAV-75 and upgraded peicemeal in the field....

Further reading of the US vehicle guide reveals a total of 68 LAV-75s still operational (or at least on the books). Some of these vehicles are in the hands of units never offically assigned them (such as the 8th ID). Obviously there may also be a few in enemy hands, or not "on the books" for any number of reasons.

[Webstral]

Production of the LAV-75 or its variants almost certainly would have continued right through the nuclear exchange and for as long as possible thereafter.

Webstral

[ChalkLine]

Production of the LAV-75 or its variants almost certainly would have continued right through the nuclear exchange and for as long as possible thereafter.

Webstral

C'mon Web, give us your reasons :)

[pmulcahy11b]

C'mon Web, give us your reasons :)

Cadillac Gage has most of its production facilities along the Gulf Coast of the US, though some major ones are also found in Southern California, and some major sub-assemblies were made in the Far East. (HQ is Slidell, Louisiana; I've been there and it's basically a "big little town). In 1994, Cadillac Gage merged with Textron.

I'm not sure if the 1994 merger would have taken place in the T2K timeline. Cadillac Gage had a lot of slumping sales for its products, especially its armored vehicles -- yet continued to pour mountains of money into R&D and prototype vehicles and products (those technicians and scientists, as well as its research database, is what made Cadillac Gage attractive to Textron). In 1993, Forbes called Cadillac Gage the fifth worst performing major company in the world.

However, in a T2K timeline, Cadillac Gage might have seen its sales go up stating around 1991 or so, and way up starting in 1994 or so. So it may have been able to continue on as its own entity. A lot of countries would have been in the market for inexpensive armor that was still decent in quality. The US may also have been looking for a company to make less expensive vehicles to supply to allies in sort of a Lend-Lease program.

Had the merger with Textron taken place, however, they may have also had some of Textron's facilities to work with. They are headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island, and have manufacturing facilities all over the US, as well as in several other countries (again, with a lot in the Far East). Textron also has under its umbrella AAI, Bell Aerospace, Cessna, and Lycoming Engines, as well as some smaller non-defense related companies. That's a lot to work with -- there's something to be said for decentralization of facilities.

In either company's case, there could be quite a bit of surviving and possibly operational facilities in T2K. Cadillac Gage's vehicles were also known for their simplicity of manufacture and maintenance, and it could be "outsourced" to other places relatively easily compared to other companies' products.

I don't know if that's what you meant, Web, but I thought it would be good info.

[Legbreaker]

My thoughts are that in both timelines (1st and 2nd ed), Cadillac Gage would very likely have remained an independant company. The spectre of war just on the horizon would likely have boosted their sales and possibly even allowed a little expansion.

This would probably have gone against them once the nukes came down, as they wouldn't have easy access to the Textron facilities. Mind you, nobody is likely to have easy access to anything that's not within walking distance....

The will to produce might be there, and I'm not just talking about the M-20, but production across the board - vehicles, ammo, weapons, food, clothing, energy, comsumer goods, you name it. But, once transportation and energy networks went down (about ten seconds after the nukes), the ability to produce would virtually disappear.

Some production of low tech items might still be possible on a relatively small scale, but production of high tech electronics, etc required for the fire control systems would be nigh impossible. The best that could be hoped for is using the last few spare parts that avoided EMP to cobble together a few more units.

Once the nukes fell, the technicians, engineers, mechanics, and so forth would be more interested in personal survival than collecting their paycheck, no matter how patriotic they were, no matter there was a global war raging with US troops fighting in Europe, Korea, the middle east, and Alaska (and probably a few more minor locations).

In early 1997 it appears fighting was more widespread than even at the height of WWII! It only grew from there...

So, to me the will may have been there to produce, at least at the command level, but on the ground where the work is actually done, next to nothing would have been possible.

[Webstral]

I just put Paul's excellent write-up of the M-20 Ridgway to good use and wanted to give him kudos again. I have been thinking about Thunder Empire in the car lately, which led me to realize I couldn't remember what crew size had been determined. I was able to see that Paul recorded a crew size of two with justification. Thanks, Paul.

Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

I just put Paul's excellent write-up of the M-20 Ridgway to good use and wanted to give him kudos again. I have been thinking about Thunder Empire in the car lately, which led me to realize I couldn't remember what crew size had been determined. I was able to see that Paul recorded a crew size of two with justification. Thanks, Paul.

Webstral

Appreciate the kudos. You know, I had to go back and find that one; I don't remember doing it!

[Grendel]

Hello all, this is my first post to this forum and I found it by doing a search for the HSTVL. I played T2K as a teenager in the 80's when it first came out. After highschool I joined the USARMY as an 11B I gave up role palaying games. I still have all of the original and some of the second run books and use them as reference for my oldest hobby of building 35th scale armor models. I grew tired of building "real" vehicles and now base all of my builds on the T2K universe. I have been a member of the International Plastic Modelers society for over 25 yrs. I have two club members, Former Gunnery Sgt Wade Bolin (USMC) and MSgt Micheal Reed, who were tank testers at Aberdeen in the late 70's, the 80's, early 90's and had the privealage of working on the HSTVL and the RDF light tank. Below I will post two excerps from Janes Light Tanks regarding both vehicles. I was very glad that GDW included the LAV-75 in the T2K universe.

The HSTVL was never intended to enter production and was used as a test bed vehicle for technology that would later find it's way onto the M1A1/A2 and the Korean K1A1. According to both Mr Bolin and Mr Reed the Ares 75mm Hyper Velocity autocannon was a far superior weapon to the M68/M68A1 105mm gun. Mr Bolin often describes the Ares weapon as being able to lay 3 rounds down range in a 6in circle on a moving target. Mr. Reed describes testing the weapon on the M48/60 Patton series as well as T-55, T-62 and T-72 tanks aquired from Isreal who "aquired them from Syria. He says that he fired a single APFSDS round from the Ares gun into the front plate (which is always the thickest part of a MBT) of a Polish manufactured T-55 and it penetrated to the engine. The ARES cannon was never adopted for use because of the expense of the weapon not becuase of its killing capability. I see no reason to upgun the LAV-75 especially to what both gentleman refer to as an "inferior" weapon. You could always upgun it to the ARES 90mm Hyper Velocity auto cannon that was being developed along side the 75mm version. This would give the LAV-90 the capability to engage the T64, ERA equiped T-72 and T-80 tanks as well as the T-90 which turns out to be little more than an improved T-72.

The HSTVL was not based on the M113 though it did share automotive components. It actually had the tracks, roadwheels, idler wheel and drive wheel of the M551 Sherdian. The HSTVL was mounted with several different turrets and engines. The RDF light tank has the drive sprocket, tracks, and idler wheel of the Bradley and roadwheels of the M113.

I hope the two articles I post below will give you fine gentleman a better insight to the LAV-75's realworld counter part. I also hope to soon post some photos of my 35th scale T2K based vehicle models and dioramas. I am very pleased to find the game still played and enjoyed all these years later.

[Grendel]

Here u go.

High Survivability Test Vehicle (Lightweight)

Development
The High Survivability Test Vehicle – Lightweight (HSTV-L) was developed under the direction of the TACOM project manager for Armored Combat Vehicle Technology at the US Army Tank-Automotive Command, Warren, Michigan.
Following the field testing, the HSTV(L) is being used for experiments in fire-control and stabilisation. Stabilisation processing has been converted from analogue to digital. Various stabilization control algorithms are being tried along with different combinations of transducers to determine effects on gun pointing performance and the possibility of eliminating some of the expensive sensors such as gyros. The TACOM Motion Base Simulator, a huge shaker table, is being used to provide terrain input. These tests began in September 1982 and are to continue for a year or more.

Description
The high survivability of this vehicle is derived from the low silhouette, high horsepower per ton, duplication of sights, improved night vision capabilities, and the lack of specific driver and gunner controls. Any crewman can shoot and both hull crewmen can drive.
Although a test vehicle, the HSTV(L) is not a variable parameter test bed but an exercise in system realism for the three-man crew, hunter/killer fire control concept and low silhouette.
Armament for the HSTV(L) consists of a 7.62 mm M240 machine gun for both commander and coaxial position and a 75 mm smooth bore cannon. The cannon employs a revolving breech and telescoping ammunition which enables the automatic loader to load one round per 11/2 seconds. The in battery-firing recoil mechanism has a fixed piston that allows the greater mass of recoil cylinder and breech mechanism parts to recoil during firing. The 75 mm gun and automatic ammunition feeder are designed and made by ARES Inc, Port Clinton, Ohio.
Texas Instruments supplies the fire-control system which uses the hunter/killer concept. The commander uses a stabilised hunter sight that revolves independently of the turret. Once a target is selected on this sight, the turret and killer sight can be aligned with it. The gunner can then destroy the selected target while the commander returns to search with his hunter sight. Both direct vision and FLIR (Forward Looking Infra-red) optics are available for either sight. The commander can use either a binocular direct view optic eyepiece for improved clarity and reduced power drain, or a video screen. In the hull, a video screen visible to both gunner and driver receives transmissions from hunter and killer sights.
The electronic fire control processor uses inputs from the sights, crosswind sensor, muzzle reference, vertical reference system, and an eye-safe CO2 laser rangefinder to compute proper gun pointing. The laser rangefinder is supplied by Raytheon. Automatic tracking and rate aid tracking can also be accomplished by the fire control processor.
Both elevation and azimuth stabilisation is provided for the 75 mm gun with a slaved killer sight and an indepen¬dently stabilised hunter sight. Fire-on-the-move capabilities are improved by decoupling the yaw motion of the hull from the turret. Cadillac Gage supplies the gun control and stabilisation system for HSTV(L).
Propulsion for the HSTV(L) comes from a gas turbine engine mounted beside the transmission with a cross-drive gearbox connecting the two. Avco Lycoming supplies the nonregenerative 650 horsepower modified helicopter gas turbine. The transmission is an X-300 Detroit Diesel Allison automatic four-speed with lock-up torque converter. Auxili¬ary power is provided by two 250 amp generators and a 60 gpm hydraulic pump. The hydraulic pump supplies power for the engine compartment mounted oil cooler fan and through a hydraulic slip ring; it also supplies power to the gun control system and automatic ammunition loader in the turret.
Teledyne supply the fixed height hydro-pneumatic sus¬pension system. A 355.6 mm jounce and 127 mm rebound travel is possible due to the small 558.8 mm diameter road wheels. The track is an improved version of the type found on the M551 Sheridan.
The man-machine interface for the HSTV(L) is of prime importance. The use of the hunter/killer concept allows both the gunner and the commander to contribute as much information as possible towards the neutralisation of the enemy. The use of pressure sensitive isometric rate controller thumb switches allows for more precise gun control while firing on the move. The driver and gunner seating positions are semi-reclined for maximum comfort in a minimum space. The tv screens considerably improve fire-on-the-move sighting clarity.

