Favorite T2K-era APC/IFV

[Raellus]

Sorry guys. I must have caught the poll bug. I don't think we've had this one before. I'm sure most of our PCs, if not our actual selves, have been stuck in one or two of these glorified metal boxes before. Which is your favorite and, of course, why?

[waiting4something]

I went with the LAV-PIVAD. I like speed of the LAV plus the 20mm vulcan cannon. I know it's for air defense, but I like the idea of using it on armor and infantry too.:o I was always jealous of the LAV-25 crewmen and their scouts. Those bastards had everything inside them too. AT-4'S, M249, M240G, and some units got issued SASR's(M82A1's) too. Yeah, and to top it off like most vehicle personel they got to have a ice chest with cold water in them.:mad: I never really considered infantry personel that ride true infantry. Must be nice to ride.:rolleyes:

[cavtroop]

I went with the Bradley, mostly because I used to crew one :)

[leonpoi]

BMP 2 - good to throw some limited fear into the hearts of players. Easy enough to kill but can also kill them, a good old tactical challenge.

[Legbreaker]

My heart says Marder (it just looks soooooo cool) but brain says LAV-25.
Firepower is very important, but so is fuel economy in T2K. Tracks are great for resisting damage but they chew waaaay too much fuel as a rule.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

LAV-25, also easier to fix, in theory, since they are wheeled. You can also use truck tires if need be or jury rig other tires if you have to.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I was torn between the LAV-25 and the OT-64 and I couldn't decide which to choose although the 25mm on the LAV-25 would sway me. I agree with the sentiment behind wheeled vehicles. If you lose a wheel on a LAV-25/OT-64, you can still drive the vehicle to relative safety then repair it at your leisure - if you lose a track link, you're going nowhere until you get out of the safety of the vehicle and fix the track.

[Raellus]

I picked the LAV-25 for the same reasons already cited. I've had a soft spot for it in my heart since I first thumbed through the v1.0 core book. I figured that if it was good enough for them, it was good enough for me.

Given the right ammo, the 25mm chain-gun could defeat most threats short on an MBT (and I've heard stories of Iraqi T-54/55s being destroyed by 25mm Bradley fire).

[kato13]

I was torn between the LAV-25 and the OT-64

I remember calculating that in the V.1 rules it was possible for a strong, highly trained, martial artist to punch through the OT-64 armor. Even 25 years later it is still the first thing I think of when I see that designation :D

[TiggerCCW UK]

I went with the M2 - I really like the missile gun combo, plenty of poke at long range.

[jimbo4795]

Ive always been partial to the AAV-7 series. They can haul sooooo much stuff.:D

[pmulcahy11b]

It was a tough choice, but I voted for the Marder. Yes, it has a low-power autocannon, yes, it's engine gulps fuel -- but the armor protection is amongst the best of IFVs.

[Slappy]

In T2k, the LAV-25. Has enough armor and armament to deal with most threats active in central Poland, nice carrying capacity and easy to fuel. Only real drawback is that finding spares is a bitch.

For really extended campaigning, you might be better off with a BTR-80. Lower punch but much easier to find local parts.

At the end of a real 1990s supply line, the Bradley every time.

[pmulcahy11b]

In T2k, the LAV-25. Has enough armor and armament to deal with most threats active in central Poland, nice carrying capacity and easy to fuel. Only real drawback is that finding spares is a bitch.

For really extended campaigning, you might be better off with a BTR-80. Lower punch but much easier to find local parts.

At the end of a real 1990s supply line, the Bradley every time.

For an end of the 1990s vehicle, the CV-9040 would be up there in my mind too. But you'd run into the same problem as the LAV-25 -- spare parts. And just about anywhere but Scandinavia, the GM would have to reach to come up with a good explanation of why the CV-9040 is there in the first place.

[Webstral]

I wonder if the IFV are still carrying troops in Twilight: 2000. Let's face it: anti-tank fire would have caused stupendous losses among the IFV. Weapons not capable of killing a T-55 can take out an M2 or a Marder. I wonder how many armies with operable IFV turn them into CFV (cavalry fighting vehicles) or light tanks by 2000. Of course, as with all things in Twilight: 2000, it comes down to location, location, location.

Webstral

[Abbott Shaull]

I wonder if the IFV are still carrying troops in Twilight: 2000. Let's face it: anti-tank fire would have caused stupendous losses among the IFV. Weapons not capable of killing a T-55 can take out an M2 or a Marder. I wonder how many armies with operable IFV turn them into CFV (cavalry fighting vehicles) or light tanks by 2000. Of course, as with all things in Twilight: 2000, it comes down to location, location, location.

