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

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.

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?

KillDozer

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j2.../killdozer.jpg

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

Too bad they didn't have any antitank weapons.

LAV-25 excellent mobility, very accurate stabilized gun
 

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.

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.

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.

Water,water
 

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Poppa Charlie
 

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

Customizable
 

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.

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

https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/pK...FZEY4PQJEA.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! :)

Barn Door
 

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...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...le-casualties/

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.

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.

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/imag...ipment_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/milita..._04_dvdb08.JPG

Side doors
http://www.sa-transport.co.za/milita..._07_dvdb08.JPG

Real Looker
 

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/-tU7IAypOA...atel_90_01.jpg
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...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?

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/1edce90a...kvzo2_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.

: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...9021f3d6b0.jpg

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

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/milita..._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/milita...ehicles_3.html

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.

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.

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

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

Clarification
 

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.

-

Thanks for the clarification!

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

Nor was the FV432