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

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

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

Thanks kato that helps a lot. :D

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now where's the pork?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something like this?

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...onary_Tank.jpg

Bless you, James! That's it!

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

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

Ye gods, what a beauty!

Webstral

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

Indeed it does.:)

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

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

anybody have any more info on this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Webstral

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

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

Webstral

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

Lee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great suggestion! PLA Type 75A1 it is.

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

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

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

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

Lee