Franken-AFVs

[Tegyrius]

Over in the recent LAV-25 (https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=6095) thread, cawest (https://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php?p=83773&postcount=25) and StainlessSteelCynic (https://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php?p=83777&postcount=27) had some thoughts about field-expedient AFV modifications. In the spirit of technicals writ large, what are your most implausible turret transplants or other AFV hacks that might have arisen in the Twilight: 2000 universe?

For me, I've got a few:

From published canon, it's the M691 Diana (American Combat Vehicle Handbook, p. 72). Visually, it's the epitome of the musclebound dude with the tiny head stereotype. But it's also a waste of a perfectly good Abrams chassis. I mean, why put an ADA turret on that when you can put an M1 turret on it and have another M1?

Also from canon, there's a throwaway line in the Stingray's description (American Combat Vehicle Handbook, p. 41) about its turret being transplantable to the wheeled Cadillac Gage Commando models. Well, it might work - consider the AMX-10-RC - but sticking a light tank turret on top of an M706 seems a lot like putting a 75mm recoilless rifle on a Vespa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespa_150_TAP).

For homebrew factory modifications, I'll submit my old Louisville Slugger (https://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php?p=31250&postcount=49) from 2011's US Army AAA in T2k thread (https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=2711). Because nothing screams "ridiculous" like a CIWS jutting up from a Bradley chassis, swiveling around in full autonomous mode, and terrorizing everyone who's seen The Terminator.

- C.

[pmulcahy11b]

I have over in my Best Tanks that Never Were: A T-72 hull with a Leclerc turret. Got the idea from deviantART. I have a whole back story about how this came to be and a little bit of how it did in the Twilight War.

[CDAT]

I do not remember where I saw it, but putting two GAU8 on a M1. For both ADA and urban combat.

[Raellus]

ZU-23-2s mounted to the backs of MT-LB is a fairly common phenomenon. In some cases, it may be a purpose-built model (MT-LBM izdeliye 6MB5); in others, it appears to be a field expedient battlefield modification.

Although not strictly-speaking "Franken-AFVs", because nothing significant is being added, only taken away, I think you'd see a lot of tank and IFV hulls with the turret removed (due to irreparable damage/lack of spare parts) serving as ersatz APCs in the later days of T2K.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Amna_Sur_02.JPG/1280px-Amna_Sur_02.JPG

[Raellus]

Mohoender found this photo of BTR-60 mounting an AML-90 turret (presumably somewhere in W. Africa) several years back.

https://forum.juhlin.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=124&stc=1&d=1230757642

[mcchordsage]

Sticking support weapons on MT-LBs seems to be a proud tradition wherever they're found. The Syrians re-gunned some with 57mm guns, they and the Iraqis have put armored cupolas on them either around existing gun mounts or to make new ones, the Ukranians have replaced the SAM arms with helicopter rocket pods for MLRSes.

https://i.imgur.com/ILBx35n.png

https://i.imgur.com/rB2Jlbe.jpg

And a Libyan Humvee with an AML-90 gun I saved from somewhere. They were sold so many places in such volume, there are all kinds of reuses of their guns and turrets. Second is Djibouti MRAPs with AML turrets.
https://i.imgur.com/OXy1tNp.png

https://i.imgur.com/1tC5AKu.jpg

Two Vietnam era examples, featuring helicopter miniguns on ground vehicles.
https://i.imgur.com/k3u6lIT.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Qgmry8e.jpg

[StainlessSteelCynic]

At least with the recoilless rifle on the Vespa, it was a movement solution, not a combat solution. The Vespa was solely for transporting the recoilless rifle and it was never meant to be fired from the vehicle.

[Jason Weiser]

Over in the recent LAV-25 (https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=6095) thread, cawest (https://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php?p=83773&postcount=25) and StainlessSteelCynic (https://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php?p=83777&postcount=27) had some thoughts about field-expedient AFV modifications. In the spirit of technicals writ large, what are your most implausible turret transplants or other AFV hacks that might have arisen in the Twilight: 2000 universe?

For me, I've got a few:

From published canon, it's the M691 Diana (American Combat Vehicle Handbook, p. 72). Visually, it's the epitome of the musclebound dude with the tiny head stereotype. But it's also a waste of a perfectly good Abrams chassis. I mean, why put an ADA turret on that when you can put an M1 turret on it and have another M1?

Well, I think GDW came up with the idea because they figured by the time the war rolls around there's PLENTY of Abrams hulls to go around. I doubt it, and you're right, but then again, considering the mobility of the M1/M2 series? You really do need something that will keep up with them.


Also from canon, there's a throwaway line in the Stingray's description (American Combat Vehicle Handbook, p. 41) about its turret being transplantable to the wheeled Cadillac Gage Commando models. Well, it might work - consider the AMX-10-RC - but sticking a light tank turret on top of an M706 seems a lot like putting a 75mm recoilless rifle on a Vespa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespa_150_TAP).


I would hate to be the poor guy who is in the vehicle when it engages a target to the flank. I think the recoil might cause a rollover.


For homebrew factory modifications, I'll submit my old Louisville Slugger (https://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php?p=31250&postcount=49) from 2011's US Army AAA in T2k thread (https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=2711). Because nothing screams "ridiculous" like a CIWS jutting up from a Bradley chassis, swiveling around in full autonomous mode, and terrorizing everyone who's seen The Terminator.


So this is where Skynet came from? :D Seriously, it read like the experiences of WWI crews, who cheerfully got into their tanks, got bashed around, risked getting killed any number of ways and had the fumes from firing and the engine fill the cabin. They would then celebrate their survival by when they actually came to a halt, promptly dismounting and throwing up.