SPECIFICATIONS

CREW 3
TEST VEHICLE WEIGHT (with instrumentation and partial applique armour) 20 450 kg
POWER-TO-WEIGHT RATIO 31 78 hp/tonne
GROUND PRESSURE 0.7 kg/cm2
LENGTH GUN FORWARDS 8.528 m
LENGTH HULL 5 918 m
WIDTH 2.794 m
HEIGHT (overall) 2.414 m (to turret top) 1.994 m (to hull top) 1.422 m
GROUND CLEARANCE 0.508 m
TRACK 2.349 m
TRACK WIDTH 445 mm
MAX SPEED (road) 83.68 km/h
ACCELERATION (0 to 48 km/h) 11.8 sec
FUEL CAPACITY 409 litres
MAX CRUISING RANGE 160 km
FORDING 1.0 m
GRADIENT 60%
SIDE SLOPE 30%
TURNING RADIUS pivot to infinity
ENGINE Avco-Lycoming 650 turboshaft developing 650hp
TRANSMISSION GMC Detroit Diesel Allison Division cross drive model X-300-4A with 4 forward and 1 reverse gears, single-stage, multiple-phase torque converter with automatic lock up

STEERING hydrostatically controlled differential, pivot steer in neutral
BRAKES multiple wet plate, service and parking, hydrostatically applied with mechanical backup
SUSPENSION hydro-pneumatic
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 24 V
BATTERIES 6 × 12 V, 300 Ah
ARMAMENT (main) 1 × 75 mm (coaxial) 1 × 7.62 mm MG (anti-aircraft) 1 × 7.62 mm MG
AMMUNITION (main) 26 (MG) 3200
FIRE-CONTROL SYSTEM powered/manual
By commander yes
By gunner yes
Gun elevation/ depression +45°/-17° front, +45°/-6° rear, +45°/-30° side
Max rate (power) elevation/depression 1.0 rad/sec
Max rate (manual) elevation/depression 10 mils/crank
Min rate (power) elevation/depression 0.2 mils/sec
Max traverse rate (power) 1.0 rad/sec
Max traverse rate (manual) 10 mils/crank
Min traverse rate (power) 0.2 mils/sec
Periscopes driver 3 (×1), gunner 3 (×1), commander 8 (×1)
Primary engagement sight (turret) stabilised head, FLIR CO2 laser rangefinder, tv, 2 FOV linked to all three crew members
Hunter sight (turret) stabilised head, rotates independently of turret; FLIR; direct view optics, tv, 2 FOV linked to all three crew members
Gunner’s sight (hull) slaved to weapon, direct view optics, 2 FOV gunner’s use only

Status: Undergoing stabilisation/fire control testing on the Motion Base Simulator, Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Michigan.

Manufacturer: AAI Corporation, Box 6767, Baltimore. Maryland 21204, USA.

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/hstv01.jpg

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/hstv02.jpg
HSTV(L) undergoing stabilisation/fire-control testing on Motion Base Simulator, TACOM, Warren, Michigan (US Army)

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/hstv03.jpg
Above: Typical target engagement by HSTV(L)

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/hstv04.jpg
HSTV(L) with all hatches closed and armoured track skirts fitted

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/hstv05.jpg
Cutaway drawing of HSTV(L) showing position of main components of Texas Instruments fire-control system

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/hstv06.jpg
Three-view drawing of HSTV(L)


Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank (RDF/LT)

Development
The Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank (RDF/LT) has been designed as a private venture by AAI Corporation which has already built the prototype of the High Survivability Test Vehicle (Lightweight) under contract to the United States Army Tank-Automotive Command.
The prototype was shown for the first time in October 1980 when it was said by the company that it could be in service by 1984, if a decision on production was taken in the immediate future.
The vehicle is airportable: the Lockheed C-5B transport aircraft can carry eight RDF/LTs, the C-130 and C-141 could each carry two and the Navy/Marine Corps CH-53E helicopter can carry one slung under its fuselage.
This vehicle, with some changes and improvements in armour protection, is AAl’s entry in the MPGS competition.

Description
The hull of the RDF/LT is made of all-welded aluminium armour with the driver sitting at the front of the hull on the left and the commander/gunner to his right. Both crew members have a single-piece hatch cover that opens outwards and has three integrated periscopes. Between the driver and commander/gunner, in the upper part of the glacis plate, is the hull-mounted auxiliary sight.
The main armament consists of a 75 mm ARES cannon mounted in the centre of the hull behind the crew. The 75 mm ARES cannon is fed from an automatic magazine holding 60 rounds of APFSDS and multi-purpose ammunition and when used for indirect fire has a maximum range of 12 000 metres. To the right of the main armament there is a coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun.
Mounted above and behind the main armament is the stabilised rotary head which is the primary sight. The main armament is fully stabilised and the fire-control system includes a digital computer. The fire-control system is similar to that of the HSTV(L) and is fully described in that entry.
The engine and transmission are mounted at the rear of the hull and the complete powerpack is on extensible rails to facilitate maintenance in the field.
The torsion bar suspension consists of five dual rubbertyred road wheels with a drive sprocket at the rear, idler at the front and one return roller.
Appliqué steel armour can be fitted to the RDF/LT for increased protection. As an alternative to the 75 mm ARES cannon which is mounted in an unmanned turret and fitted to the prototype vehicle, an AAI Universal One-Man Turret which is also armed with a 75 mm ARES cannon, fed from an automatic loader, can be fitted.

Variants
In 1982 AAI announced a new version of this vehicle fitted with a new one-man turret also armed with the ARES 75 mm automatic cannon. This has a single-piece hatch cover opening to the rear, six periscopes for all round observation and forward and to the right of the hatch is a stabilised sight for target acquisition/firing.

SPECIFICATIONS
(RDF/LT with three man crew and turret mentioned above)

CREW 3
WEIGHT (combat) 13 426 kg (unloaded) 12 247 kg
POWER TO WEIGHT RATIO 26.07 hp/tonne
GROUND PRESSURE 0.49 kg/cm2
LENGTH GUN FORWARDS 8.235 m
LENGTH HULL 5.569 m
WIDTH 2.54 m
HEIGHT (top of sight) 2.286 m
AXIS OF FIRE 1.562 m
GROUND CLEARANCE 0.50 m
MAX ROAD SPEED 64 km/h
FUEL CAPACITY 378 litres
MAX CRUISING RANGE 500 km
FORDING 1 m
ENGINE General Motors 6V53T, turbo-charged, 6-cylinder diesel developing 350 hp
TRANSMISSION General Motors, Allison Division, X-200 cross drive, automatic
SUSPENSION torsion bar
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 24 V
BATTERIES 6 × 12 V. 190 Ah
ARMAMENT (main) 1 × 75 mm (coaxial) 1 × 7.62 mm MG
AMMUNITION (main) 60 (coaxial) 2600
FIRE-CONTROL
turret power control hydraulic/manual
by commander yes
by gunner yes
Gun elevation/ depression +40°/-15°
Turret traverse 360°
Turret slew rate 60°/s
Gun elevation rate 60°/s

Status: Prototype. This vehicle has been designed to meet the US requirement for a Mobile Protected Gun System.

Manufacturer: AAI Corporation, PO Box 6767, Baltimore, Maryland, 21204, USA.

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/rdflt01.jpg
Powerpack of AAI RDF/LT slides out for ease of maintenance and field replacement

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/rdflt02.jpg
Prototype of AAI Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/rdflt03.jpg
Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank fitted with Universal One-Man turret armed with 75 mm ARES gun

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/rdflt04.jpg
75 mm ARES automatic gun as fitted to the HSTV-L, RDF Light Tank and the High Mobility Agility Test Vehicle (HIMAG)

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/rdflt05.jpg
AAI Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank prototype fitted with new one-man all-cast turret armed with 75 mm ARES automatic gun undergoing trials in 1982

[Webstral]

Grendal, this is a tremendous addition to our knowledge base of the LAV-75. It's exciting to know that the initial combat experience of the LAV-75 might have been very positive, whether that would have been in China in 1995 or Europe/Korea in 1996.


Webstral

[Panther Al]

Absolutely Outstanding Grendel, thanks for the post, I think it will give everyone a good perspective on the LAV75 - might even have to adjust a few things in our minds as to how good or bad it might have actually been. :)

[Targan]

Amazing amount of information there Grendal. Thanks very much.

