TOW or Hellfire would probably require some sort of box mounting but could be fired from the safety of inside the vehicle. This would add to the weight, bulk, and maybe profile of the LAV.

The other option is an external Dragon or Tank Breaker mount for the commander like the one posted by Leg. I like this a bit better. The gun/missile combo makes the M20 particularly versatile. Add a 7.62mm coax and an M2 for the commander and the Ridgway will be able to take on almost all comers.

I'm not sure but I think Targan may be thinking about a version armed only with ATGMs, kind of the like the M901/M113 ITV. If this is the case, bigger is better and I would go with Hellfire. The v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide presents a similar concept with Hellfires mounted on a Bradley chasis (the M920 Hellfire AT vehicle on p.33). The Hellfires are exposed, though, and I would guess that would eventually lead to system degredation due to exposure to the elements and such.

On the other hand, such a vehicle wished-for by Targan already exists in canon. On page 32, there's the M917 ADATS vehicle based on the LAV-75 chasis. To my understanding, the ADATS system was intended for both SAM and AT capabilities. IIRC the ADATS system was never adopted but I kind of like it in the T2K universe. I say go with that. Targan, what do you think?

I'm aware of the ADATS vehicle (one turned up in my campaign, ex-Canadian vehicle somehow obtained by the 78th ID in New Jersey). That's not what I was suggesting. I had in mind original pattern LAV-75 variants with some sort of ATGM launcher added to it, either of the type that is bolted on and fired electronically from within the vehicle or of the type that is fired from a hatch.

We've already talked about how early in the Sino-Soviet War the experience of the Chinese original pattern LAV-75s in combat led to the US creating the M-20 Ridgway with a 105mm turret because the basic LAV-75 was found lacking when in combat with Soviet MBTs right? Well what I'm suggesting is that they might well have trialled a number of different variant options, not only the LAV-75A4/M20 Ridgway with the 105mm gun, but also basic LAV-75s with box-type ATGM launchers, LAV-75s with hatch fired ATGM launchers, heck maybe even a few US-only M20 Ridgway evaluation vehicles with ATGMs added too.

Sorry. I misunderstood. Not trying to read into what you wrote.

I think some sort of universal hatch mount along the lines of what Leg posted that could accept either the Dragon, the Tank-breaker/Javelin, or similar model ATGM (the Soviets made one- I can't recall its exact NATO designation right now- that was configured almost exactly like the Dragon) already used by the PRC would be the simplest option. Maybe the initial batches of LAV-75 were sent with Dragons, then later, when things started going really badly for the Chinese, the U.S. acquiesced and sent the newer Tank-breaker/Javelin either before or with (or both) the upgunned LAV-75A4. The ADATS-armed LAV-75 would fill the requirement for an exclusively missile armed version.

Really, if you send LAV-75s with ATGMs you don't need to upgun the ARES turret.

(By the way, the ARES turret is really modular. There's lot of images of it mounted on Stingray, M551 and even M8 chassis)

Here's a site with many images, although it's a wacky group associated with the infamous 'M113 'Gavin' Sparks'

Targan, did you mean the M113 based ADATS? Because I think Raellus was refering to the 1st edition US vehicle guide where it has the LAV75 based version. GDW made stats for two fictional versions, anti-tank and anti-aircraft gun.
The pics are from the 1st ed US vehicle guide

I agree with all that.

True. That is sort of what started me down this line of thinking. If the reason for creating variants of the original LAV-75 was that the 75mm gun wasn't killing Soviet MBTs it stands to reason that fitting an ATGM to the LAV-75 might be the simplest way to give it tank-killing capabilities. But when the missile drought kicks in the 105mm variant would become the better option. That still means that at some point there probably would have been a number of variants being trialled if not fielded, including both the 105mm variant and also one or even several LAV-75+ATGM launcher variants. See where I'm coming from? I'm not saying anything we've come up with so far is deficient.

Actually you are correct, the one that turned up in my campaign was the M-113 version (that was actually used by the Canadian Army IRL, although I've never checked to see if it is still in service with them). But I was aware of the fictional ADATS vehicle depicted in the US Vehicles Guide. In my campaign that LAV-75 chasis ADATS vehicle would only have been fielded by the US Army in very limited numbers, the M-113 version used by the Canadians would have been far more numerous.

I agree with this. The 34 ADATS in Canada are mounted on the M113. They are still in use but were going to be modified to a Canadian LAVIII and modernized. This is no longer the case and in any regards wouldn't have fit into the timeframe anyways... so M113 it is.

With surplus M113s (replaced) it seems probably to mount something like this rather than build a completely new model.