But seriously, Libya in 2011 had some truly weird stuff.

https://tse1.explicit.bing.net/th?id=OIP.BrHibLSa8Oc-IXQ-_vKwOQHaE6&pid=Api&P=0&w=270&h=180

BMP turret on a cutdown HMMWV hull, don't see that every day.

https://www.scalemates.com/products/img/1/4/3/1068143-14399-72-720.jpg

This was common enough, someone made a model kit out of it?

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/libya092711/l33_24022277.jpg

Proof you can mount ANYTHING on a Toyota Hillux, including a rocket pod meant for an aircraft.

https://milinme.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/lau-416.jpg

Hillbilly armor on a T-55. Well, that is a bit new.

Speaking of T-55s, let's discuss Iraq's entry into the "T-55 Pimp My Ride Sweepstakes." yeah, the Enigma.

Better yet, I'll let these guys discuss it, it's crude, it's rude, it makes engineers weep with "Why the hell did you people do this?"

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Iraq/t-55-enigma/

[Tegyrius]

Well, I think GDW came up with the idea because they figured by the time the war rolls around there's PLENTY of Abrams hulls to go around. I doubt it, and you're right, but then again, considering the mobility of the M1/M2 series? You really do need something that will keep up with them.

As we all know, the real-world answer to that mobility issue was the Bradley Linebacker. Oddly, I don't think there's a canonical Bradley-based ADA platform in T2k.

So this is where Skynet came from? :D Seriously, it read like the experiences of WWI crews, who cheerfully got into their tanks, got bashed around, risked getting killed any number of ways and had the fumes from firing and the engine fill the cabin. They would then celebrate their survival by when they actually came to a halt, promptly dismounting and throwing up.

That was not the design intent, but it works. :)

- C.

[cawest]

I was thinking of was taking like a LAV and replacing the turret with a single or twin 23mm or a recovered 30mm from a BMP. you could maybe even go with a 40mm like they are doing with the new Stryker. Maybe a 57mm in a thin skin turret.

But what if you have a tank with a turret blown off or otherwise that can not be fixed. you could take a page from WW 2 Kangaroo or you can put other weapons. Egypt and a few others have 130mm cannons mounted on them (without turrets). In Twilight 200 I would not go that way, but you can used that hull to carry heavy weapons.

lets take the t-72 with out a turret.

take part of the Kangaroo and build up the hull's turret ring. (it will not be armor plate but steel. take the turret ring from BMP or a ZSU23-4 Shilka.

you can mix an match this method a M1/m60 hull with a Shika or ZSU 57-2

[StainlessSteelCynic]

One of the most important things to consider here is turret ring size. Will the borrowed turret even fit the vehicle? Will you have to make a new deck & turret ring to fit the borrowed turret to the hull?
After that are the various requirements for turret rotation (mechanical, electrical, manual, etc. etc.) and installing the needed components.
Before that you have to find out whether the vehicle (or turret if giving it a different weapon) can handle the recoil of the weapon because that would mean extra gear to counter recoil forces.
Then there's the ammunition feed & storage. They will have to be changed to accommodate the different ammo requirement.
If you're just cramming a different (and larger calibre) weapon into the vehicle's standard turret, how crowded will this new weapon make the turret?

It's for all these reasons that I suggest making this sort of conversion a side-adventure for any Players who want to convert a vehicle. Finding a vehicle already converted is a different situation and I'm not attempting to address that.

[Olefin]

One of the most important things to consider here is turret ring size. Will the borrowed turret even fit the vehicle? Will you have to make a new deck & turret ring to fit the borrowed turret to the hull?
After that are the various requirements for turret rotation (mechanical, electrical, manual, etc. etc.) and installing the needed components.
Before that you have to find out whether the vehicle (or turret if giving it a different weapon) can handle the recoil of the weapon because that would mean extra gear to counter recoil forces.
Then there's the ammunition feed & storage. They will have to be changed to accommodate the different ammo requirement.
If you're just cramming a different (and larger calibre) weapon into the vehicle's standard turret, how crowded will this new weapon make the turret?

It's for all these reasons that I suggest making this sort of conversion a side-adventure for any Players who want to convert a vehicle. Finding a vehicle already converted is a different situation and I'm not attempting to address that.

An excellent post - and would make an interesting exercise for the players and the GM to thru as a way to have to gather the materials and expertise to do that - let alone the facility you would need to be able to do something like that

I could see players who are adventuring in CA possibly doing this in conjunction with the facility that Littlefield had - i.e. if anyone has the expertise to make a working FrankenAFV its him and his mechanics - and they had the facility - now its up to the players to get the parts he needs

[Vespers War]

I do not remember where I saw it, but putting two GAU8 on a M1. For both ADA and urban combat.

I'm not sure about paired GAU-8, but the GE entry for DIVAD was an Abrams with a shortened Avenger, since they were already building the gun for the A-10.

For paired guns, the Abrams-based Liberty II had a pair of 25mm Bushmasters and 12 Crotale NG missiles. It was proposed for FAADS, the replacement for DIVAD, by Thomson and Vought.

[cawest]

or something like this https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Iraq/T-55-130SPG

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I can see something like the following happening in basic workshops: -

https://pp.userapi.com/c637728/v637728517/5ebcb/CkcoLwl15EI.jpg

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LKqyLcrrcsU/WjUoYv4twZI/AAAAAAAAABc/j8xtoDdLsAMD1cVFiraVePLYn7TBlFaDQCLcBGAs/s1600/f-maute-a-20170616-870x643.jpg

And there's plenty more where that came from...
Images from this site: - https://philippinestoday.blogspot.com/2017/12/philippine-armoured-vehicles-wood-armor.html

And even improvised fighting vehicles such as trucks given armour and carrying a field gun portee-style like this: -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/AEC_Deacon.jpg

Image from wiki: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port%C3%A9e_(military)

But as mentioned in my earlier posts, I think for armoured vehicles, replacing the turret or main armament with something the vehicle was not originally configured for, would take skilled personnel with a proper workshop (e.g. one that can do repair & refurbishment levels of work)

[Raellus]

Interesting pics. I wonder how effective those wooden boards are IRL, and what their AV would be in T2k [v2.2] rules.