[HorseSoldier]

Grendal, this is a tremendous addition to our knowledge base of the LAV-75. It's exciting to know that the initial combat experience of the LAV-75 might have been very positive, whether that would have been in China in 1995 or Europe/Korea in 1996.


Very cool info.

I can't see front line US/NATO AFVs being sent to China in 95-96 to bolster their war effort, due to the threat of technical intelligence being giftwrapped for Soviet forces capturing vehicles.

I could possibly see older AFVs, but suspect that the real fight changer for the Chinese would be if we could just dump Javelin CLUs and missiles (Tankbreaker, whatever) by the boat load. Training Chinese troops to use an M1/LAV-75/M60 or whatever else can take some time, especially because it's not just the crews fighting the vehicles it's the maintainers and mechanics, the logistics guys who have to learn what widgets need to be front loaded due to frequent breakage and on and on.

Worst case you send them some seriously game changing piece of kit that they end up just abandoning because they can't maintain it or resupply it (apparently a lot of German troops ended up doing this with StG-44s -- get handed this super assault rifle without any programmed ammo resupply scheduled so after a few days in the line you're back to a Mauser bolt gun or something . . . ).

Javelins, though, would be kind of like the Afghan Stingers if you were facing a conventional Soviet armored attack. Getting the Chinese Stingers probably wouldn't hurt either -- both can be taught to somebody with zero formal education at all (for which: see previous reference to Stingers in Afghanistan) and both can be learned fast. Soviet units pushing up against Chinese infantry formations where the squad level anti-tank weapon just changed from an RPG-7 to a Javelin launcher would be deep into the realm of rude surprises.

[Webstral]

Horse, I absolutely agree that there will be voices calling for the United States to limit aid to China. There is, however, a logic to sending top-notch vehicles and missiles to the PRC that has nothing to do with military planning. We know from the v1 chronology that the West sends state-of-the-art missiles to China prior to the start of the Soviet Spring offensive in 1996. Therefore, we know that the West is willing to risk having some of the best technology of the free world fall into Soviet hands.

The Chinese Communists are smart people. We can see today that they know how to use Western capitalism to their advantage. As I have argued in the past, the Chinese capacity to employ the dynamics of capitalism in service of their own purposes would find expression in Twilight: 2000. While many conservative Western voices (none more so than American voices) might tell the Chinese to go hang, the bankers, investors, and arms manufacturers of the West will sing a different tune. France will lead the way, since France has a well-developed arms industry and a penchant for doing her own thing. Once France arranges for loans at handsome rates and closes her first multi-billion dollar (franc) deal, the bankers, investors, and arms manufacturers of the western democracies will be howling for their elected officials to open the doors for British, American, German, etc. involvement. It's hard to imagine how the House of Representatives would be able to resist such an opportunity and such strident calls for profit-making. Once the US acquires a major stake in the future of the PRC, the various barriers will come crashing down.

Webstral

[Webstral]

I was thinking more about the Ridgway as I was reading about assault guns in the WW2 era. Grendal’s superb information about the 75mm Ares tells us that the LAV-75 as originally conceived would have provided good service as a tank destroyer. I’m thinking now that a version equipped with a 105mm gun might still have been desirable for assault gun purposes. Granted, the LAV-75 doesn’t have the frontal armor that characterized mature German and Soviet assault guns designs, but a Ridgway with a 105mm gun could do double duty in the anti-tank role and the fire support/assault gun role. This is not to say that the LAV-75 would have been replaced. Rather, it might be possible to see two variants—one optimized for tank killing, the other a more general purpose platform.

Webstral

[HorseSoldier]

Being able to provide effective fire support for infantry units and engage soft targets was the big criteria driving the 105mm gun for the Stryker MGS (well that and a desire to capitalize on existing stocks of 105mm ammo). Makes sense that a 105mm version would have been considered, possibly even fielded alongside the 75mm version in some quantity. A 105mm armed system, for instance, would be a better replacement for the Sheridans in the 82nd for contingency operations, etc.

[Legbreaker]

What sort of weight different could there be between the 75mm and 105mm?
With an airdroppable/transportable vehicle, every last kilogram could be important.

[James Langham]

I think I can see my next write up coming.

Rough outline:

1980s - RDF Light Tank proposed and trialed Not a huge success but workable. Not adopted
Late 1980s M8 proposed and prototypes built
1993 ish - M8 getting nowhere, Congress orders off the shelf package
1994 trials of Sherridan with 105 Stingray turret, RDF Light tank (slightly improved), Sherriden with ARES gun, Scorpion 90, maybe a couple of others (THM301?)
1995 Sino-Soviet War, rapid numbers needed, Sherridan with Stingray turret, LAV75 adopted as little impact on M2 production. Standard Sherridans also refurbished
1996 LAV75A1 with 105mm gun adopted, some LAV75 with Stingray turrets tried
1997 M8 trial vehicles pulled from storage and issued

Thoughts?

[Webstral]

Being able to provide effective fire support for infantry units and engage soft targets was the big criteria driving the 105mm gun for the Stryker MGS (well that and a desire to capitalize on existing stocks of 105mm ammo). Makes sense that a 105mm version would have been considered, possibly even fielded alongside the 75mm version in some quantity. A 105mm armed system, for instance, would be a better replacement for the Sheridans in the 82nd for contingency operations, etc.

My thinking exactly. The fighting in the Far East would have shown the value of a modern assault gun for light forces. During the main Chinese counteroffensive in late 1995, Chinese light infantry would have gone up against at least some prepared fighting positions occupied by Soviet troops. While the Chinese would have employed large numbers of RPG firing HE against Soviet fighting positions, the fighting would have revealed the value of having self-propelled guns to help reduce the enemy's fortifications. A few perceptive folks in the Pentagon might have recognized that while SP guns are available to the heavy divisions, the light divisions would have no weapons acting in the assault gun role. (The Sheridans of the 82nd Airborne are a noteworthy exception, if they remained in service through 1995) Assuming that the LAV-75 had been approved for deployment in the light divisions prior to the start of the war, the same logic that applied to our earlier discussion about refitting all of the LAV-75s would apply to refitting, say, half of them for the assault gun role. The TO&E wouldn't even have to be reorganized. Each battalion of LAV might contain two companies of LAV-75 acting in the tank destroyer role and two companies of LAV-105 acting in the assault gun role. Against most of the enemy's AFV, the assault gun variant would have been reasonably effective with the added bonus of greater flexibility.

The Soviet offensive in 1996 might have served to reinforce the value of the assault gun, depending on how things worked on the battlefield. We know from the v1 chronology that the PLA made good use of the respite between the main Chinese counteroffensive in late 1995 (Operation Red Willow) and the Spring 1996 offensive launched by the Pact. Tying into previous discussions on the matter, the Chinese almost certainly made extensive use of mines and other obstacles, plus hardened fighting positions. Where Soviet assault guns were available, they would have been in high demand to knock out bypassed Chinese strong points (since the tanks, in accordance with Soviet doctrine, would have been pushed through gaps in the enemy's defenses to keep the offensive moving forward). Depending on how this worked out, Western observers in-country probably would have seen the value of a heavily mechanized force using specialty weapons instead of diverting SP guns for the job. There's a lot of room for interpretation here, though.

Nonetheless, the Chinese experience of using light infantry forces against mechanized forces would have caught the attention of the command and staff of the light US divisions, of not the higher-ups.

Webstral

[Grendel]

I could definately see the LAV-75 upgunned with the predecessor of the MGS' 105mm turret in the assault gun role under the designation LAV105. I would organize them as 3 plts of 75mm armed LAV75's with 1 plt of LAV105's per company to facilitate the destruction of bunkers and other fortifications. The LAV105 would travel in the middle of the formation and could swing forward to engage fortifications. They could even have flechete or "beehive" rounds to take care of infantry. This tactic was used in Vietnam when NVA sappers would swarm an M48 in an attemot to remove the hatches and drop grenades into the turret, another M48 would fire a behive round at the M48 which would quickly dispatch the sappers with no damage to the M48's armor integrity.

[James Langham]

I could definately see the LAV-75 upgunned with the predecessor of the MGS' 105mm turret in the assault gun role under the designation LAV105. I would organize them as 3 plts of 75mm armed LAV75's with 1 plt of LAV105's per company to facilitate the destruction of bunkers and other fortifications. The LAV105 would travel in the middle of the formation and could swing forward to engage fortifications. They could even have flechete or "beehive" rounds to take care of infantry. This tactic was used in Vietnam when NVA sappers would swarm an M48 in an attemot to remove the hatches and drop grenades into the turret, another M48 would fire a behive round at the M48 which would quickly dispatch the sappers with no damage to the M48's armor integrity.

I keep trying to avoid the term LAV105. How about LAV75(105)?

As for organisation, I suggest it is done as the Sherman 76s were used in WW2, each division can make it's own plan, some will have separate companies to ease logistics, others will have them integrated within troops for flexibility, others will compromise with separate companies. Most will just slot them in wherever they can get a vehicle as a replacement.

[Raellus]

I keep trying to avoid the term LAV105. How about LAV75(105)?

I think Paul calls it the LAV-74A4 on his website.

[Grendel]

I keep trying to avoid the term LAV105. How about LAV75(105)?

As for organisation, I suggest it is done as the Sherman 76s were used in WW2, each division can make it's own plan, some will have separate companies to ease logistics, others will have them integrated within troops for flexibility, others will compromise with separate companies. Most will just slot them in wherever they can get a vehicle as a replacement.