My thoughts are that the 105mm armed LAV would not have been sent to China as by the time it was developed, that conflict was effectively won and lost.
HOWEVER, it's certainly conceivable that a number of LAV-75 were modified in country to fit missile launchers, either in a box such as the Bradley, or rail mount such as BMP. The Dragon (or Chinese version) mount would be another relatively common modification.

By the time the M-20 was ready for production the US army would be in need of all of them (with a few maybe going to the marines). This is not to say a few prototype M-20s weren't sent to China for testing, but I'd think they would be very few and far between.

Hmm, According to the "Authorised Levels of Principal Combat Vehicles & Weapons" on pages 17-20 of the 1st ed US Army Vehicle Guide, 392 LAV-75s were required to fit out units with the vehicle assigned to them. I would estimate an actual production run of around 450 would have been desired to provide training vehicles and a few replacements.

If production was commenced early enough (mid to late 80's) virtually the entire order may have been produced before the war. Perhaps the 105mm was already on the drawing board when the Soviet/China war broke out and so those vehicles sent to China were already several years old and due for upgrading anyway?

If however the production run was delayed until a year or two before hostilities, production is likely to have been much less, with a substantial proportion rolling out of the factories and directly onto ships bound for China.

Of course we've nothing in canon I can see that states any LAVs were sent, so it might well be that US units went to war with the LAV-75 and upgraded peicemeal in the field....

Further reading of the US vehicle guide reveals a total of 68 LAV-75s still operational (or at least on the books). Some of these vehicles are in the hands of units never offically assigned them (such as the 8th ID). Obviously there may also be a few in enemy hands, or not "on the books" for any number of reasons.

Production of the LAV-75 or its variants almost certainly would have continued right through the nuclear exchange and for as long as possible thereafter.

Webstral

C'mon Web, give us your reasons :)

Cadillac Gage has most of its production facilities along the Gulf Coast of the US, though some major ones are also found in Southern California, and some major sub-assemblies were made in the Far East. (HQ is Slidell, Louisiana; I've been there and it's basically a "big little town). In 1994, Cadillac Gage merged with Textron.

I'm not sure if the 1994 merger would have taken place in the T2K timeline. Cadillac Gage had a lot of slumping sales for its products, especially its armored vehicles -- yet continued to pour mountains of money into R&D and prototype vehicles and products (those technicians and scientists, as well as its research database, is what made Cadillac Gage attractive to Textron). In 1993, Forbes called Cadillac Gage the fifth worst performing major company in the world.

However, in a T2K timeline, Cadillac Gage might have seen its sales go up stating around 1991 or so, and way up starting in 1994 or so. So it may have been able to continue on as its own entity. A lot of countries would have been in the market for inexpensive armor that was still decent in quality. The US may also have been looking for a company to make less expensive vehicles to supply to allies in sort of a Lend-Lease program.

Had the merger with Textron taken place, however, they may have also had some of Textron's facilities to work with. They are headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island, and have manufacturing facilities all over the US, as well as in several other countries (again, with a lot in the Far East). Textron also has under its umbrella AAI, Bell Aerospace, Cessna, and Lycoming Engines, as well as some smaller non-defense related companies. That's a lot to work with -- there's something to be said for decentralization of facilities.

In either company's case, there could be quite a bit of surviving and possibly operational facilities in T2K. Cadillac Gage's vehicles were also known for their simplicity of manufacture and maintenance, and it could be "outsourced" to other places relatively easily compared to other companies' products.

I don't know if that's what you meant, Web, but I thought it would be good info.

My thoughts are that in both timelines (1st and 2nd ed), Cadillac Gage would very likely have remained an independant company. The spectre of war just on the horizon would likely have boosted their sales and possibly even allowed a little expansion.

This would probably have gone against them once the nukes came down, as they wouldn't have easy access to the Textron facilities. Mind you, nobody is likely to have easy access to anything that's not within walking distance....

The will to produce might be there, and I'm not just talking about the M-20, but production across the board - vehicles, ammo, weapons, food, clothing, energy, comsumer goods, you name it. But, once transportation and energy networks went down (about ten seconds after the nukes), the ability to produce would virtually disappear.

Some production of low tech items might still be possible on a relatively small scale, but production of high tech electronics, etc required for the fire control systems would be nigh impossible. The best that could be hoped for is using the last few spare parts that avoided EMP to cobble together a few more units.

Once the nukes fell, the technicians, engineers, mechanics, and so forth would be more interested in personal survival than collecting their paycheck, no matter how patriotic they were, no matter there was a global war raging with US troops fighting in Europe, Korea, the middle east, and Alaska (and probably a few more minor locations).