I know that sandbags, extra track links, and even bed-springs have been used to detonate HEAT warheads before they reach the armor proper, but the boards in the pics aren't but one or two inches thick and are mounted flush against the hull. I reckon they wouldn't do much to stop a standard RPG=7 or M72 LAW HEAT warhead from penetrating the vehicle armor.

[Targan]

Interesting pics. I wonder how effective those wooden boards are IRL, and what their AV would be in T2k [v2.2] rules.

I know that sandbags, extra track links, and even bed-springs have been used to detonate HEAT warheads before they reach the armor proper, but the boards in the pics aren't but one or two inches thick and are mounted flush against the hull. I reckon they wouldn't do much to stop a standard RPG=7 or M72 LAW HEAT warhead from penetrating the vehicle armor.

Does the placebo effect work against shaped charges? :D

[cawest]

Does the placebo effect work against shaped charges? :D

maybe not against the shaped charge, but it might work against the detonator. if they have degraded by time, water, or other issues? then the crush switches might become very weak, and go off even under just the g loading of the launch.

[Vespers War]

Interesting pics. I wonder how effective those wooden boards are IRL, and what their AV would be in T2k [v2.2] rules.

I know that sandbags, extra track links, and even bed-springs have been used to detonate HEAT warheads before they reach the armor proper, but the boards in the pics aren't but one or two inches thick and are mounted flush against the hull. I reckon they wouldn't do much to stop a standard RPG=7 or M72 LAW HEAT warhead from penetrating the vehicle armor.

Wood is 0.2 AV per cm. It's in TNE's World Tamer's Handbook.

[Legbreaker]

It's in all versions of T2k rules too.

[Rockwolf66]

As we all know, the real-world answer to that mobility issue was the Bradley Linebacker. Oddly, I don't think there's a canonical Bradley-based ADA platform in T2k.



That was not the design intent, but it works. :)

- C.

There is with the M757 Blazer. it's found in the US Army Vehicle guide. I have a couple of photos of the prototype it's based on. I'll share them in the Discord.

[Tegyrius]

There is with the M757 Blazer. it's found in the US Army Vehicle guide. I have a couple of photos of the prototype it's based on. I'll share them in the Discord.

Good catch! I keep forgetting to flip through the 1e Vehicle Guides. My paper copies went out on loan years ago and never came back, so I only have them in PDF, and the hardcopy 2e Combat Vehicle Handbooks are more convenient if I'm not doing a Ctrl+F text search.

(It looks like three other vehicles failed to make the jump from 1e USAVG to 2e ACVH: the ambulance and weapon carrier HMMWVs, which are no big deal, and the M920 Bradley Hellfire carrier. Weirdly, both the M757 and the M920 already had line art in 1e, so GDW presumably could have ported them over to 2e with little added expense. The M2A3 is the obvious replacement for the M920 and makes more sense, from a mass-production and deployment perspective, than a dedicated Hellfire carrier. The M757's omission is more inexplicable - we probably could've done without something like the XM12...)

- C.

[Vespers War]

One of the most important things to consider here is turret ring size. Will the borrowed turret even fit the vehicle? Will you have to make a new deck & turret ring to fit the borrowed turret to the hull?
After that are the various requirements for turret rotation (mechanical, electrical, manual, etc. etc.) and installing the needed components.
Before that you have to find out whether the vehicle (or turret if giving it a different weapon) can handle the recoil of the weapon because that would mean extra gear to counter recoil forces.
Then there's the ammunition feed & storage. They will have to be changed to accommodate the different ammo requirement.
If you're just cramming a different (and larger calibre) weapon into the vehicle's standard turret, how crowded will this new weapon make the turret?

It's for all these reasons that I suggest making this sort of conversion a side-adventure for any Players who want to convert a vehicle. Finding a vehicle already converted is a different situation and I'm not attempting to address that.

One swap that should work for turret ring size is Abrams/Chieftain/Challenger 2/M48/M60 and probably T-72/T-80. The NATO tanks all have the same diameter, as do the two WP tanks, and there's only 3mm of difference between the turret ring sizes between the two groups. The T-64 probably won't work, because its ring is 2.245m instead of 2.159/2.162m, nor will the Leopard 2 with its 1.980m turret ring or the T-54 at 1.825m. There would be issues with the autoloader or lack thereof if swapping between NATO and WP.

I'm not sure what the turret ring diameters are for Leclerc, K2, Type 90 (Japan), or China's Type 80/88/85/96 or Type 99.

[cawest]

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10158782923399494&set=gm.1015012985648613

[StainlessSteelCynic]

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10158782923399494&set=gm.1015012985648613

Unfortunately, if you do not have a facebook account, you cannot log in and thereby cannot see this post :(

[pmulcahy11b]

There is with the M757 Blazer. it's found in the US Army Vehicle guide. I have a couple of photos of the prototype it's based on. I'll share them in the Discord.

I have taken some of the vehicles in the various handbooks, updated their stats, and given them back stories. They be found in the various "vehicles that never were" pages.

[Fallenkezef]

The Berlin brigade converted some FV432's by adding 30mm cannon turrets from fox armoured cars.

The principle could apply to American M113's perhaps? Put on a bradley or LAV turret maybe?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The Berlin brigade converted some FV432's by adding 30mm cannon turrets from fox armoured cars.