The only reason I suggested it is that it is obvious the guys at GDW renamed the HSTVL the LAV75 was the weapon it carried. But hey LAV75(105) works to. Of course I would have expected had it actually entered service it would have recieved a "M" designation.

[James Langham]

Well here we go...

[Grendel]

Well here we go...

Nice!!

[HorseSoldier]

As for organisation, I suggest it is done as the Sherman 76s were used in WW2, each division can make it's own plan, some will have separate companies to ease logistics, others will have them integrated within troops for flexibility, others will compromise with separate companies. Most will just slot them in wherever they can get a vehicle as a replacement.

While at the sharp end, task organization would be standard, I can't see the Big Army signing off on a "make it up as you go along" approach to the MTOE.

First, even if it's a common chassis, fire control, and everything else, ultimately a different gun system means variation in parts streams on the logistics side, as well as the more obvious ammo issue. Second there will be standards for gunnery, doctrinal employment, etc., that will be better supported by consolidation on the organizational side. Think mech infantry Echo Companies and the M901.

I'd suggest the light infantry Light Tank Battalion (Armored Gun Battalion, Direct Fire Support Battalion, whatever) would be three companies of LAV75s organized into 14 vehicle companies as per standard tank companies, with a fourth company of 20 LAVs with 105. Nominally this gives a mobile anti-armor company per brigade and a two vehicle section of 105mm armed vehicles per battalion for direct fire support (though obviously the usual METT-T realities will drive who gets at any given time). In a more real-world scenario, the 105 would probably be the format of choice -- able enough anti-armor and more anti-infantry bang -- but LAV75 heavy when part of the equation is fighting off the Soviet AFV hordes makes sense.

[James Langham]

While at the sharp end, task organization would be standard, I can't see the Big Army signing off on a "make it up as you go along" approach to the MTOE.

First, even if it's a common chassis, fire control, and everything else, ultimately a different gun system means variation in parts streams on the logistics side, as well as the more obvious ammo issue. Second there will be standards for gunnery, doctrinal employment, etc., that will be better supported by consolidation on the organizational side. Think mech infantry Echo Companies and the M901.

I'd suggest the light infantry Light Tank Battalion (Armored Gun Battalion, Direct Fire Support Battalion, whatever) would be three companies of LAV75s organized into 14 vehicle companies as per standard tank companies, with a fourth company of 20 LAVs with 105. Nominally this gives a mobile anti-armor company per brigade and a two vehicle section of 105mm armed vehicles per battalion for direct fire support (though obviously the usual METT-T realities will drive who gets at any given time). In a more real-world scenario, the 105 would probably be the format of choice -- able enough anti-armor and more anti-infantry bang -- but LAV75 heavy when part of the equation is fighting off the Soviet AFV hordes makes sense.

The manual may well say one thing...

See the Osprey on the 76mm Sherman for a comparison of 2 similar tanks with different armaments. Cross attaching would also be common. I may even put a comment in that some tankers preferred the 75mm for the rate of fire and reliability of the autoloader as fighting tanks rare late war.

[Webstral]

James, excellent work finding photos to support the writing! I feel the images really strengthen the presentation. Inclusion of the M551 chassis as a basis for some of the light tank variants found in the US tank park during the Twilight War indeed is creative. I have concerns about the timeline. It’s one thing to have a 105mm variant of the LAV-75 on the drawing board and examples of the original vehicle in service in 1995. It’s quite another to try to introduce a new AFV for US light divisions after the fighting starts in the Far East but before the US gets involved in the world war. Still, it would be hypocritical of me to point fingers at someone going off-reservation in terms of timelines, allocation of resources, troops, materiel, etc.

Horse, I’m intrigued by your idea for task organization. I like the idea of a reinforced company to provide fire support. If such a thing were fairly standardized within the Army in 1997, it would be easier to explain how a company-sized body of Ridgways with 105mm guns was assigned to Huachuca.

[dragoon500ly]

While at the sharp end, task organization would be standard, I can't see the Big Army signing off on a "make it up as you go along" approach to the MTOE.

First, even if it's a common chassis, fire control, and everything else, ultimately a different gun system means variation in parts streams on the logistics side, as well as the more obvious ammo issue. Second there will be standards for gunnery, doctrinal employment, etc., that will be better supported by consolidation on the organizational side. Think mech infantry Echo Companies and the M901.

I'd suggest the light infantry Light Tank Battalion (Armored Gun Battalion, Direct Fire Support Battalion, whatever) would be three companies of LAV75s organized into 14 vehicle companies as per standard tank companies, with a fourth company of 20 LAVs with 105. Nominally this gives a mobile anti-armor company per brigade and a two vehicle section of 105mm armed vehicles per battalion for direct fire support (though obviously the usual METT-T realities will drive who gets at any given time). In a more real-world scenario, the 105 would probably be the format of choice -- able enough anti-armor and more anti-infantry bang -- but LAV75 heavy when part of the equation is fighting off the Soviet AFV hordes makes sense.

I'd have to disagree with the idea of a armored battalion trying to maintain ammunition loads of two major caliber weapons just from a logistical standpoint alone. It would be far more likely for the 75mm versions to be assigned to the airborne/light divisions with the 105mm versions beings assigned to the cavalry squadrons...

[James Langham]

I'd have to disagree with the idea of a armored battalion trying to maintain ammunition loads of two major caliber weapons just from a logistical standpoint alone. It would be far more likely for the 75mm versions to be assigned to the airborne/light divisions with the 105mm versions beings assigned to the cavalry squadrons...

What seems logical to us here for some reason never seems to be to senior officers and politicians...

Remember the 105 version is only issued later on, it would be too hard to standardize then. Also it has been fairly common to have different ammo types in the same unit. Actually 75mm and 105mm is less ammo types than an M2 unit with 25mm, TOW and 7.62mm, even before we consider the M231s and dismounts.

Depending on your take of history, feel free to change, after all I'm not canon. an earlier issue would easily allow your change.

[dragoon500ly]

What seems logical to us here for some reason never seems to be to senior officers and politicians...

Remember the 105 version is only issued later on, it would be too hard to standardize then. Also it has been fairly common to have different ammo types in the same unit. Actually 75mm and 105mm is less ammo types than an M2 unit with 25mm, TOW and 7.62mm, even before we consider the M231s and dismounts.

Depending on your take of history, feel free to change, after all I'm not canon. an earlier issue would easily allow your change.

All too true and I did consider that argument; but I also remember an episode that happened in Germany during a Table VIII gunnery, we had just converted to M-1A1s and had ordered 120mm ammo....and the transportation company delivered 105mm...funny in peace time, but in war time...OUCH!

Hmmmm, on the other hand, what a horrible thing to do to a group of players!

[James Langham]

All too true and I did consider that argument; but I also remember an episode that happened in Germany during a Table VIII gunnery, we had just converted to M-1A1s and had ordered 120mm ammo....and the transportation company delivered 105mm...funny in peace time, but in war time...OUCH!

Hmmmm, on the other hand, what a horrible thing to do to a group of players!

On the other hand having both types means SOME will have ammo :-)

"Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics."

[Webstral]

There is a logic to both arguments regarding task organization. US mech units already are accustomed to maintaining large numbers of different vehicles. For example, in 1993 the 4th Combat Engineer Battalion (Mech) used M113, M577, HMMWV, 2.5 ton trucks, 5 ton trucks, at least two models of bulldozer, HMMIT fuelers and wreckers, and other vehicles. Granted, none of these vehicles used unique large caliber ammunition. Large caliber ammo is a supply consideration all its own. Still, the folks empowered to make such decisions will base their conclusions on the perceived need/usefulness of adding LAV fire support vehicles to existing LAV-75 battalions versus the additional logistical burden. Light divisions will need both the anti-armor capability and the fire support capability. This might be one of those moments when the maneuver commanders tell the support people to suck it up and do their [expletive deleted] jobs. Sometimes there will be ammunition mix-ups. If the LAV FSV is deemed sufficiently useful, some mix-ups might be judged a price to be paid.

[James Langham]

I do sometimes worry how hard we work to make things realistic when reality is far weirder...

The nice thing with this group is the way everyone is friendly and even if we can't reach a consensus we can agree to disagree and run our own campaigns the way we want.

[dragoon500ly]

There is a logic to both arguments regarding task organization. US mech units already are accustomed to maintaining large numbers of different vehicles. For example, in 1993 the 4th Combat Engineer Battalion (Mech) used M113, M577, HMMWV, 2.5 ton trucks, 5 ton trucks, at least two models of bulldozer, HMMIT fuelers and wreckers, and other vehicles. Granted, none of these vehicles used unique large caliber ammunition. Large caliber ammo is a supply consideration all its own. Still, the folks empowered to make such decisions will base their conclusions on the perceived need/usefulness of adding LAV fire support vehicles to existing LAV-75 battalions versus the additional logistical burden. Light divisions will need both the anti-armor capability and the fire support capability. This might be one of those moments when the maneuver commanders tell the support people to suck it up and do their [expletive deleted] jobs. Sometimes there will be ammunition mix-ups. If the LAV FSV is deemed sufficiently useful, some mix-ups might be judged a price to be paid.

Good point!

As far as the mounting of a 105mm on a LAV75; it probably would be more likely that a mounting for a TOW Under Armor system of some kind would be the vehicle of choice. The time frame of T2K would be as the M-901 was leaving service (Echo companies of the mech bns be deactivated). Now the M901 was top heavy for the M113 chassis, but yanking a turret, and replacing it with a TUA stripped from a M901...