In early 1997 it appears fighting was more widespread than even at the height of WWII! It only grew from there...

So, to me the will may have been there to produce, at least at the command level, but on the ground where the work is actually done, next to nothing would have been possible.

I just put Paul's excellent write-up of the M-20 Ridgway to good use and wanted to give him kudos again. I have been thinking about Thunder Empire in the car lately, which led me to realize I couldn't remember what crew size had been determined. I was able to see that Paul recorded a crew size of two with justification. Thanks, Paul.

Webstral

Appreciate the kudos. You know, I had to go back and find that one; I don't remember doing it!

Hello all, this is my first post to this forum and I found it by doing a search for the HSTVL. I played T2K as a teenager in the 80's when it first came out. After highschool I joined the USARMY as an 11B I gave up role palaying games. I still have all of the original and some of the second run books and use them as reference for my oldest hobby of building 35th scale armor models. I grew tired of building "real" vehicles and now base all of my builds on the T2K universe. I have been a member of the International Plastic Modelers society for over 25 yrs. I have two club members, Former Gunnery Sgt Wade Bolin (USMC) and MSgt Micheal Reed, who were tank testers at Aberdeen in the late 70's, the 80's, early 90's and had the privealage of working on the HSTVL and the RDF light tank. Below I will post two excerps from Janes Light Tanks regarding both vehicles. I was very glad that GDW included the LAV-75 in the T2K universe.

The HSTVL was never intended to enter production and was used as a test bed vehicle for technology that would later find it's way onto the M1A1/A2 and the Korean K1A1. According to both Mr Bolin and Mr Reed the Ares 75mm Hyper Velocity autocannon was a far superior weapon to the M68/M68A1 105mm gun. Mr Bolin often describes the Ares weapon as being able to lay 3 rounds down range in a 6in circle on a moving target. Mr. Reed describes testing the weapon on the M48/60 Patton series as well as T-55, T-62 and T-72 tanks aquired from Isreal who "aquired them from Syria. He says that he fired a single APFSDS round from the Ares gun into the front plate (which is always the thickest part of a MBT) of a Polish manufactured T-55 and it penetrated to the engine. The ARES cannon was never adopted for use because of the expense of the weapon not becuase of its killing capability. I see no reason to upgun the LAV-75 especially to what both gentleman refer to as an "inferior" weapon. You could always upgun it to the ARES 90mm Hyper Velocity auto cannon that was being developed along side the 75mm version. This would give the LAV-90 the capability to engage the T64, ERA equiped T-72 and T-80 tanks as well as the T-90 which turns out to be little more than an improved T-72.

The HSTVL was not based on the M113 though it did share automotive components. It actually had the tracks, roadwheels, idler wheel and drive wheel of the M551 Sherdian. The HSTVL was mounted with several different turrets and engines. The RDF light tank has the drive sprocket, tracks, and idler wheel of the Bradley and roadwheels of the M113.

I hope the two articles I post below will give you fine gentleman a better insight to the LAV-75's realworld counter part. I also hope to soon post some photos of my 35th scale T2K based vehicle models and dioramas. I am very pleased to find the game still played and enjoyed all these years later.

Here u go.

High Survivability Test Vehicle (Lightweight)

Development
The High Survivability Test Vehicle – Lightweight (HSTV-L) was developed under the direction of the TACOM project manager for Armored Combat Vehicle Technology at the US Army Tank-Automotive Command, Warren, Michigan.
Following the field testing, the HSTV(L) is being used for experiments in fire-control and stabilisation. Stabilisation processing has been converted from analogue to digital. Various stabilization control algorithms are being tried along with different combinations of transducers to determine effects on gun pointing performance and the possibility of eliminating some of the expensive sensors such as gyros. The TACOM Motion Base Simulator, a huge shaker table, is being used to provide terrain input. These tests began in September 1982 and are to continue for a year or more.