The principle could apply to American M113's perhaps? Put on a bradley or LAV turret maybe?
And it has certainly been done to the M113. Both Israel and Australia fitted cannon-armed turrets to their M113s and I vaguely recall that during the 1980s-90s fitting a turret was an upgrade option some companies offered to nations that used the vehicle.
The weapons being suggested were everything from 20mm autocannon up to soft-recoil 90mm.
I believe the Egyptians had a plan to mount a Bradley turret on a lengthened M113 but it never went into production (was given the rather generic name Egyptian Infantry Fighting Vehicle if I remember...)

[Raellus]

IIRC, there's an M113 with a LAV turret in the US Army Vehicle Guide.

-

[Tegyrius]

IIRC, there's an M113 with a LAV turret in the US Army Vehicle Guide.

M115A1 ACCV. Page 24.

Throw the LAV-25's proposed TOW sidesaddle mount on there and it's... still not a Bradley, but definitely closer to one in capability.

- C.

[micromachine]

How close do the turret rings of the Bradey and the LAV-25 measure up?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I haven't found the turret ring diameter of the LAV-25 (but I haven't really searched for the info either) but according to one site I've visited a few times, the Bradley turret ring diameter is 150cm.
Does anyone have the the diameter for the LAV-25 so we can compare the two?

Information source http://afvdb.50megs.com/
Specifically this page for the Bradley http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m3bradley.html#M3

[Legbreaker]

The M2 Bradley has a turret ring of 150cm (60"). Having a bit of trouble finding info on turret ring dimension of the LAV-25, LAV II, ASLAV or any related vehicle though, but I'm thinking it would have to be similar.

[Olefin]

Leg - I searched and couldnt find it so far but will keep looking

What I did find I bet you you would love to look thru - Armored Car Newsletter

http://www.warwheels.net/images/ACJfinal32.pdf

File is too big to upload so may break it up - but great article on the ASLAV

[cawest]

Unfortunately, if you do not have a facebook account, you cannot log in and thereby cannot see this post :(

Okay here you go its M113/TS90

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Okay here you go its M113/TS90

Thanks for posting that image.
I have to say, it kinda looks "wrong", as in, the turret look too big for the hull - like seeing a fat head on a tiny body kinda wrong (and not photoshop kinda wrong)

[Vespers War]

The M113/LS90 looks less top-heavy, since it uses a smaller LP90 turret from the Cadillac Gage V-300/LAV-300 with a Cockerill Mk. III gun. It's quite a bit smaller than the GIAT TS90 turret with CS90 gun. Ammunition stowage was 42 rounds, and the fully equipped and crewed turret weighed about 4900 pounds.

Australia had a number of turreted M113s that loosely fit into the Frankenvehicle concept - they were standard production, but cannibalized parts from vehicles being retired. I expect the Australian board members will know more than I do, but my understanding is it started with an interim fire support vehicle that had the Saladin armored car's turret added, giving the M113 a 76mm and .30 coax. It was replaced by the medium fire support vehicle with the FV101 Scorpion's turret, also 76mm and .30. There was also a light fire support vehicle with the T50 turret from the Cadillac Gage V100/V150, which had a .50 and a .30. Troops were generally equipped with 3 light and 2 medium support vehicles.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The M113/LS90 looks less top-heavy, since it uses a smaller LP90 turret from the Cadillac Gage V-300/LAV-300 with a Cockerill Mk. III gun. It's quite a bit smaller than the GIAT TS90 turret with CS90 gun. Ammunition stowage was 42 rounds, and the fully equipped and crewed turret weighed about 4900 pounds.

Australia had a number of turreted M113s that loosely fit into the Frankenvehicle concept - they were standard production, but cannibalized parts from vehicles being retired. I expect the Australian board members will know more than I do, but my understanding is it started with an interim fire support vehicle that had the Saladin armored car's turret added, giving the M113 a 76mm and .30 coax. It was replaced by the medium fire support vehicle with the FV101 Scorpion's turret, also 76mm and .30. There was also a light fire support vehicle with the T50 turret from the Cadillac Gage V100/V150, which had a .50 and a .30. Troops were generally equipped with 3 light and 2 medium support vehicles.
In regard to how Australia equipped units with the M113, it depends on the time period.
Initially, Cavalry units were equipped with the the Saladin turret M113 which was know as the Fire Support Vehicle (M113 FSV), other vehicles retained the standard commander's hatch and pintle mounted MG until it was decided to fit the T50 turret to protect the commander (from memory, as a response to casualties in Vietnam). They still retained their APC designation as the Cavalry units were essentially still "battlefield taxi" units despite having the fire support of the Saladin turret M113.

When some units were re-roled as Armoured Reconnaissance units, they were taken away from the "taxi" role and were equipped with the Scorpion turret M113 but as befits the role, they were known as Medium Reconnaissance Vehicles (M113 MRV) while the standard APC M113 was known, only within the Armoured Recce units, as the Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (M113 LRV).
Even though, by this time, all troop carrying M113s had been fitted with the T50 turret, those vehicles in cavalry units were know as APCs while M113s with the exact same configuration (i.e. T50 turret) in the Armoured Recce units were know as LRVs.

All the 76mm armed M113s in Australian service had been retired before the 2000s and the common talk at the time was that the smoke from the 76mm ammunition was carcinogenic so it was done for health reasons. Neither the Saladin or Scorpion turrets had any sort of bore or barrel evacuator so a lot of that smoke ended up in the turret.

[dragoon500ly]

You really don't need the bore evacuator on a smaller caliber main gun the turret blower is all you really need.

Almost all NATO standard cannon ammunition is ammonia -based, after firing several rounds, blowers get switched on and hatches get cracked! Another problem on AFVs without escape hatches, is the practice of using a spent case as a piss tube, not so nice on a hot day....