Webstral

I would think you would see many IFVs being operating as tanks much in the same fashion that several late-WWII tanks of various make trooped on for years in places like the former Yugoslavia and the Middle East. I was never big fan of the entire Mechanized concept with such vehicles as the M113 to begin with, only made matters worse when they came out with IFVs. For people who should know the limitation of those vehicle seem to forget them when they aren't the one riding them into battle.

Same with the Light Motorized concept tested at Fort Lewis, even though it basically been used to one extent or another. As for getting small units to points to start patrol, it fine. As convoy protection, okay if that all you have is HMMWVs then so be it. To use them much the same way the M113 were suppose to be use as fire support vehicle...Someone needs their head examined.

The FAV concept and whatever it morphed into was taking an old idea such Jeep being used as scout/command car and returning a light vehicle to a scout role. Yes the vehicle was light, but one of the things made the jeep so successful was it quickness to get itself out of trouble. Similarly FAVs in the right terrain could do that, but I wouldn't use in villages and cities.

Getting off topic. I think no matter if it APC or AFV if the troop has anti-tank weapon regardless if it is way overkill for the vehicle in question and there were other weapon nearby that could kill just as effectively. They would still look to kill it, just for their own piece of mind. Know what anti-tank round does to the inside of real Tank, it would play havoc with the dismounts inside an IFV or APC on it way to go through the other side of the vehicle.

[Abbott Shaull]

In T2k, the LAV-25. Has enough armor and armament to deal with most threats active in central Poland, nice carrying capacity and easy to fuel. Only real drawback is that finding spares is a bitch.

For really extended campaigning, you might be better off with a BTR-80. Lower punch but much easier to find local parts.

At the end of a real 1990s supply line, the Bradley every time.

The LAV-25 or Stryker would have been sent to Europe in number to make up Bradley losses or so the stories goes. Much like the LAV-75 being assigned to the 8th Mechanized Division to make up tank losses. The one ironic thing I find about the LAV-25 is that it didn't come with Anti-Tank missiles like the M2/M3 had. Not that after you shot the ones loaded you would have chance to reload. Hence always considered more a vehicle more qualified for recon troop.

[HorseSoldier]

And just about anywhere but Scandinavia, the GM would have to reach to come up with a good explanation of why the CV-9040 is there in the first place.

I always wanted to run a game along the Baltic coast that featured Scandinavian merchant-pirates prowling the area with some serious firepower.

[Mohoender]

The South African's Ratel (with its siblings the Belgian Sibmas) and second the South African Casspir.

Always found that these had a terrific look and the Casspir was 20 years well ahead of everyone else.:)

[copeab]

Sorry for the thread necromancy. I was looking back through old polls and saw I hadn't voted in it -- and forgot voting bumped the thread.

Anyway, I went with the M113. Not because it's value in combat, but because it's a simple machine (relatively speaking) that kinda floats and has decent fuel economy. Oh, and hold s a lot of people and cargo.

[Panther Al]

CV90 all the way. Granted its rare in the T2K timeline, but its well protected and as a firepower level that can scare older tanks.

[dragoon500ly]

Make mine a Marder, had a chance to run with one on a exchange tour...nice, very nice!

[Abbott Shaull]

Didn't the Marder have a remote mini-turret dual 7.62 MGs behind their main turret?

[dragoon500ly]

Didn't the Marder have a remote mini-turret dual 7.62 MGs behind their main turret?

Single MG3 in the remote turret, another on a co-axial mount with the 20mm, duel feed cannon, a Milan mount for those "oh shit its a tank" moments, and four firing port Uzis for the guys in back.

[Raellus]

Didn't the Marder have a remote mini-turret dual 7.62 MGs behind their main turret?

On early models. It was removed on later models. Not sure why. It might be due to the addition of extra armor around the troop compartment. That's why the later version don't have troop firing ports anymore.

I do dig the Marder, though. I like it's low profile.

[Panther Al]

The Marder places second on my list, mainly because of its lack of carrying capacity. When they upgraded it to mount the squads MILAN, they had to kick the squad size down to 5 to make room for the missiles, which left the dismount numbers rather short. Some say they fixed that in later versions, but since I have seen some sources that say yes, and some that say no, I can't place it any higher than 2nd. Granted, troop capacity is a weakness in all IFV's, but the Marder takes it to an extreme. The upside is, is that it defines what well armoured means for IFV's.

[helbent4]

I remember calculating that in the V.1 rules it was possible for a strong, highly trained, martial artist to punch through the OT-64 armor. Even 25 years later it is still the first thing I think of when I see that designation :D

Kato,

Doing some figuring, I see this is entirely correct in the v1 rules.