I went digging through some old Armor magazines trying to find any of the articles that talked about alternative designs for the LAV, unfortunately the only mention that I could find for were two mentions in passing about a mortar version and a TUA version, neither of which went into any great detail. Still, it is intresting that they were already considering that the 75mm would have problems with the anti-armor role. The article itself was a more of "what-if" the RDF light tank would be deployed sort of thing.

The whole chain of RDFLT-LAV75 is a great "what might have been", but the final judgement for the 75mm was that it packed too little umph, was too complex, and would be too much of a logistical problem.

Still....it would have been fun to take one down range!

[pmulcahy11b]

For what it's worth, my Janes Armor & Artillery 1983-1984 edition says that ARES was working on a 90mm version of the same autocannon on the LAV-75, but abandoned it after producing two working prototypes, to concentrate on the 75mm version. It doesn't say why they did, however.

[dragoon500ly]

For what it's worth, my Janes Armor & Artillery 1983-1984 edition says that ARES was working on a 90mm version of the same autocannon on the LAV-75, but abandoned it after producing two working prototypes, to concentrate on the 75mm version. It doesn't say why they did, however.

Wan't that about the same time that Cockerill displayed their lightweight 90mm?

[James Langham]

Good point!

As far as the mounting of a 105mm on a LAV75; it probably would be more likely that a mounting for a TOW Under Armor system of some kind would be the vehicle of choice. The time frame of T2K would be as the M-901 was leaving service (Echo companies of the mech bns be deactivated). Now the M901 was top heavy for the M113 chassis, but yanking a turret, and replacing it with a TUA stripped from a M901...

I went digging through some old Armor magazines trying to find any of the articles that talked about alternative designs for the LAV, unfortunately the only mention that I could find for were two mentions in passing about a mortar version and a TUA version, neither of which went into any great detail. Still, it is intresting that they were already considering that the 75mm would have problems with the anti-armor role. The article itself was a more of "what-if" the RDF light tank would be deployed sort of thing.

The whole chain of RDFLT-LAV75 is a great "what might have been", but the final judgement for the 75mm was that it packed too little umph, was too complex, and would be too much of a logistical problem.

Still....it would have been fun to take one down range!

I did consider it but my feeling is that the M901s will be remaining in service, many being pulled from storage. Maybe a change in employment methods? I'm fairly sure the M551TUA was trialled or at least a prototype built. With all of these TUA vehicles on light chassis, the biggest problem is a lack of storage space for reloads (maybe a reload vehicle?).

Again what I love is the way we all agree to disagree.

[pmulcahy11b]

Wan't that about the same time that Cockerill displayed their lightweight 90mm?

Maybe ARES got a wind of it, but it's not in that issue of Janes.

[Webstral]

I'm reluctant to throw my support behind eliminating the LAV-75 from the lineup because the established body of material includes the LAV-75 rather prominently. Grendal posted some excellent material effectively debunking the idea that the 75mm ARES gun had problems with killing power vis-à-vis a 105mm low-recoil gun. If cost was a primary reason for not pursuing the LAV-75, then the fact that the Cold War didn’t end in 1989 may give us all the reason we need to imagine the LAV-75 being placed into service.

We can imagine, though, that in the climate of 1996 and certainly 1997 every AFV that can be cobbled together of available parts will be assembled and given to somebody. The US Army Vehicle Guide features a number of interesting items. I’m sure we can devise many, many more. I would expect to see units in CONUS supported by a veritable flying circus above and beyond the heavier AFV listed in the Guide in formations like the 40th Infantry Division. I’d include some in the TO&E for 111th Brigade but for the inconvenient fact that SAMAD is physically isolated from the rest of the US after mid-1998. However, formations in Fifth and Sixth US Armies might make use of all sorts of non-standardized light AFV.

I’m fond of armored TOW launchers, but they don’t do the job of an assault gun, light tank, or tank destroyer. The whole purpose of creating a vehicle like the LAV-75, M-8, or other such system was to create a mobile gun system. If the 82nd Airborne and other divisions like it had wanted armored TOW launchers in the 1980’s, no one would have bothered trying to create a replacement for the Sheridan. Sometimes a gun is the best tool for the job.

[HorseSoldier]

I'd have to disagree with the idea of a armored battalion trying to maintain ammunition loads of two major caliber weapons just from a logistical standpoint alone. It would be far more likely for the 75mm versions to be assigned to the airborne/light divisions with the 105mm versions beings assigned to the cavalry squadrons...

It's less complicated than what US tank battalions made work in WW2, and not much more complex than supporting a standard tank battalion with an organic mortar platoon.

[dragoon500ly]

It's less complicated than what US tank battalions made work in WW2, and not much more complex than supporting a standard tank battalion with an organic mortar platoon.

I guess my problem with this is that, in my office, I get to see a lot of the more intresting screwups with the supply system, so I view the supply system with a bloodshot eye! Even with the amount of computer support that the military has now, it is amazing the number of problems that occur! I've seen everything from medical units being issued out of date medication (slated for disposal but some SP4 screwed up) to tank battalions being issued TOW missiles (and we are not talking basic loads for the scout platoon, try 1,200 missiles!) to units in Iraq having artic clothing sent to them....in the middle of summer!

Now toss into the problem that of issuing two main caliber ammo types to the same battalion. And to make it even more fun, your assault gun battalion is attached to a light division with three battalions of 105mm howitzer ammunition. What are the odds that howitzer ammo will be issued?

And just to give a bit of historical background, Just Cause, the invasion of Panama, had a little logistical incident. A platoon of M-60A1s were assigned to Panama to provide support, and sure enough, they were initially issued 105mm howitzer ammo because of a computer screwup! An emergency supply of 105mm tank ammo had to be airlifted into the area and arrived just before the shooting started.

To be sure, the system works most of the time, but its almost the nature of the system that supply screwups will, not might, happen.

[Webstral]

To be sure, the system works most of the time, but its almost the nature of the system that supply screwups will, not might, happen.

So true! I'm certain that the supply types would be making almost exactly your argument against a 105mm variant of the LAV-75. The maneuver generals will reply in two ways: a) the fighting in the Far East has shown that light forces need stiffening with airmobile armor and b) the supply people are never going to get behind anything that makes their job more difficult, regardless of what that means for the troops actually doing the fighting. The former probably would be true. The latter is cheap shot, although there's a grain of truth in there. The logistics specialists have been a driving force behind commonality of supply since WW2 for good reason. Nonetheless, the "fighting" generals will attempt to discredit the arguments of the supply types if the maneuver commanders become convinced that an FSV variant of the LAV-75 is needed. The real question will be whose voice gets heard.

[Raellus]

I know that the concept of the infantry tank/assault gun has fallen out of fashion, but history has demonstrated that infantry divisions need organic armor. Even in wartime, the M1 system is simply too complex, too expensive, and too slow to produce to both keep up with required combat attrition replacements for the armored and heavy mechanized divisions AND to equip infantry/light mechanized divisions. Therefore, something like the LAV-75 (cheaper, simpler, and faster to produce than the M1 or comparable MBTs), although not ideal as either a tank killer or an infantry support gun platform, would be needed. In my mind, as soon as WWIII starts, LAV-75 production becomes essential.

In WWII, as soon as the PzIV, V, VI were encountered, pretty much everyone from the crewmen to the folks in the DoD knew that the M4 Sherman was an inferior product. But, it was simple, fairly reliable, and could be produced in numbers the Germans could never hope to match. In WWIII, the New Allies would be facing an "armor gap" that could not be closed by producing top-of-the-line M1 variants. Even if, at the outset of the war, every M1 killed 5 Soviet MBTs before succumbing to some sort of attrition (combat loss, mechanical breakdown, etc.), the gap would still not be closed. Only by producing a LAV-type tank could the U.S. (and its allies) hope to close the gap. T2K canon seems to take this viewpoint as well. The LAV-75 aint perfect, but it will have to do.

[dragoon500ly]

So true! I'm certain that the supply types would be making almost exactly your argument against a 105mm variant of the LAV-75. The maneuver generals will reply in two ways: a) the fighting in the Far East has shown that light forces need stiffening with airmobile armor and b) the supply people are never going to get behind anything that makes their job more difficult, regardless of what that means for the troops actually doing the fighting. The former probably would be true. The latter is cheap shot, although there's a grain of truth in there. The logistics specialists have been a driving force behind commonality of supply since WW2 for good reason. Nonetheless, the "fighting" generals will attempt to discredit the arguments of the supply types if the maneuver commanders become convinced that an FSV variant of the LAV-75 is needed. The real question will be whose voice gets heard.

The real point of the argument is why a 75mm at all?

A lot of this material comes from various Armor Journal articles as well as the Congressional Record.

When Germany decided to introduce the 120mm smoothbore, the US Army did not want to upgun at all. The viewpoint was that the 105mm M68 rifled cannon was the ideal tank weapon. Since it was capable of performing the antitank, direct and indirect support roles, there was no need to upgun as continued development of ammunition and propellent precluded any need to switch to a heavier weapon.

Congress mandated a gunnery trail between the two calibers. Needless to say, the 120mm out performed the 105mm using the standard APDS round. This led to the rushed development of the APFSDS round and the next round of trials had the 105mm out performing the 120mm, that is until the APFSDS 120mm round was developed. Faced with their gun falling behind, the US developed the APFSDSDU round, the first depleted uranium penetrator and the 105mm took bragging rights, right up until the 120mm APFSDSDU was developed. By this time, the object lesson had finally sunk in, 120mm was superior to 105mm in the antitank role.