[StainlessSteelCynic]

As mentioned, it was "common talk" i.e. soldier's gossip.
The actual reason for withdrawal of the M113 MRV may have been as prosaic as plans for the future structure of the army no longer saw a role for it.
Or because the 76mm was seen as no longer effective against current and/or potential future threats.
However, what was commonly mentioned at the time was that it was done for health reasons because the 76mm ammo was claimed to produce carcinogenic smoke.
How accurate that belief was, I don't particularly know.

EDIT:
After some checking on the web, it seems the claim most likely originated in the UK in 1991. The belief is that the Scorpion was classified as a "tank" under the Conventional Forces Europe treaty and was earmarked for removal from British forces, apparently in order to prevent the number of MBTs on strength from having to be reduced further. However soldier's gossip made that into "Scorpion was removed because it caused cancer etc. etc."
Other claims about the smoke from the 76mm ammo are that it was toxic, that it caused Alzheimer's disease and even Parkinson's disease.
Why Australia chose to remove the MRV from service could have been a knee-jerk reaction to the those rumours or it could indeed be something as mundane as the 76mm (which if I recall, only carried HESH and HE as offensive rounds in Australian service) was considered no longer up to the task.

[Vespers War]

Even though, by this time, all troop carrying M113s had been fitted with the T50 turret, those vehicles in cavalry units were know as APCs while M113s with the exact same configuration (i.e. T50 turret) in the Armoured Recce units were know as LRVs.

I may be misremembering something I read, but weren't the cavalry T50s equipped with dual .30 MGs, while the LRV T50s had a .50 and a .30?

[Legbreaker]

I may be misremembering something I read, but weren't the cavalry T50s equipped with dual .30 MGs, while the LRV T50s had a .50 and a .30?

Really it appeared a bit random in my experience as an infantryman. Most the buckets I rode in had the .50/.30 but a handful (usually older machines) had the twin .30's. Mostly it seemed to come down to what guns were available and functional in the unit's armoury at the time.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

To further add to what Legbreaker said, the choice of whether to fit two .30 cals or a 30/50 combo or even a single .50 cal usually came down to the unit itself and what they felt was the best mix.
The first Armoured Recce unit I joined typically had all the T50 turrets armed with the 30/50 mix and extra .30 cals were mounted on the designated APC in the Troops (on pintles at the rear so that the Assault Troops being carried could use them from the read hatch).

Typical structure of the Recce Troop in the 1980s onward was five vehicles comprised of 2x MRV, 2x LRV, 1x APC. A Section of Assault Troops was carried to allow recce tasks in areas the vehicles couldn't access but they were also expected to carry out minor demolitions and engineering work in support of the vehicles.

[pmulcahy11b]

Okay here you go its M113/TS90

That's more of a roll hazard than a 577...

[pmulcahy11b]

I haven't found the turret ring diameter of the LAV-25 (but I haven't really searched for the info either) but according to one site I've visited a few times, the Bradley turret ring diameter is 150cm.
Does anyone have the the diameter for the LAV-25 so we can compare the two?

Information source http://afvdb.50megs.com/
Specifically this page for the Bradley http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m3bradley.html#M3

Let me try something...get back to you tomorrow...

[cawest]

this might not be the best fit but I just found this image to day.

[pmulcahy11b]

Let me try something...get back to you tomorrow...

Well, I didn't find what I was looking for on my hard drives, but I did find this
https://euro-sd.com/2020/02/articles/16016/turret-options-for-8x8-combat-vehicles/

Which, among other things seems to say that most Western European, Canadian, US, Australian, Swedish, Finnish, and Kiwi 6x6 and 8x8 vehicles with a turret are designed to accept a wide variety of other turrets designed for other 6x6 and 8x8 turreted vehicles.

Not exactly what you were looking for, but useful information.

And let me try something else I just thought of... be back again tomorrow.

[Raellus]

Seems you can slap just about anything on top of an MT-LB. Both Russians and Ukrainians have been mounting all sorts of weapons that would have been widely available in the T2k timelines on the top decks of MT-LBs.

So far, I've seen:

ZU-23-2 (RU & UAF)
Vasilek auto-mortars (UAF)
MT-12 Rapira AT gun (UAF)

And, for a more modern timeline, a Turko-Ukrainian SEDAR remote weapon station (UAF)

Pics: Rapira at left, and Vasilek in armored barbette (improvised) at right.

-

[CraigD6er]

I haven't found the turret ring diameter of the LAV-25 (but I haven't really searched for the info either) but according to one site I've visited a few times, the Bradley turret ring diameter is 150cm.
Does anyone have the the diameter for the LAV-25 so we can compare the two?

Information source http://afvdb.50megs.com/
Specifically this page for the Bradley http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m3bradley.html#M3

Best I've got is that the Grizzly/Piranha 1 had a 1m turret ring. Whether this stayed the same as the vehicle design morphed to LAV-25 I can't tell.
https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1567&context=cmh

[Brit]

Possibly / probably not the info. required but this links to the What If modellers forum... and the theme is turret rings:

https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=32677.msg507093#msg507093

[Brit]

Okay here you go its M113/TS90

That really does look too much turret on too little a vehicle... but...

Go with me on this but the WWII Matilda tank turret to me works on the M113. I know I stuck one on one... :o

The WWII, etc, Stuart turret 'works' too...

[Vespers War]

Seems you can slap just about anything on top of an MT-LB. Both Russians and Ukrainians have been mounting all sorts of weapons that would have been widely available in the T2k timelines on the top decks of MT-LBs.