A beginning Martial Artist with STR and STA 16 and the max allowed BC (Body Combat) skill of 80 has a damage of 12+1D6, enough to penetrate the OT-64's side armour of 15 50% of the time by rolling 4 or better. (16 + 16 x 8 / 200.) For that matter, someone with a STR and STA of 19 and a BC skill of 80 can just punch through the LAV-25's side armour of 20 with a little luck (Hand damage of 15+1D6).

Quick, someone call Murphy's Rules!

That said, for me it was pretty much a toss-up between the BTR/OT-64 and LAV-25 in v1 rules in terms of mobility and fuel consumption. The LAV can haul more and has the 25mm autocannon to use against light armour and infantry (although the KPVT isn't all that shabby for an MG). In v2/2.2 the OT-64 does a little better in the range department but only because it has a larger fuel tank. It would be nice to have an ATGM for heavy armour, but you can still carry a crew of dismounts (assuming other players have the foresight to pick one up as starting equipment).

Tony

[Abbott Shaull]

The Marder places second on my list, mainly because of its lack of carrying capacity. When they upgraded it to mount the squads MILAN, they had to kick the squad size down to 5 to make room for the missiles, which left the dismount numbers rather short. Some say they fixed that in later versions, but since I have seen some sources that say yes, and some that say no, I can't place it any higher than 2nd. Granted, troop capacity is a weakness in all IFV's, but the Marder takes it to an extreme. The upside is, is that it defines what well armoured means for IFV's.

I think the Isreali tank had similar size dismount when the storage area was used to transport dismounts...

It one of the reasons I think why the Soviets/Pact still used a large number of APC based Regiments in their MRDs. They realized that with the APC based units had larger dismounts, and why with the exception of some Cat A MRD that they usually have 2 APC based regiments.

[Panther Al]

You mean the Merkava? Yes, about the same, but recall that the Merkava still retains all its abilities as a main battle tank while doing so. Just the ammo load is dropped to 24 rounds. The Namer, based on a turretless Merkava I've heard holds around 10, though I have seen reports saying a little more and a little less. But the Namer isn't an IFV, its (A one hell of) an APC.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah that the problem with IFVs. The turret takes up room that could be used by troops. Granted the M113 dismount was full Infantry Squad and going to the M2 it dropped to 7 men or less. Even then one could re-organize the fire team to drop the extra rifleman and still function as a Squad. On the other hand as you add more and more to the IFV the dismounted consisted of Fire Team, and what ever other flavor a unit SOP would use the remainder of them for.

[helbent4]

Yeah that the problem with IFVs. The turret takes up room that could be used by troops. Granted the M113 dismount was full Infantry Squad and going to the M2 it dropped to 7 men or less. Even then one could re-organize the fire team to drop the extra rifleman and still function as a Squad. On the other hand as you add more and more to the IFV the dismounted consisted of Fire Team, and what ever other flavor a unit SOP would use the remainder of them for.

Abbott,

If we're looking at a single vehicle operating alone in the context of (say) Kalsiz, then probably a BTR/OT-64 is a great choice due to the large passenger capacity. If you have other vehicles like Humvees or a Deuce present, then space becomes less of a factor.

Tony

[Panther Al]

Hrm, I agree that if you had but one vehicle, an APC would be better than and IFV for no other reason than beeing able to tote stuff around.

As far as IFV's go, I had a thought, if you had to pick the penultimate IFV, then the Merkava would qualify! :) High Firepower, High Protection, High Mobility, and only average troop capacity.

[Abbott Shaull]

You know it always made me wonder with the adoption of the the Stryker Vehicle system. Why they went with Platoons with only basic Stryker, and not mix the platoon with 2 of the conventional Stryker and the other two with more of LAV-25 set up. Giving the platoon better fire-power.

Granted the Merkava and their APC version would make a great team. Adding two of the APC version with platoon of Merkava with dismounts would give you a full dismount infantry platoon.

[Legbreaker]

It's worth noting that just because a vehicle has an official passenger capacity of say 8, it doesn't mean that's all it can carry.

I've personally been sardined in the back of a buttoned Australian M113 with 14 men (plus 2 crew) including packs. Note that with the addition of the commanders turret, the rated capacity is only 9 passengers. It wasn't all that comfortable, but still better than walking.
To give you an idea of how tight it was, consider that approximately 2 packs take up about the same space as a person. Now consider cramming 20 people into a small car....

[pmulcahy11b]

Now consider cramming 20 people into a small car....

Clowns do it all the time...

[Legbreaker]

Hmmm, we did have paint on our faces, no red noses though. :rolleyes:

[Rockwolf66]

I chose the LAV-25 simply because between a forrunner of the M113 and the LAV-25 I got to examine up close in '97 at Camp Pendleton* the LAV-25 just seemed better at the sort of fast paced gun and run sorts of action members of my family seem to enjoy.