BUT WAIT! The 105mm was superior in the direct and indirect support roles! Every US tank gunner from WWII on has been carefully taught how to use their cannon to fire support for the infantry; it was the primary purpose in the big war as well as Korea. Vietnam had no documented use of tanks in anything other than direct support, but this was widely believed to have been due to the small numbers of tanks in theater. So the next round of gunnery trials included indirect fire.

The 120mm gun turned out to be a poor performer. But to the shock of the US Army, so did the 105mm! It turned out that the very quality that made for an effective antitank weapons, i.e. high-velocity rounds, also made for major problems with indirect fire, quite simply an "excessive latteral dispersion contributing to impared accuracy", in other words, the HEP rounds landed all over the grid square!

It was shortly after this third round of trails that US tankers saw the withdrawal of HEP, WP and Beehive ammunition as well as the removal of gunner's quadants and azumith indicators from the M-60A1/A3 tanks.

The 105mm/120mm gunnery trials also led to the NATO consenus that the smallest effective caliber for tank armament is 90mm. The need to comply with the "NATO Standardization" provisions of the charter are, almost certainly, what killed off the 75mm cannon development.

My own personal opinion is that the LAV-75 would never have seen service in any capacity. With the need to comply with the minimum of 90mm, and with tens of thousands of 105mm barrels and thousands of tons of ammunition in storage, the US Army would have gone with a 105mm version almost certainly from the start. This version was known as the M-8 AGS.

So, in many ways, the bean counters would have won the argument, but in such a way as to insure the support of the line dogs.

[Adm.Lee]

I seem to recall from reading Suvorov a long time ago, the Soviets had one way to avoid having the wrong kind of ammunition showing up. I think it was the 122mm rockets: they were labelled as 125mm in every instance, so that 122mm howitzer shells wouldn't be sent to the rocket regiments.

So why do we make both 105mm howitzer and tank guns? The howitzers came first-- Why weren't the tank guns 100mm or 110mm? Or 108 or 103?

[James Langham]

I seem to recall from reading Suvorov a long time ago, the Soviets had one way to avoid having the wrong kind of ammunition showing up. I think it was the 122mm rockets: they were labelled as 125mm in every instance, so that 122mm howitzer shells wouldn't be sent to the rocket regiments.

So why do we make both 105mm howitzer and tank guns? The howitzers came first-- Why weren't the tank guns 100mm or 110mm? Or 108 or 103?

But he never explains the use of 7.62T, 7.62S and 7.62L...

[dragoon500ly]

I know that the concept of the infantry tank/assault gun has fallen out of fashion, but history has demonstrated that infantry divisions need organic armor. Even in wartime, the M1 system is simply too complex, too expensive, and too slow to produce to both keep up with required combat attrition replacements for the armored and heavy mechanized divisions AND to equip infantry/light mechanized divisions. Therefore, something like the LAV-75 (cheaper, simpler, and faster to produce than the M1 or comparable MBTs), although not ideal as either a tank killer or an infantry support gun platform, would be needed. In my mind, as soon as WWIII starts, LAV-75 production becomes essential.

In WWII, as soon as the PzIV, V, VI were encountered, pretty much everyone from the crewmen to the folks in the DoD knew that the M4 Sherman was an inferior product. But, it was simple, fairly reliable, and could be produced in numbers the Germans could never hope to match. In WWIII, the New Allies would be facing an "armor gap" that could not be closed by producing top-of-the-line M1 variants. Even if, at the outset of the war, every M1 killed 5 Soviet MBTs before succumbing to some sort of attrition (combat loss, mechanical breakdown, etc.), the gap would still not be closed. Only by producing a LAV-type tank could the U.S. (and its allies) hope to close the gap. T2K canon seems to take this viewpoint as well. The LAV-75 aint perfect, but it will have to do.

No doubt that a light unit needs armor support of any kind; and this is the only valid arguement for the LAV-75. But I just don't see the US Army at least, going with a 75mm. This was one of the reasons for the development of the M-8 AGS. With a 105mm, it had at least a fighting chance of taking on heavy armor, something that the 75mm couldn't offer.

But the M-8 was "killed off" so that more Strykers could be purchased and THAT was a complete and utter waste! Instead of purchasing an already developed weapon system, let's buy a POS that has trouble with cross country movement, has armor plate that has trouble stopping 14.5mm, and the 105mm version is such a wonderful system! Just don't fire the gun over the side, there is nothing more embrassing than having your vehicle roll over and exposing your belly armor to a T-72!!! :p

[James Langham]

The real point of the argument is why a 75mm at all?

A lot of this material comes from various Armor Journal articles as well as the Congressional Record.

When Germany decided to introduce the 120mm smoothbore, the US Army did not want to upgun at all. The viewpoint was that the 105mm M68 rifled cannon was the ideal tank weapon. Since it was capable of performing the antitank, direct and indirect support roles, there was no need to upgun as continued development of ammunition and propellent precluded any need to switch to a heavier weapon.

Congress mandated a gunnery trail between the two calibers. Needless to say, the 120mm out performed the 105mm using the standard APDS round. This led to the rushed development of the APFSDS round and the next round of trials had the 105mm out performing the 120mm, that is until the APFSDS 120mm round was developed. Faced with their gun falling behind, the US developed the APFSDSDU round, the first depleted uranium penetrator and the 105mm took bragging rights, right up until the 120mm APFSDSDU was developed. By this time, the object lesson had finally sunk in, 120mm was superior to 105mm in the antitank role.

BUT WAIT! The 105mm was superior in the direct and indirect support roles! Every US tank gunner from WWII on has been carefully taught how to use their cannon to fire support for the infantry; it was the primary purpose in the big war as well as Korea. Vietnam had no documented use of tanks in anything other than direct support, but this was widely believed to have been due to the small numbers of tanks in theater. So the next round of gunnery trials included indirect fire.

The 120mm gun turned out to be a poor performer. But to the shock of the US Army, so did the 105mm! It turned out that the very quality that made for an effective antitank weapons, i.e. high-velocity rounds, also made for major problems with indirect fire, quite simply an "excessive latteral dispersion contributing to impared accuracy", in other words, the HEP rounds landed all over the grid square!

It was shortly after this third round of trails that US tankers saw the withdrawal of HEP, WP and Beehive ammunition as well as the removal of gunner's quadants and azumith indicators from the M-60A1/A3 tanks.

The 105mm/120mm gunnery trials also led to the NATO consenus that the smallest effective caliber for tank armament is 90mm. The need to comply with the "NATO Standardization" provisions of the charter are, almost certainly, what killed off the 75mm cannon development.

My own personal opinion is that the LAV-75 would never have seen service in any capacity. With the need to comply with the minimum of 90mm, and with tens of thousands of 105mm barrels and thousands of tons of ammunition in storage, the US Army would have gone with a 105mm version almost certainly from the start. This version was known as the M-8 AGS.

So, in many ways, the bean counters would have won the argument, but in such a way as to insure the support of the line dogs.

really useful info but I'll still stick to 75mm for two reasons:

1. I'm not sure a lightweight 105mm would have made it into production in time.

2. It's cannon.

If I'm honest more 2 than 1.

[dragoon500ly]

I seem to recall from reading Suvorov a long time ago, the Soviets had one way to avoid having the wrong kind of ammunition showing up. I think it was the 122mm rockets: they were labelled as 125mm in every instance, so that 122mm howitzer shells wouldn't be sent to the rocket regiments.

So why do we make both 105mm howitzer and tank guns? The howitzers came first-- Why weren't the tank guns 100mm or 110mm? Or 108 or 103?

105mm howitzer came first, when the decision was made to upgrade from 90mm to a larger caliber, there were these ammo plants already geared up for a larger caliber and not having to produce much....so they used existing equipment to maufacture, its not the first time.

[dragoon500ly]

really useful info but I'll still stick to 75mm for two reasons:

1. I'm not sure a lightweight 105mm would have made it into production in time.

2. It's cannon.

If I'm honest more 2 than 1.

And I play with LAV-75s as well. Its just in real life, doubt that I would want to man one!

The M-8 AGS used the same 105mm M68 cannon, not a lightweight version. You're thinking about the French 105mm smoothbore.

[Targan]

I am not a total stickler for canon but my initial inclination is always that if something (like the LAV-75) is part of canon I try to explain why it was there, not just erase it and pretend it never existed. Before anyone gets defensive I'm not suggesting that anyone in this discussion wants to erase the LAV-75. I'm just saying that, in my T2K universe anyway, the LAV-75 exists in some numbers so I'm more interested in why that would be than why it wouldn't.

[James Langham]

And I play with LAV-75s as well. Its just in real life, doubt that I would want to man one!

The M-8 AGS used the same 105mm M68 cannon, not a lightweight version. You're thinking about the French 105mm smoothbore.

There's a lot of kit that you do wonder why it was put into service - I agree completely!

I'm sure there is a lightweight 105 rifled though, I should have researched the M8 more. As an aside though all its high tech computer ammunition monitoring system and the like will be badly hit by EMP (a little bit of side text for the next edition of the article).

[Raellus]

I am not a total stickler for canon but my initial inclination is always that if something (like the LAV-75) is part of canon I try to explain why it was there, not just erase it and pretend it never existed. Before anyone gets defensive I'm not suggesting that anyone in this discussion wants to erase the LAV-75. I'm just saying that, in my T2K universe anyway, the LAV-75 exists in some numbers so I'm more interested in why that would be than why it wouldn't.

Very well put. I try to do the same.

Some folks like to add gear to existing canon. Some like to alter canon to fit RL, removing canonical gear and substituting it with newer RL stuff.

I guess a part of this debate is connected to how one views the T2K timeline.