So far, I've seen:

ZU-23-2 (RU & UAF)
Vasilek auto-mortars (UAF)
MT-12 Rapira AT gun (UAF)

And, for a more modern timeline, a Turko-Ukrainian SEDAR remote weapon station (UAF)

Pics: Rapira at left, and Vasilek in armored barbette (improvised) at right.

-

It's not all that surprising - the 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled howitzer is on an MT-LBu chassis (7 roadwheels instead of 6). If a very slightly bigger variant can carry around a 122mm artillery gun and its ammunition, the MT-LB should be capable of carrying a fair bit of kit itself.

For the ZU-23-2 in particular, Iraq had two different versions of an MT-LB with ZU-23-2, one open mount for use as a SPAAG and one closed turreted mount for use as an infantry support vehicle.

The MT-LB is like a slightly more professional-looking technical - if it's at all possible to physically mount a particular weapon on it, someone has probably done so somewhere.

[Raellus]

Although not really an example an armored fighting vehicle per se, this thread seems to be the most appropriate place for it.

This UAF battlefield medical vehicle- which looks like it just rolled out of Damnation Alley- is based on a BTR-60 chassis but looks nothing like the original.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraines-post-apocalyptic-looking-ark-eyed-as-battlefield-medical-vehicle

-

[Raellus]

From the Ukraine Weapons tracker Twitter account:

"An interesting Russian MT-LB variant was captured by the Ukrainian army in the vicinity of Vuhledar, #Donetsk Oblast - the APC was upgunned with a 2M-7 naval turret with 2 KPV 14.5mm heavy machine guns, originally intended to be installed on patrol boats and trawlers."

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1621590682849648644?s=20&t=QKvbTAFvHQls0Ub9SBiG2A

That's a good amount of firepower for an APC, but the addition of the naval turret nearly doubles the height/profile of the MTLB.

-

[kato13]

"An interesting Russian MT-LB variant was captured by the Ukrainian army in the vicinity of Vuhledar, #Donetsk Oblast - the APC was upgunned with a 2M-7 naval turret with 2 KPV 14.5mm heavy machine guns, originally intended to be installed on patrol boats and trawlers."
-

MOUT (military operations in urban terrain) modification? Gives you a higher inclination (I am assuming) in addition to higher volume of fire.

[Raellus]

MOUT (military operations in urban terrain) modification? Gives you a higher inclination (I am assuming) in addition to higher volume of fire.

Good thought. The photo in the Tweet showed it on Ukraine's steppe, but that doesn't mean it isn't intended for MOUT.

-

[Ursus Maior]

My money still is on "what was available". The vehicle seems to belong to one of the self-proclaimed proto-states in Donbas. They get the hand-me-downs Russia won't even give to it's mobilized troops.

[Raellus]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/03/04/desperate-russian-forces-are-adding-80-year-old-naval-guns-to-70-year-old-armored-tractors/?sh=70c72160112c

"In early March, photos circulated online depicting MT-LBs with 2M-3 naval turrets welded to their roofs. The 2M-3 is two 25-millimeter auto-cannons, one atop the other in an enclosed casing. The 2M-3 made its debut in 1953."

https://i.redd.it/z8wnauspljla1.jpg

This is an upgrade (?) on the modified MT-LB mentioned upthread. From the piece:

"The first of these weirdo MT-LBs started showing up in Ukraine last month. On or before Feb. 3, Ukrainian forces in Vuhledar captured from hapless Russian brigades a 13-ton, two-crew MT-LB sporting a 2M-7 gunboat turret.

The 2M-7 is an over-under pair of 14.5-millimeter machine guns behind a steel shield. It entered service with Soviet forces in 1945."

-

[kato13]

The optimistic assumptions I have read about this particular conversion is that

Perhaps 25mm Ammo is relatively plentiful in current stores (thought not manufactured since 1984)
Increased elevation allows interception of drones (though ammo is not proximity fused)
Up-gunned for urban warfare
A feel good weapon for masses of cannon fodder (added in edit)


Or they are simply scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Edited ammo info after getting more information.

[Raellus]

Russian 25mm 2M-3M naval gun emplaced on a Russian ATS-59G artillery tractor.

[Spartan-117]

Russian 25mm 2M-3M naval gun emplaced on a Russian ATS-59G artillery tractor.

Oh Tovarisch! We have cannibalized too much of the Army for this war!

Well 'Tovarisch'.. have we cannibalized the Navy yet?

#RuzzianLife

[Raellus]

Another Rapira mounted atop an MTLB, this one with a wrap-around gun shield. The whole thing is somewhat reminiscent of a German Nashorn self-propelled AT gun from WW2.

[Homer]

And still no overhead cover…

[Raellus]

Rear view of the "assault APC" based on the T-64 chassis. I sure hope it keeps its "front toward enemy".

-

[Raellus]

In Ukraine, UAF T-62 chassis are being converted to heavy IFVs by fitting them with BMP-2 turrets. At left is an image of a workshop where this FrankenAFV is being produced. On the right is a Algeria's version of a T-62 heavy IFC, these fitted with B05Ya01 Berezhok turrets.

[Ursus Maior]

Reportedly, Ukraine also converts some T-62s into ARVs to support its upcoming offensives.

[mpipes]

I don't see the point? Isn't a T-62 MBT more useful for offensive operations than a IFV?

[Tegyrius]

I don't see the point? Isn't a T-62 MBT more useful for offensive operations than a IFV?

Maybe they see 115mm as the .41 AE hipster caliber of tank guns.

- C.

[micromachine]

Might be a case of ammunition...the 115mm gun is not really as widespread as the 100mm or 125mm. Most of the users are not very pro West, or haver their own troubles to expend ammo on.