Description
The high survivability of this vehicle is derived from the low silhouette, high horsepower per ton, duplication of sights, improved night vision capabilities, and the lack of specific driver and gunner controls. Any crewman can shoot and both hull crewmen can drive.
Although a test vehicle, the HSTV(L) is not a variable parameter test bed but an exercise in system realism for the three-man crew, hunter/killer fire control concept and low silhouette.
Armament for the HSTV(L) consists of a 7.62 mm M240 machine gun for both commander and coaxial position and a 75 mm smooth bore cannon. The cannon employs a revolving breech and telescoping ammunition which enables the automatic loader to load one round per 11/2 seconds. The in battery-firing recoil mechanism has a fixed piston that allows the greater mass of recoil cylinder and breech mechanism parts to recoil during firing. The 75 mm gun and automatic ammunition feeder are designed and made by ARES Inc, Port Clinton, Ohio.
Texas Instruments supplies the fire-control system which uses the hunter/killer concept. The commander uses a stabilised hunter sight that revolves independently of the turret. Once a target is selected on this sight, the turret and killer sight can be aligned with it. The gunner can then destroy the selected target while the commander returns to search with his hunter sight. Both direct vision and FLIR (Forward Looking Infra-red) optics are available for either sight. The commander can use either a binocular direct view optic eyepiece for improved clarity and reduced power drain, or a video screen. In the hull, a video screen visible to both gunner and driver receives transmissions from hunter and killer sights.
The electronic fire control processor uses inputs from the sights, crosswind sensor, muzzle reference, vertical reference system, and an eye-safe CO2 laser rangefinder to compute proper gun pointing. The laser rangefinder is supplied by Raytheon. Automatic tracking and rate aid tracking can also be accomplished by the fire control processor.
Both elevation and azimuth stabilisation is provided for the 75 mm gun with a slaved killer sight and an indepen¬dently stabilised hunter sight. Fire-on-the-move capabilities are improved by decoupling the yaw motion of the hull from the turret. Cadillac Gage supplies the gun control and stabilisation system for HSTV(L).
Propulsion for the HSTV(L) comes from a gas turbine engine mounted beside the transmission with a cross-drive gearbox connecting the two. Avco Lycoming supplies the nonregenerative 650 horsepower modified helicopter gas turbine. The transmission is an X-300 Detroit Diesel Allison automatic four-speed with lock-up torque converter. Auxili¬ary power is provided by two 250 amp generators and a 60 gpm hydraulic pump. The hydraulic pump supplies power for the engine compartment mounted oil cooler fan and through a hydraulic slip ring; it also supplies power to the gun control system and automatic ammunition loader in the turret.
Teledyne supply the fixed height hydro-pneumatic sus¬pension system. A 355.6 mm jounce and 127 mm rebound travel is possible due to the small 558.8 mm diameter road wheels. The track is an improved version of the type found on the M551 Sheridan.
The man-machine interface for the HSTV(L) is of prime importance. The use of the hunter/killer concept allows both the gunner and the commander to contribute as much information as possible towards the neutralisation of the enemy. The use of pressure sensitive isometric rate controller thumb switches allows for more precise gun control while firing on the move. The driver and gunner seating positions are semi-reclined for maximum comfort in a minimum space. The tv screens considerably improve fire-on-the-move sighting clarity.

SPECIFICATIONS

CREW 3
TEST VEHICLE WEIGHT (with instrumentation and partial applique armour) 20 450 kg
POWER-TO-WEIGHT RATIO 31 78 hp/tonne
GROUND PRESSURE 0.7 kg/cm2
LENGTH GUN FORWARDS 8.528 m
LENGTH HULL 5 918 m
WIDTH 2.794 m
HEIGHT (overall) 2.414 m (to turret top) 1.994 m (to hull top) 1.422 m
GROUND CLEARANCE 0.508 m
TRACK 2.349 m
TRACK WIDTH 445 mm
MAX SPEED (road) 83.68 km/h
ACCELERATION (0 to 48 km/h) 11.8 sec
FUEL CAPACITY 409 litres
MAX CRUISING RANGE 160 km
FORDING 1.0 m
GRADIENT 60%
SIDE SLOPE 30%
TURNING RADIUS pivot to infinity
ENGINE Avco-Lycoming 650 turboshaft developing 650hp
TRANSMISSION GMC Detroit Diesel Allison Division cross drive model X-300-4A with 4 forward and 1 reverse gears, single-stage, multiple-phase torque converter with automatic lock up