*I was visiting rather than stationed although it was much more interesting at the time to visit the Force Recon encampment and find out that tucked back in their armory they had supressed handguns that dated back to my grandfather's WWII service.

[dragoon500ly]

Clowns do it all the time...

Always wondered were clowns learned to stuff a car...;)

[Panther Al]

Huh, well that might be the reason why I always heard Benning referred to as Clown School...

;)

[DCausey]

I chose the LAV-25 mostly based on the mobility and repair ability mentioned above by several posters and partly because I just love the look of the thing.

[Ronin]

I picked the BMP-2. I dont know, I just like it. I know theres better out there. I just dig it.

[bobcat]

depends on the situation im going into. escape from kaliz i'd have to go with a BMP due to ease of mobility(and ease of getting spare parts).
if its a heavy fight the M7 Bfist wins the day.


if i'm going into the kind of fight im good at, well i gotta go with the LAV-25/stryker since its one of few overglorified battle taxi's that can even get to the arena.

[Sanjuro]

I went for the M2 then regretted it- I kinda doubt the utility of firing ports in a situation where the main armament is necessary, and if it's not then why risk exposing the vehicle to man-portable missiles? Based on that I'd have gone for either the Warrior, or one of the wheeled vehicles just for the economy/repairability issues.
Of course, if use of standard parts/wheels/tyres is the priority, how about the Humber Pig?

[ArmySGT.]

KillDozer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgDgVbRKRrM&feature=related)

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/killdozer.jpg

[Schone23666]

KillDozer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgDgVbRKRrM&feature=related)

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/killdozer.jpg


Now there's something you don't see every day...

Too bad they didn't have any antitank weapons.

[Apache6]

The LAV-25 is quiet, tactically and operationally mobile and has an excellent stabilized weapons platform that can effectively engage with either the 25mm or 7.62 coax.

Very reliable and combat proven.

It's a scout vehicle not an IFV. As a T2K vehicle its effective.

[Raellus]

It's a scout vehicle not an IFV. As a T2K vehicle its effective.

I don't have my U.S. Army Vehicle Guide in front of me, but in the T2KU, the LAV-25 served primarily as an APC/IFV (at least in U.S. Army units)- that's why I included it on the list.

[CDAT]

I do not remember if it is in TW2000 or not, but I went BMP for the BMP-3. More in concept than actual vehicle, as having a big gun, auto-cannon, and MG is just kind of cool.

[LT. Ox]

as in the lav can/ is very capable in the river lake etc roll.
as to just how much you can fight with it...well it ain't gonna take on the main battle tank but it very well can get you into and out of trouble ...in a hurry.
It just might be able to cross that bit of water the other guy can not.

[Draq]

Is there no poll for tanks, helos, and unarmored/lightly armored transports, or am I just not finding them?

[Spartan-117]

For tanks and helos - you're not finding the fuel for them... ;)

[Olefin]

You mean the Merkava? Yes, about the same, but recall that the Merkava still retains all its abilities as a main battle tank while doing so. Just the ammo load is dropped to 24 rounds. The Namer, based on a turretless Merkava I've heard holds around 10, though I have seen reports saying a little more and a little less. But the Namer isn't an IFV, its (A one hell of) an APC.

Its a beast - we bid on making it when I was at BAE and got to see several up close and personal. And you are right an IFV its not.

[Olefin]

For tanks and helos - you're not finding the fuel for them... ;)

If you can find fuel for an APC or IFV you can find fuel for tanks - the problem is that you have to find a heck of a lot of fuel for tanks compared to most IFV's or APC's - you get the bigger gun of course but that big gun comes with a very hungry fuel tank.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

If you can find fuel for an APC or IFV you can find fuel for tanks - the problem is that you have to find a heck of a lot of fuel for tanks compared to most IFV's or APC's - you get the bigger gun of course but that big gun comes with a very hungry fuel tank.
And it's even easier for many modern tanks as they are powered by multi-fuel diesel engines.
But regardless of that, the big issue is exactly as you say - getting the needed amount of fuel to keep that big ol' piece of overwhelming firepower moving.

[B.T.]

When I saw the poll, my first thought was: "I'm so biased. Maybe I should vote for something else than the old M113."
Well, as some of you certainly have guessed, my vote is the old M113. :rolleyes: But I really spent some time with finding arguments.

Here are the cons:
- It's not an IFV. Other vehicles are better armed and give more protection.
- Fuel consumption. Not as thirsty as several other tracks, but still ...
- It is tracked. Maybe this is not a real con, but wheeled vehicles seem to be easier to maintain.