[Vespers War]

T-62 also has no autoloader, so they'd have to train another crew member for each tank crew. And only 42 are known to have been captured, which puts a pretty sharp limit on how many Ukraine could field (their last pre-war T-62 left service in 2000). I'm actually a little surprised they didn't all become ARVs or bridge layers (the other conversion Kharkiv had offered), since even as a HAPC they can only equip a small number of units with the vehicle.

[Raellus]

Apparently, the Ukrainians plan to use the T-62+BMP-2 Franken-AFVs as infantry support vehicles- not as heavy APCs, as first reported. That makes more sense, conceptually. It would appear that the BMPT-62's raison d'etre is similar to that of the Russians' BMPT Terminator- to provide assault infantry with direct fire support, especially during MOUT. It looks like the WW2 era assault gun concept is making a bit of a comeback.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/05/29/the-ukrainians-are-turning-captured-t-62-tanks-into-heavily-armored-support-vehicles/?sh=4f5b799684a3

Aside from the 30mm autocannon and 7.62x54mmR coax, we don't yet know if the UAF's BMPT-62s will pack any additional armament. I would reckon that they will add some sort of tube-launched ATGM, like the Algerians do with their own BMPT-62s (see post #65 for a pic), to give it the ability to take on enemy MBTs, if necessary.

-

[Raellus]

This latest article calls the Ukrainian [BMPT-62] Terminator "a Frankenstein's Monster of captured Russian components." As you can see from the photo in the article, the Ukrainians have added reactive armor. I don't see an ATGM launcher yet, but that would probably be added on in one of the last stages of fitting out.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/06/05/the-ukrainian-terminator-vehicle-is-a-frankensteins-monster-of-captured-russian-components/?sh=6c30c9f15357

-

[Vespers War]

Isn't the canvas bag covering the mount for the ATGM launcher? That sure looks like the area where the launcher usually is on a BMP-2 turret.

[Raellus]

Isn't the canvas bag covering the mount for the ATGM launcher? That sure looks like the area where the launcher usually is on a BMP-2 turret.

On top of the turret roof? Yes, that's where BMP-2's traditionally mount an AT-5 Spandrel ATGM launcher. I'm not sure that's a canvas bag, though. It looks like an open turret roof hatch to me.

But you're right, it could be an ATGM mount. I was thinking that the Ukrainians might want to mount ATGM's on the turret sides, like the Algerian BMPT-62 in the photo upthread. AFAIK, the old roof mount required the operator to expose himself in order to launch/guide the missile. Newer systems allow the operator to remain "safely" inside the vehicle while operating the missile system. I thought that was what the Ukrainians would be going for.

-

[Raellus]

This BMPT-62 looks ready to roll towards the front line. Surprisingly, I still don't see any evidence of an ATGM mount. I hope these things don't run into any Russian MBTs.

[Raellus]

This one doesn't make any sense. Raise the profile (making it a bigger target) to accommodate a few passengers? I don't think this one is going to catch on.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/06/08/the-prize-for-weirdest-armored-vehicle-goes-to-ukraines-frankenstein-scout-car/?sh=7735d366318e

-

[Raellus]

Here, we see a BTR-80 with UB-32 S-8 rocket pods, a MT-LB with a naval 140mm A-22 rocket launcher taken from a Zubr LCAC, and an MT-LB with improvised track side armor and twin DShK. I'd never considered it before the current conflict (does it have a name yet?), but it's interesting how many obsolete naval weapon systems the Russians have mounted to MTLBs. I reckon this is something one would see in the T2kU, as naval forces run out of fuel.

[kato13]

Yet another MTLB mod

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fz4ALF1agAIkp4K?format=jpg

Would not want to be on the mortar when the rocket launcher is fired.

[Homer]

Here, we see a BTR-80 with UB-32 S-8 rocket pods, a MT-LB with a naval 140mm A-22 rocket launcher taken from a Zubr LCAC, and an MT-LB with improvised track side armor and twin DShK. I'd never considered it before the current conflict (does it have a name yet?), but it's interesting how many obsolete naval weapon systems the Russians have mounted to MTLBs. I reckon this is something one would see in the T2kU, as naval forces run out of fuel.

Great thought! The tech is there to do an early version of C-RAM (essentially a ground mount 20mm phalanx that shoots HE instead of APDS) in the T2KU. If you could ensure power and ammo supply, you could even do expedient versions.

[Raellus]

-

[Raellus]

The Russians are bolting RBU-60 anti-submarine rocket launchers to the backs of MTLBs.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/09/24/russian-forces-are-bolting-old-anti-submarine-rocket-launchers-on-equally-old-armored-tractors/?sh=64178cc13917

I could easily see this happening in the Twilight War, as naval forces are whittled down by attrition and lack of fuel.

[Raellus]

From Popular Mechanics:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a45342867/ukrainian-troops-hate-their-armored-vehicles/

The article gives a fairly detailed description of yet another ad hoc MT-LB "IFV", as well as a brief tactical analysis of its employment.

-

[Ursus Maior]

From Popular Mechanics:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a45342867/ukrainian-troops-hate-their-armored-vehicles/

The article gives a fairly detailed description of yet another ad hoc MT-LB "IFV", as well as a brief tactical analysis of its employment.

-

Interesting link, thank you for sharing. I sometimes think the Ukrainian MoD is running to many projects at one time and does neitzer prioritize well nor do they look for synergies. Instead of slapping this and that onto various MT-LB and MT-LBu APCs, I think it would be less time and ressource consuming to put a mid-weight RWS ontop of these oldtimers.

Rheinmetall's FLW200 can mount a M2 .50 cal and smoke launchers, while offering excellent optronics, without the need for punching big holes through the roof plate. The similar sized Kongsberg RS.4 can even add an ATGM while carrying a GPMG (maybe even an HMG), which would give a previously unarmed APC anti-tank capabilities.