I like to see T2K as an alternative history/universe, where the Cold War didn't end in 1989-1991 and, instead, the T2K v1.0 timeline occured. Therefore, I like to keep as much gear from canon as I can.

[Legbreaker]

I am not a total stickler for canon but my initial inclination is always that if something (like the LAV-75) is part of canon I try to explain why it was there, not just erase it and pretend it never existed. Before anyone gets defensive I'm not suggesting that anyone in this discussion wants to erase the LAV-75. I'm just saying that, in my T2K universe anyway, the LAV-75 exists in some numbers so I'm more interested in why that would be than why it wouldn't.

And that's EXACTLY my position which I've tried time and time and time again over the past few years to convey.
Good to see this position is finally being understood WITHOUT the hatred and vitriol displayed previously.
As a community I feel we should try to stick with canon as much as possible so that everyone can share each others work. This isn't to say in the slightest that we shouldn't work on our own projects and publish them. Webstrals excellent work on "Thunder Empire" is an perfect example of this - it may not exactly be canon, but it makes for a damn fine read.

Back on the LAV-75, perhaps the poor performance of the 75mm gun in WWII doomed the newer weapon IRL to the rubbish bin - too many bad feelings about a weapon which wasn't even able to reliably take out a 1940's tank regardless of technical improvements to weapon and ammo (Yes I'm aware they're completely different, but perception is a big thing). However in T2K, I'm in the camp who's for fielding the vehicle, mainly to give lighter units some sort of armoured firepower and also as a stopgap/emergency replacement measure.

[dragoon500ly]

Certainly I don't reject the LAV-75 as long as it is in the T2K multiverse. But I do believe that we got sidetracked as to why the LAV75 went the way of the dodo.

But the strength of T2K is that it can be modified (or is that cut, folded, paperclipped and mutilated?) to fight anyone's view of WWIII.

But I do agree its much more pleasant to have a give-n-take rather than some of the outright hate mail approach that are on other boards.

[Legbreaker]

In V2.x I see the M8 taking on the role the LAV-75 was intended for in V1.0.
There is however no reason why both cannot exist side by side (although perhaps not in the same units).

[schnickelfritz]

The irony is that while the US 75mm in the M3/M4 Medium Tanks was a low velocity weapon that was not suited to tank vs. tank combat, Germany made TWO excellent 75mm weapons, the 7.5cm PAK 40 (and its vehicle borne versions) and the 7.5cm KwK 42 carried by the Mark 5 Panther. The Kwk 42 would probably tie the UK's 17-pounder OQF for best tank gun orf WW2 and both had similar throw weight and penetration as the early 8.8cm in the Tiger 1.

The great thing about the LAV-75 vs M-8 Buford thing is that you can use either and make a good case for both to coexist.

-Dave

[dragoon500ly]

The sad thing in the great debate over WWII US tank armament is just how much influence that misunderstanding of the use of armor had on it.

Like a lot of military powers, the US was shocked by the speed of the German Blitzkrieg and like a lot of military powers, they drew the wrong conclusions.
The major misobservation was that armor was capable of overrunning everything and that there would be little, if any tank vs tank action (I am aware that there was actually major tank battles in the 1940 French campaign, but this was what US observers reported back...).

Faced with the prospect of tanks breaking through at will and tearing into the rear areas to spread fear and chaos, the US adopted three major changes.

First, tanks vs tanks will seldom occur on a battlefield, therefore tanks do not need a high-velocity cannon, but rather one that was capable of firing a large HE round (This is what led to the develop of the M-2 and M-3 75mm cannons).

Second, that due to fact that tanks will acheive breakthroughs at will, rear echelon units will need antitank protection (this led to the appearance of 37mm towed antitank guns and later bazookas).

And third, that specific vehicles designed for antitank use needed to be fielded (the birth of the Tank Destroyer Corps).

This misconception is what led to the Lee/Grant being armed with the short barreled M-2 75mm (later replaced by the M-3 75mm) as well as the Sherman being outfitted with the M-3 75mm and being issued with the AP and APC rounds. Almost as soon as the Sherman saw its first combat at El Alemain, the tankers started asking for a better cannon. There was never any problem with the HE round, but the AP round lacked decent penetration over its entire effective range. The development of the APC round helped, but the 75mm still lagged behind the Germans 75mm. It was not until the Normandy Campaign that the Ordnance Department allowed the fighting of the M-1 76mm cannon, and even then, its scale of issue was one tank in a platoon. The British were able to field the 17-pounder in time for Normandy, but again, the scale of issue was one troop out of a squadron.

[Adm.Lee]

The sad thing in the great debate over WWII US tank armament is just how much influence that misunderstanding of the use of armor had on it.

There was a neat book by a WW2 Ordnance officer (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8327745-death-traps) that stated that the tank 75mm suffered from design by committee. Ordnance and Artillery wanted the gun to be made to their standards, meaning it could be fired 1,000-plus times without significant barrel wear. That meant a lower muzzle velocity.

I understood that the M8 or LAV-75 was to be using a much higher-velocity 75mm, like the Panther or even the Scorpion(?), so the muzzle bore itself wasn't a problem.

[schnickelfritz]

Death Traps is an excellent read....the author has even been on the history or military channel to discuss his experiences. He tol of sending new infantry recruits off in M-4 Shermans as replacements in France...because that's what his orders were....to find that all or all but one were knocked out at the end OF THAT DAY. That mn sat there and cried about it 60 years later...one of the toughest things I've ever seen.

Another good one is "Death By Design" by Peter Boyle, a member of the UK's Armored Forces in WW2. It gives more than a little perspective at the challenges faced by Commonwealth tankers. I wanted to throw it at the wall repeatedly out of horror and anger at the REMF's back in England who sent gallant men out to die in tanks that were more metal coffin than a machine of war.

The horror's faced by American and Commonwealth tankers in WW2 Europe can be traced to incompetent cowards who sat well out of harm's way.

-Dave

[Webstral]

The horror's faced by American and Commonwealth tankers in WW2 Europe can be traced to incompetent cowards who sat well out of harm's way.

If only it had stopped there.

And that's EXACTLY my position which I've tried time and time and time again over the past few years to convey.
Good to see this position is finally being understood WITHOUT the hatred and vitriol displayed previously.

Point taken. Regarding past vitriol, I suggest that delivery has something to do with how the message is received.

Webstrals excellent work on "Thunder Empire" is an perfect example of this - it may not exactly be canon, but it makes for a damn fine read.

I appreciate the kudos.

I guess a part of this debate is connected to how one views the T2K timeline.

I like to see T2K as an alternative history/universe, where the Cold War didn't end in 1989-1991 and, instead, the T2K v1.0 timeline occured. Therefore, I like to keep as much gear from canon as I can.

As a dedicated v1 type, I wholeheartedly agree.

[dragoon500ly]

The defentive source on the Sherman is the book "Sherman" by R.P. Hunnicutt, this massive tome traces the history of US tank developement starting in 1919. Its the best researched book that I've found on the subject and he has a lot of useful information on the development of the 75mm. I'm paraphasing a lot of the info!

The first US tank to mount a 75mm was the T-1 development tank in 1926, its turret was fitted with a 75mm pack howitzer firing a reduced powder charge, it quickly proved its HE ammo to be very effective against the older WWI light tanks. However the T-1 had mechanical problems so it became a non-starter and thus ended development of the 75mm for the next few years.

Next up was the T-2 fitted with a 47mm cannon (ala the Vickers medium tank). There were developmental problems (lack of money), so the US started work on the 37mm.

The next series of test vehicles, the T-3 thru T-5 focused on the 37mm cannon as the best weapon. The 75mm pack howitzer came back with the T-5 in a sponson mount once again it showed promise, but the T-5 was never approved for series production.

The M-2 and M-2A1 were the first production tank since the Mark VIII Liberty tank of 1918. Main armament was the 37mm cannon. Entering service in 1940, events in Europe rapidly overtook the vehicle.

With the news from Europe, crash development of a more modern vehicle took place. The 37mm cannon was already considered to be inadequate and a need for a larger caliber was apparant, even to the Ordnance Department. The M-3 medium tank was a crash development to mount a larger caliber gun. There difficulties in casting a turret large enough to mount a 75mm cannon, so the decision was made to mount a 37mm gun and fit a 75mm gun in a sponson mount. Another factor in the decision was that the T-5 had worked out most of the problems in a sponson mount. The M-3 entered service in March of 1941.

Needless to say, a sponson mount was not ideal, it was known early on that having to expose most of the tank in order to fire was not a good thing. But until more industrial capacity could be freed up, the M-3 Lee/Grant was the only way to get a 75mm cannon into the hands of the troops.

[dragoon500ly]

The Sherman started out as the T-6 developmental tank of April, 1941. With a new casting process allowing for a larger turret, the 75mm sponson mount could be safely deleted. The turret was also designed with a removable front plate to permit the fitting of different armament combinations. Initially, the T-6 was fitted with a 75mm M-2 (the short 75); but a twin 37mm; a 105mm howitzer and British 6-pounder mounts were all designed.

It quickly became apparant that the 75mm version would be the preferred mount, but there were problems with the 75mm M-2 gun. The new M-3 75mm gun (the long 75), now entering service with the M-3 Lee was selected as the new main armament.

The 75mm M-2 and M-3 tank cannons were developments of the original 75mm pack howitzer, being fitted with semiautomatic breeches and longer barrels. The M-2 is a 75mm/31.1 (barrel length 91.75-inches) and the M-3 is a 75mm/40.1 (barrel length 118.38-inches).