Here are the pros:
- The passengers are seated on benches. There is not a certain seat for every member of the group/squad/fire team. If the M113 is not too crowded, there is enough room for everyone.
- The basic M113 comes with a stretcher kit: You can use every M113 as a MedEvac, even if it has no Red Cross markings.
- If the sealings are okay, that tracked box is amphibous.
- The M113 and various vehicles, that are based on it, are/were in widespread use throughout NATO, from Norway over Belgium and Germany to Turkey and Spain (Looking only to some of the European States). Spares are certainly easier to find than for some other vehicles.
- There are so many different settings of the old PC: the German version with a MILAN, the US version with added Dragon, several gun-shields and coppulas, the ACAV versions and so on. The M113 can easily be adapted to the needs and wishes of the crew.

One last point on the vehicles. From my experience as GM a vecicle can be so much more to a group of survivors. Sometimes it is the closest thing to a home you have. Hauling stuff and having a roof, to shelter you from the elements, can be so important, that you can do without the second co-ax MG or the 30+ mm gun.

Well, that's it from my sight. Over and out, Gentleman. :D

[Raellus]

The M113 also has air-guard hatches in the top deck, so passengers can help defend it from enemy infantry, and have another option for exiting the vehicle. It's simple boxy shape also makes it relatively easy to add field-expedient stand-off armor like sections of chain-link fence or bed springs.

It was so common in NATO armies that spare parts wouldn't be especially hard to find.

In T2k, I reckon most US Army M113s would be already be up-armored with applique spaced armor (similar to the Israeli Toga system) or slat armor packages, giving it protection from HMG/light canon fire. Quite a few US Army M113s employed in Operation Iraqi Freedom were so equipped.

I'm pretty sure that I voted for the LAV-25, but I like the M113 too. It'd probably be my 2nd pick. The first T2k party I ever imagined had one of both.

[ChalkLine]

I'm going to buck the trend because I'm a special snowflake and say the AAVP-7A1

https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/pKiVXLqoLZsit4zTFK7c7n4sW50=/1200x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/RA7LKKJCYNCVRPO3FZEY4PQJEA.jpg

This is because while I wouldn't want to ride in one in an actual war they're awesome for Twilight 2000.

My thoughts are that in Twilight 2000 no one in their right mind risks their vehicles to enemy fire but rather it's an infantry setting where ambush and patrolling is the thing. Really, nothing in the APC/IFV range can stand up to an RPG-7 so heavy armour isn't really necessary. All the bus has to do this thing does:

- It should have suppressing ability in case it gets surprised so the players can get out and kill the threat. It does this in spades with the M2HB 12.7mm (1,000r) and the Mk19 40mm (768r).
- It has to be resistant to rifle-calibre rounds and artillery fragments
- It has to be able to carry tons of junk. It's the best of that category (4.5 tonnes).
- It can swim without preparation, something that players always need.
- It can go up steep, slippery slopes with all your gear onboard and also go over rough ground like trenches and rubble.

So it doesn't matter that it has flimsy armour, evidently attracts mines and is the size of an actual bus because to me its just the armoured Winnebago my PC walks well in front of! :)

[Raellus]

You make a strong case for the AAVP-7A1, Chalk. It's got a lot going for it. This probably wouldn't factor into the game rules, but the one big hold up in my mind is that it's a really big target. Also, the setting where one could reasonably expect to have/find/acquire an AAVP-7A1 would require a USMC unit in its history, or you'll have to get really creative with backstory.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

You make a strong case for the AAVP-7A1, Chalk. It's got a lot going for it. This probably wouldn't factor into the game rules, but the one big hold up in my mind is that it's a really big target. Also, the setting where one could reasonably expect to have/find/acquire an AAVP-7A1 would require a USMC unit in its history, or you'll have to get really creative with backstory.
Also, they don't swim quite as well as the advertising claims - very few amphibious vehicles do. That in itself might not be something to worry too much about... unless of course you're one of the 20 or so people inside it trying to get out when it starts to sink.

There have been deaths from AAVPs sinking, for example in 2011 where one Marine drowned.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/military/sdut-10-news-rescuers-respond-marine-owned-vehicle-subm-2011jan14-htmlstory.html
This very recent incident (July 2020) involved an AAVP sinking but the casualty rate was much higher.
https://sofrep.com/news/marine-corps-amphibious-assault-vehicle-sinks-multiple-casualties/

[StainlessSteelCynic]

<snip> the setting where one could reasonably expect to have/find/acquire an AAVP-7A1 would require a USMC unit in its history, or you'll have to get really creative with backstory.
Not quite as difficult as it might first seem. Operators of the AAVP-7 include Italy and Spain who have had them for a few decades.

