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

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

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

Webstral

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

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

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

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

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

The Stoneman has my vote. :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I love it. Good work Paul.

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

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

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

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

Of course it is just a name....

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

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

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

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

Love it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Webstral

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

Has anyone got any stats on the XM800T?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3200/...7f03f82284.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

XM800 Project to provide an Armored Reconnaissance Scout Vehicle - XM800W (Wheeled) from Lockheed & XM800T (Tracked) from FMC (makers of the M113)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM800_A..._Scout_Vehicle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qitsOkEsMlU video of XM800T
http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_army...7614123484556/ more pics of XM800T
http://www.warwheels.net/X800WarsvINDEX.html XM800W

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

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

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

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

!

I noticed the inconsistency as well.

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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