The standard armor piercing round was the APC round. I found a comparsion of the armor penetration of the various calibers to be of intrest:

These are the Aberdeen PG test results against Homogeneous armor at 30 degrees obliquity:

37mm at 500yds (53mm); at 1000yds (46mm); at 1500yds (40mm); at 2000yds (35mm)

2 pounder at 500yds (58mm); at 1000yds (52mm); at 1500yds (46mm); at 2000yds (40mm)

6 pounder at 500yds (81mm); at 1000yds (74mm); at 1500yds (63mm); at 2000yds (56mm)

75mm M-3 at 500yds (66mm); at 1000yds (60mm); at 1500yds (55mm); at 2000yds (50mm)

3-inch at 500yds (93mm); at 1000yds (88mm); at 1500yds (82mm); at 2000yds (75mm)

76mm at 500yds (93mm); at 1000yds (88mm); at 1500yds (82mm); at 2000yds (75mm)

17 pounder at 500yds (140mm); at 1000yds (130mm); at 1500yds (120mm); at 2000yds (111mm)

90mm at 500yds (129mm); at 1000yds (122mm); at 1500yds (114mm); at 2000yds (106mm)

Again, a big thanks to "Sherman"!!!!

[ArmySGT.]

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Tiger1ponies.png

[James Langham]

I know the German Army was short of troops by 1945 but even so...

My money would be on Peter Rabbit, Tank Killer by Sven Hassel and Beatrix Potter if they went head to head though...

[Brit]

The LAV-75 was based, I believe, on the chasis of the M113 APC. I was looking at a Osprey book on the M151 Sheridan when I came across an actual photograph of what GDW called the LAV-75. I had to do a double-take. I read up on it and I'm pretty sure it said it was based on the M113 chasis. If I was a millionaire, I would have bought the book just for that one photo and paragraph.

On a cool little side note, I just Googled LAV-75 to see if I could find a pic of the actual LAV-75 (I can't remember the official designation of the prototype) to prove to Mo that it was real and the first two things that popped up were our forum threads!

Posted on the old board. Long time stalker on this... I hope this link works but if it does you photo is on p. 43...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55508944/M551-Sheridan-US-Airmobile-Tanks-1941-2001

There's loads of other stuff too. (It takes a while to load...)

[raketenjagdpanzer]

This is what I myself would do (not suggest to anyone else, just do) about the LAV-75:

Way early on in the war the LAV75 was brought into the European theater in limited numbers. It'd had a lot of success in the middle-east against T55s and Soviet light armored vehicles, but was now being put in a new theater using new blitzkrieg style tactics against heavy Soviet armor and consequently was getting whalloped. AAI went back to the drawing board and produced the LAV-105-E (Europe) and a majority got quickly retrofitted. The balance of non-refitted LAV75s were kept back as rear area security.

When things went nuclear, and reinforcements were short, the '75 was pressed back into frontline service as an "MBT" and as standard M1s (mostly in the hands of National Guard units) began to run short of M68 ammunition, with lots and lots of 75mm HV ammo and turret kits for the LAVs available, as some were pulled back for maintenance they were re-converted back to the LAV-75 standard, especially those with damaged 105 turrets, rather than repaired as LAV-105s.

So circa summer 2000, there's plenty of LAV-75s still in the mix, as well as LAV-105s.

[Fusilier]

Posted on the old board. Long time stalker on this... I hope this link works but if it does you photo is on p. 43...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55508944/M551-Sheridan-US-Airmobile-Tanks-1941-2001

There's loads of other stuff too. (It takes a while to load...)

I was always reminded of this...

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/3600/clipboardpb.jpg

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Couple things that the 80s GI-Joe cartoon/toy line had were "real life" based - Grumman and NASA flew an FSW (the X-29) that bore a strong resemblance to the Joes' catch-all fighter plane, and obviously their tank was based very much on AAI's RDF/LT offering.

Sadly we had no V-TOL A10s (the Cobra "Rattler") :D

[Fusilier]

Sadly we had no V-TOL A10s (the Cobra "Rattler") :D

Give it time...

[Brit]

Not wanting to start a new thread but there should be some useful stuff here. It's downloadable copies of 'Armoured Car', a magazine seemingly published between 1990 and 1996, i.e. just the right period. There might even be something on the LAV-75, etc! (There's an index to five years of them available).

http://www.warwheels.net/ACJwwINDEX.html

[boogiedowndonovan]

I was always reminded of this...

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/3600/clipboardpb.jpg

lol

and now you know and knowing is half the battle!

[Fusilier]

lol

and now you know and knowing is half the battle!

And for the other half?

http://pull.imgfave.netdna-cdn.com/image_cache/1252333233159648.png

[Olefin]

Just started posting on this forum. A question was asked a while back about what happened to the M8 AGS Prototypes. Well i can answer you on one. Its still at BAE Systems (ex United Defence) in York PA, still fully operational and is shown to potential customers from time to time.

And compared to the LAV-75 its definitely a weapon system that can take tanks and APC's on and kill them. They were due to go into production in 1996.

I am in the process of writing a Twilight 2000 Lions of Twilight module (using material posted on threads here) and the M8 AGS will make an appearance there as armor that was shipped out to Kenya in 1997 that came from the original production run.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Just started posting on this forum. A question was asked a while back about what happened to the M8 AGS Prototypes. Well i can answer you on one. Its still at BAE Systems (ex United Defence) in York PA, still fully operational and is shown to potential customers from time to time.

And compared to the LAV-75 its definitely a weapon system that can take tanks and APC's on and kill them. They were due to go into production in 1996.

I am in the process of writing a Twilight 2000 Lions of Twilight module (using material posted on threads here) and the M8 AGS will make an appearance there as armor that was shipped out to Kenya in 1997 that came from the original production run.

That's pretty cool; it's good to know that the AGS isn't sitting in front of some office block, rotting away.

As cool as the LAV-75 is "on paper", I agree it's really not that great hence my (decidedly non-canon) "LAV-105" which is closer to the AGS at least in weapon performance.

[boogiedowndonovan]

Just started posting on this forum. A question was asked a while back about what happened to the M8 AGS Prototypes. Well i can answer you on one. Its still at BAE Systems (ex United Defence) in York PA, still fully operational and is shown to potential customers from time to time.

And compared to the LAV-75 its definitely a weapon system that can take tanks and APC's on and kill them. They were due to go into production in 1996.

I am in the process of writing a Twilight 2000 Lions of Twilight module (using material posted on threads here) and the M8 AGS will make an appearance there as armor that was shipped out to Kenya in 1997 that came from the original production run.

re: M-8 AGS

there was a news article somewhere that four prototypes were deployed with the 82nd to Iraq. It can't seem to find it anymore, so it was probably just talk or wishful thinking.

Wikipedia article on the M-8 says that they tested a hybrid electric version of the M-8 AGS with 120mm gun. not sure about the availability of hybrid engines in T2k, but an upgunned 120mm AGS would be interesting.

[Olefin]

Yes they did - I know its here where I work and it looks like a tank killer to me

[Targan]

Welcome to the forums Olefin. I'm sure you have some very useful info for this forum (not sure how much you'll be allowed to tell us though!).

Yes they did - I know its here where I work and it looks like a tank killer to me

Are you referring to the hybrid electric version of the M-8 AGS with 120mm gun that boogiedowndonovan mentioned? And if so is it possible for you to post a photo? I for one would love to see such a vehicle, it sounds awesome.

[James1978]

M8 AGS specs - need to convert it fully for the game but this will give you the flavor of the vehicle

M8 Armored Gun System
Armor: Level 1 – protects against small arms fire and shell splinters
Level 3 – protects against light hand-held anti-tank weapons
Crew; 3 (Commander, Gunner, Driver)
Armament: XM35 105mm rifled gun (30 rounds), 7.62mm Coaxial MG (4500 rounds), 12.7mm M2 Browning cupola mount (210 rounds)
Fuel: AvGas, diesel, alcohol
Fuel; 150 gallons (567.81 Litres)
Range: 280 miles(451km)
Speed: 45 mph (72 km/h) Road, 30 mph (48 km/h)
Vehicles shipped to Kenya had the Level 3 armor installed on them. If it is removed it can be airdropped with Level 1 protection by a C-130.
If you can get your hands on the Eastern Europe Sourcebook, it has game specs for the M8. My copy is in storage, but I'm sure someone else here has it handy.

[James1978]

Are you referring to the hybrid electric version of the M-8 AGS with 120mm gun that boogiedowndonovan mentioned? And if so is it possible for you to post a photo? I for one would love to see such a vehicle, it sounds awesome.
It looks pretty much just like the baseline M8, but with a bigger gun. Just do a search for "Thunderbolt AGS" or "M8 Thunderbolt".

But I second the request for a current picture and any updates on the program.

[Sith]

The 120mm AGS was a proof of concept, and that's it. They just wanted to show that a 120 could work on a light vehicle. This knowledge went into the CV90120.

Also, the AGS was designed to be built on the Bradley production line. This was done to reduce cost and show the government that they had the capacity to mass-produce right away. With this in mind, I would think that Bradley production would have priority in the Twilight timeline.

Edit: Not sure if the Bradley production line is in York or not, something tells me that it's not.

[Sith]

To my knowledge, the AGS had it's last blast in 1999 with the PPD on Fort Knox that ultimately selected the Stryker. Since then BAE shows them off here and there with the hopes of a foreign sale, it's basically an off-the-shelf item. It's 1990s technology though, only a solid buyer would warrant an upgrade at this point.

I believe a few were loaned back to the Army at one point, mainly to test MGS tactical concepts before it's arrival. Not sure about this though.