[swaghauler]

The IDF is at it again... Here's the new APC based on the Merkava tank chassis.

https://youtu.be/BfDPulPKY8Y

[Panther Al]

The IDF is at it again... Here's the new APC based on the Merkava tank chassis.

https://youtu.be/BfDPulPKY8Y

Not really all that new. Back before the Great Recession, the IDF was in talks with Lima Army Tank Plant to build 300 of them for them since they didn't have the manufacturing capacity to build them as well as the Mk4's they wanted to build at the same time. When the Recession hit, something had to give budget wise, and the Namer was pushed back.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Well, if Chalkline is going to choose a vehicle purely on the notion of being a special snowflake then I'm going to do it to!

I choose...
Ratel 20 IFV

Where am I going to get one besides South Africa?
Morocco took delivery of around 70 (two variants, the Ratel 20 and the Ratel 90) during 1981-1982.

I don't intend going swimming with it so a lack of amphibious ability isn't too much of a concern, I don't intend hunting anything carrying a gun larger than a .50 cal. with it so the APC level of armour shouldn't be too much of a concern. Like Chalkline mentioned about his choice, it's a bus with some minor protection and a bit of fire support.
It's tall, tall like the OT-64 SKOT, which makes it great for seeing over the long grass of the veldt but maybe not so useful in Europe and you probably want to avoid street fighting.

But...
It has a range of approximately 1000km with 530 litres of fuel and can travel at speeds up to 105kph on roads. It also comes fitted with two 50 litre drinking water reservoirs.
Comes standard with 3 doors, left & right sides with the third at the rear and also has four large roof hatches plus a smaller hatch at the rear for AA defence.
Armament consists of a 20mm autocannon in the turret plus additional 7.62mm MGs on pintle mounts as required.
3 crew and 9 passengers, lots of storage space.

Now I just got to get it from Morocco, through Spain and into Central Europe!
So yes, I could avoid all the problems if I just decided on the OT-64 instead (plus the -64 is amphibious) but I really, really, really like the Ratel :D

https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/africa/south_africa/wheeled_vehicle/ratel_20/pictures/Ratel_20_armoured_infantry_fighting_vehicle_20mm_c annon_turret_South_Africa_African_army_military_eq uipment_001.jpg

Rear access (vehicle is the ZT3 ATGW version and not the Ratel 20 but the basic hull is identical)
http://www.sa-transport.co.za/military/army/ratel_ifv_aad2008_04_dvdb08.JPG

Side doors
http://www.sa-transport.co.za/military/army/ratel_ifv_aad2008_07_dvdb08.JPG

[Raellus]

The Ratel also just looks cool. :cool:

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The Ratel also just looks cool. :cool:
Yes indeed!
When I saw pictures of the Ratel for the first time, it seemed futuristic compared to the military vehicles I was used to seeing in the 1980s. That appeal might have changed in theme over time but it has never diminished, the Ratel just looks too "cool" to forget!


Gratuitous Ratel 90 images:
90mm gun
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tU7IAypOAm0/Veq1WyNl80I/AAAAAAAAAjM/N4HbzOvk94s/s320/MIX03_Ratel_90_01.jpg
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/uzbrojenie/images/e/ec/800px-Ratel_90_armyrecognition_South-Africa_008.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130414130420&path-prefix=pl

[CDAT]

Yes indeed!
When I saw pictures of the Ratel for the first time, it seemed futuristic compared to the military vehicles I was used to seeing in the 1980s. That appeal might have changed in theme over time but it has never diminished, the Ratel just looks too "cool" to forget!


Gratuitous Ratel 90 images:
90mm gun
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tU7IAypOAm0/Veq1WyNl80I/AAAAAAAAAjM/N4HbzOvk94s/s320/MIX03_Ratel_90_01.jpg
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/uzbrojenie/images/e/ec/800px-Ratel_90_armyrecognition_South-Africa_008.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130414130420&path-prefix=pl
First thing that jumped out to me, is how do you close the view port/window shields with out exposing your self to fire?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

First thing that jumped out to me, is how do you close the view port/window shields with out exposing your self to fire?
I take it you mean the firing ports below each window? As I understand it they are fitted with a simple, cylindrical block that's controlled by a lever, to allow you to open or close the port.
The picture below of a Ratel 90, shows them in various staged of being "open".
I believe that sometimes they were left open to increase airflow through the vehicle while travelling (however that was passed on to me second-hand so treat it as anecdotal).

https://64.media.tumblr.com/1edce90a5db43c211896f875c5b5c063/tumblr_o4ezxjDQyI1r94kvzo2_1280.jpg


EDIT: OH! I just realised you probably meant the protective shields over the driver's windows. I think they have to be closed by someone on the outside of the vehicle but considering that they were another layer of protection for when things got really hairy, the doctrine probably states to close them before going into combat.