Sure, it wouldn't be the TOW of a Bradley, but Spike and Javelin are good enough. And while it's a one-shot weapon that would need to be reloaded by a crew member leaving armor protetion for the process, it's better than nothing and infact quite something.

Adding spaced steel armor to the front and 1/3 or even 2/3 of the sides should also be enough and keep the MT-LBu from loosing to much of it's already feable power. And since modern non-penetrating RWS can be placed anywhere on top of a vehicle, putting them as far rearward as possible, balances out any front-heavy add-on armor.

As a bonus, modern RWS can be salvaged easily and repaired separetely. Buying 120 percent of needed units would allow for a floating reserve that could be screwed on, once a mounted unit receives battle damage. Servicing them could be done in country or in a service hub in Poland, Slovakia Romania or even further West.

[bash]

I think getting ahold of a supply of RWS is difficult for Ukraine at the moment. So that's one reason why they wouldn't use them on their MT-LBs. Another possible reason I was thinking is one of height. The MT-LB is very squat and seems a bit short for a Stormtro...IFV. IIRC dismounts need to basically climb over the engine compartment to get out of it.

A RWS would need to be mounted on some sort of tower to give it enough clearance to provide effective fire for dismounts. A lot of the guns and rockets we see mounted on MT-LBs either themselves have a fair height or look mounted for lobbed/indirect fire. A foot or two of height difference will significantly change the fields of fire for a RWS. With too little clearance they wouldn't be able to depress the barrel to fire into trenches. That eliminates some of their utility on a battle taxi.

Then of course there's the MT-LBs light armor. Equipping it with a relatively short ranged RWS will tempt commanders to try using it as a battle taxi and drive up on trenches. It's a lightly armored tractor rather than a real IFV.

[micromachine]

The baseline MTLB comes with a PKT in the little conical turret offset to the right...with a good welder and a bit of ingenuity, this could probably accept a .50 HMG or grenade launcher if the turret is replaced by a pintle and shield mount. Both of these are effective ranged fire weapons that will dissuade any future Heroes of the Russian Federation from trying to get a kill with short range anti-armor rockets.

[Raellus]

The Russians have mounted a ZU-23-2 to a BMP-1 to create an ersatz infantry fire support AFV.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/11/17/russias-three-gun-bmp-is-ugly-but-it-might-actually-work/?sh=1757008538c0

Apparently, this isn't a new idea. TIL, the Armenians fielded a bespoke version (see pic).

I think a lot of AFVs that manage to survive until 2000 would not primarily perform the same roles that they did early in the war. For example, this Franken-BMP would be more useful as an infantry support AFV than as a true APC/IFV.

-

[Vespers War]

Afghanistan also modified some of their BMP-1 by placing the ZU-23 on top of it, and Greece modified some of the BMP-1A1 Ost that they imported from Germany. I haven't seen numbers on how many either modified, but Greece had close to 500 of both the BMP-1A1 Ost and the ZU-23-2, so barring additional imports that's the maximum they could have converted (and it's probably fewer).

edit: one key difference is the Afghanis and Greeks replaced the main turret with the ZU-23, instead of glomming it on top of the existing turret.

This conversion probably makes even more sense now than it would twenty years ago, since it can also serve as a last-ditch SPAAG against low-end drones; while it's obsolete against most modern piloted aircraft, the Shaheds and Orlans of the world can still be engaged by small-caliber autocannon.

[Heffe]

This popped up yesterday from Ukraine. A BMW 7 series being utilized as a jury-rigged MLRS.

[Raellus]

I'm not sure if this thing was ever finished, and if so, whether it saw any action, but apparently a Libyan faction in the country's civil war started to convert a BTR-60 8x8 APC into an armored gunboat.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a20695/armored-personnel-carrier-transformed-into-boat/

I did not include include this in Baltic Boats https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/477636/baltic-boats

Here's a CGI artist's rendering of what the finished product might have looked like:

[Raellus]

These monstrosities seem ridiculous, but they must be at least somewhat effective because the Russians keep making them.

IRL, the design intent is to provide protection from loitering munitions and attack drones.

Tactically, Russian "Turtle Tanks" are being employed like their first- generation WWI progenitors, acting as breaching vehicles for infantry attacks.

There's an argument to be made that "Turtle Tanks" would also appear during the later years of the Twilight War.

By 2000, operational armor is rare. So are current-gen ATGMs. However, most Soviet tanks are still pretty vulnerable to various types of LAW. "Turtle" tanks would be much less likely to be defeated by LAWs and RPGs, even massed volleys of them. A single "Turtle Tank" could lead an assault element against defended positions, much as they are doing now in Ukraine. That is, as long as the defenders didn't have their own tanks. In tank-on-tank combat, the Turtle Tank's compromised mobility, limited firing arcs, and reduced situational awareness would make it more, not less, vulnerable.

[ChalkLine]

Hi, long time with no post
I've compiled a vast list too big to post that has the weight and often turret rings of all the 1990s and a bit earlier turrets. If you have any questions please ask.

[Tegyrius]

I'd love to get a copy of that for seeding my random generators. Dropbox?

- C.

[ChalkLine]

I'd love to get a copy of that for seeding my random generators. Dropbox?

- C.

I'll try and get it into a readable format for you :)

[Tegyrius]

Much appreciated!

Also, this TWZ article seems oddly relevant: it looks like there's a proposal to refit Leopard 1 chassis as ADA platforms with a turret swap (https://www.twz.com/land/old-leopard-tanks-can-be-reborn-as-air-defense-systems-with-skyranger-35-turret).

- C.

[Raellus]

Surely, there's gotta be a few of these rolling around during the Twilight War?