[CDAT]

I take it you mean the firing ports below each window? As I understand it they are fitted with a simple, cylindrical block that's controlled by a lever, to allow you to open or close the port.
The picture below of a Ratel 90, shows them in various staged of being "open".
I believe that sometimes they were left open to increase airflow through the vehicle while travelling (however that was passed on to me second-hand so treat it as anecdotal).

https://64.media.tumblr.com/1edce90a5db43c211896f875c5b5c063/tumblr_o4ezxjDQyI1r94kvzo2_1280.jpg


EDIT: OH! I just realised you probably meant the protective shields over the driver's windows. I think they have to be closed by someone on the outside of the vehicle but considering that they were another layer of protection for when things got really hairy, the doctrine probably states to close them before going into combat.

Yes, I was talking about the driver's windows, and that was what I was guessing (that it needed to be done it before), I thought that it was nice to give the option of added protection, but did not see anyway that you could put it up if you were surprised.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Yes, I was talking about the driver's windows, and that was what I was guessing (that it needed to be done it before), I thought that it was nice to give the option of added protection, but did not see anyway that you could put it up if you were surprised.
:o Yeah it took me a little while to realise that but I got there eventually!
Interestingly, for all the pictures I've seen of Ratels apparently in combat or during combat training, I don't recall ever seeing any of the vehicles with those shields raised.
Obviously the driver's windows are some pretty heavy duty armoured glass but they must have been particularly effective because it appears that those protective shields were not often used or... there just aren't many photos available showing the Ratel actually in combat.
The few times I've seen pictures of the shields raised is vehicles on static display at shows etc. etc.

However because I am intensely curious... this post has taken me many minutes longer than it should because I was searching the net for pictures...
I did find this image of a Ratel apparently hit by enemy aircraft and it appears as though the shields were in the raised position.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c3/bc/cd/c3bccd4e1f626e906417e59021f3d6b0.jpg

Image from here: - https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/390124386456757714/

[Targan]

However because I am intensely curious... this post has taken me many minutes longer than it should because I was searching the net for pictures...
I did find this image of a Ratel apparently hit by enemy aircraft and it appears as though the shields were in the raised position.

I think that's just gravity at work. They look like they're just hanging there, not latched closed.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think that's just gravity at work. They look like they're just hanging there, not latched closed.
I thought so too but when you look at the shield for the right-hand side, it's also upright and not hanging as could be expected if they were unsecured.
The shields have a pretty minimalist type of latch to keep them secured in the upright position so it's probably not unexpected that if the shields in that photo where in the upright position when the vehicle rolled over, that they wouldn't necessarily be securely fixed into position - although I suspect that stiff hinges probably help a lot as well.

This pic of the Ratel AT version, provides a somewhat better view of the shields and their latches.
http://www.sa-transport.co.za/military/army/ratel_ifv_aad2008_02_dvdb08.JPG

This image and also the other two showing the ZT3 ATGW equipped Ratel are from the following site: -
http://www.sa-transport.co.za/military/armoured_vehicles_3.html

[Vespers War]

Not really all that new. Back before the Great Recession, the IDF was in talks with Lima Army Tank Plant to build 300 of them for them since they didn't have the manufacturing capacity to build them as well as the Mk4's they wanted to build at the same time. When the Recession hit, something had to give budget wise, and the Namer was pushed back.

Yeah, Namer entered service in 2008, but in very low quantities - by 2014, there were only 120 in service. The goal is to reach around 530 in service so they can replace the M113s still in use.

2016 saw the decision to add Trophy to Namer as a hard-kill anti-missile defense. In 2017 they showed a prototype with an uncrewed 30mm turret, but AFAIK that hasn't entered production.

The new Israeli IFV is Eitan (https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/israel-mod-selects-iron-fist-light-decoupled-for-eitan-apc).

[bash]

Meant to post this earlier but sort of forgot. I voted "Other" because my favorite IFV in T2K is the Toyota Hilux (or other 3/4 ton pickup). In my Red Dawn-ish game pickups were the main player vehicles. They had pintle mounts welded to roll bars for M2s and M60s. Their main defense was GTFO rather than stand up fights.

This repeated in an East Europe game. The players preferred the lower profile of civilian pickups over military trucks or APCs. Two characters with dirt bikes that would scout ahead of the truck convoy to avoid encounters with heavier vehicles. They also camouflaged the trucks to look like locals driving beaters so as to not draw attention when they couldn't avoid an encounter.

[Ursus Maior]

I voted for the Bradley, I loved that thing as a model for wargaming. I would have voted for the Marder 1, if it had been available, because that's what I rode.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I voted for the Bradley, I loved that thing as a model for wargaming. I would have voted for the Marder 1, if it had been available, because that's what I rode.
I think the Marder on the list is meant to be a 1A1, it could easily be a typo that left out the A and made it 11?

Edit: Looking at the poll again it's not Marder 11 it's definitely Marder II so that is a bit of a problem. I believe the Marder II was a WW era tank destroyer.
Still, I can't help thinking that the Marder on the poll is meant to be the IFV

[Ursus Maior]

I think the poll meant the Marder 2, a prototype vehicle of the 80s, which was supposed to deliver an IFV side-kick to the then-new Leopard 2.

I think, I remember it appearing in an older T2k publication.

Link to German Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marder_2

[Raellus]

The poll option refers to the Marder IFV. I typed "Marder II" in error (I was probably reading about WW2 at the time). Sorry for the confusion. I think it's too late to edit the poll, but I'll check, just in case.

-

[Ursus Maior]

Thanks for the clarification!

[Fallenkezef]

Just realised that the Spartan isn't on the list. Poor thing always gets forgotten about

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Just realised that the Spartan isn't on the list. Poor thing always gets forgotten about

Nor was the FV432

[Raellus]

Although it hasn't received a single vote, I think a strong case could be made for the OT-64/SKOT in a Poland (or Czechoslovakia) based campaign.

Pros:

Amphibious
Diesel engine (more fuel efficient, and less combustible than gasoline)
Large capacity (2+ 10-18 passengers, depending on model)
Spare parts not uncommon
Decent armament (KPV and PKT coax, or DShK)
Thicker armor than BTR series


Like most wheeled APCs, the big cons are relatively thin armor, and less cross-country mobility than a tracked APC. Being mistaken for a PACT vehicle could be a pro or a con depending on where the vehicle is operating.

-

[Raellus]

Would anyone change their vote to or away from the M2 Bradley, based on its recent combat performance in Ukrainian service?

IIRC, the Bradley received a lot of criticism from the moment it was selected by the US Army. "They" said, "its armor was inadequate, it was too tall, carried too few infantry", etc. Its reputation improved a bit during the Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Obviously, it's received a number of upgrades since the 1990s, although some of those garnered additional criticism at the time (e.g. more armor makes it heavier/less mobile). The Ukrainians have praised its crew/passenger survivability, optics, and firepower.

If you ever want to change your poll answer, let me know and I will change it for you manually. I just changed mine from LAV-25 to OT-64/SKOT 2.

Also, I'm adding the Swedish CV90, as Sweden has become a WWIII combatant in 4e T2k (and a NATO member IRL). Incidentally, the Ukrainians are also fans, IRL.

-

[ChalkLine]

The problem with the Brad is that while it's great for a war it's not so hot for T2K, Like anything not an MBT it can be popped frontally by an RPG-7V and these are not uncommon in the T2K environment. If this is the case it's a fire support vehicle with a 25mm gun and you may as well have a LAV-25 for that because it's less thirsty and can swim.

Recently I've really gotten into 4x4 APC/IFVs, I think a game where each player had something like a LAV-150 or a BRDM would be cool because you could have a short crew meaning each player had one NPC as a driver. I really should develop this more.

[Raellus]

The problem with the Brad is that while it's great for a war it's not so hot for T2K, Like anything not an MBT it can be popped frontally by an RPG-7V and these are not uncommon in the T2K environment. If this is the case it's a fire support vehicle with a 25mm gun and you may as well have a LAV-25 for that because it's less thirsty and can swim.

That's a good point. I prefer the LAV-25 as well. One thing that the Bradley has that the LAV-25 doesn't is the twin TOW II launcher. With it, the Bradley is capable of taking out even the newest (in the T2k timelines) Soviet MBTs. IIRC, a Ukrainian Bradley destroyed a Soviet T-80 with a TOW shot.

-

[Red Diamond]

I was light infantry and never served with mech so take my opinion for what it's worth. I know many of western IFVs are high quality (Warrior, Marder, etc) but I really don't know enough about them. The M2 has proved itself over and over. Now, most recently in Ukraine. I think the M2 would do even better with experienced and trained crew working in a true combined arms environment- and I say that with all respect to the Ukraine armed forces punching way above their weight.
The BMP-3 seems to be the only IFV that is comparable to the M2 on the WARSAW Pact/ USSR side for the T2K time period, and I can say that with some knowledge.
LAV 25 a close second!