STEERING hydrostatically controlled differential, pivot steer in neutral
BRAKES multiple wet plate, service and parking, hydrostatically applied with mechanical backup
SUSPENSION hydro-pneumatic
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 24 V
BATTERIES 6 × 12 V, 300 Ah
ARMAMENT (main) 1 × 75 mm (coaxial) 1 × 7.62 mm MG (anti-aircraft) 1 × 7.62 mm MG
AMMUNITION (main) 26 (MG) 3200
FIRE-CONTROL SYSTEM powered/manual
By commander yes
By gunner yes
Gun elevation/ depression +45°/-17° front, +45°/-6° rear, +45°/-30° side
Max rate (power) elevation/depression 1.0 rad/sec
Max rate (manual) elevation/depression 10 mils/crank
Min rate (power) elevation/depression 0.2 mils/sec
Max traverse rate (power) 1.0 rad/sec
Max traverse rate (manual) 10 mils/crank
Min traverse rate (power) 0.2 mils/sec
Periscopes driver 3 (×1), gunner 3 (×1), commander 8 (×1)
Primary engagement sight (turret) stabilised head, FLIR CO2 laser rangefinder, tv, 2 FOV linked to all three crew members
Hunter sight (turret) stabilised head, rotates independently of turret; FLIR; direct view optics, tv, 2 FOV linked to all three crew members
Gunner’s sight (hull) slaved to weapon, direct view optics, 2 FOV gunner’s use only

Status: Undergoing stabilisation/fire control testing on the Motion Base Simulator, Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Michigan.

Manufacturer: AAI Corporation, Box 6767, Baltimore. Maryland 21204, USA.

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...ler/hstv01.jpg

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...ler/hstv02.jpg
HSTV(L) undergoing stabilisation/fire-control testing on Motion Base Simulator, TACOM, Warren, Michigan (US Army)

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...ler/hstv03.jpg
Above: Typical target engagement by HSTV(L)

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...ler/hstv04.jpg
HSTV(L) with all hatches closed and armoured track skirts fitted

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...ler/hstv05.jpg
Cutaway drawing of HSTV(L) showing position of main components of Texas Instruments fire-control system

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...ler/hstv06.jpg
Three-view drawing of HSTV(L)


Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank (RDF/LT)

Development
The Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank (RDF/LT) has been designed as a private venture by AAI Corporation which has already built the prototype of the High Survivability Test Vehicle (Lightweight) under contract to the United States Army Tank-Automotive Command.
The prototype was shown for the first time in October 1980 when it was said by the company that it could be in service by 1984, if a decision on production was taken in the immediate future.
The vehicle is airportable: the Lockheed C-5B transport aircraft can carry eight RDF/LTs, the C-130 and C-141 could each carry two and the Navy/Marine Corps CH-53E helicopter can carry one slung under its fuselage.
This vehicle, with some changes and improvements in armour protection, is AAl’s entry in the MPGS competition.

Description
The hull of the RDF/LT is made of all-welded aluminium armour with the driver sitting at the front of the hull on the left and the commander/gunner to his right. Both crew members have a single-piece hatch cover that opens outwards and has three integrated periscopes. Between the driver and commander/gunner, in the upper part of the glacis plate, is the hull-mounted auxiliary sight.
The main armament consists of a 75 mm ARES cannon mounted in the centre of the hull behind the crew. The 75 mm ARES cannon is fed from an automatic magazine holding 60 rounds of APFSDS and multi-purpose ammunition and when used for indirect fire has a maximum range of 12 000 metres. To the right of the main armament there is a coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun.
Mounted above and behind the main armament is the stabilised rotary head which is the primary sight. The main armament is fully stabilised and the fire-control system includes a digital computer. The fire-control system is similar to that of the HSTV(L) and is fully described in that entry.
The engine and transmission are mounted at the rear of the hull and the complete powerpack is on extensible rails to facilitate maintenance in the field.
The torsion bar suspension consists of five dual rubbertyred road wheels with a drive sprocket at the rear, idler at the front and one return roller.
Appliqué steel armour can be fitted to the RDF/LT for increased protection. As an alternative to the 75 mm ARES cannon which is mounted in an unmanned turret and fitted to the prototype vehicle, an AAI Universal One-Man Turret which is also armed with a 75 mm ARES cannon, fed from an automatic loader, can be fitted.

Variants
In 1982 AAI announced a new version of this vehicle fitted with a new one-man turret also armed with the ARES 75 mm automatic cannon. This has a single-piece hatch cover opening to the rear, six periscopes for all round observation and forward and to the right of the hatch is a stabilised sight for target acquisition/firing.

SPECIFICATIONS
(RDF/LT with three man crew and turret mentioned above)

CREW 3
WEIGHT (combat) 13 426 kg (unloaded) 12 247 kg
POWER TO WEIGHT RATIO 26.07 hp/tonne
GROUND PRESSURE 0.49 kg/cm2
LENGTH GUN FORWARDS 8.235 m
LENGTH HULL 5.569 m
WIDTH 2.54 m
HEIGHT (top of sight) 2.286 m
AXIS OF FIRE 1.562 m
GROUND CLEARANCE 0.50 m
MAX ROAD SPEED 64 km/h
FUEL CAPACITY 378 litres
MAX CRUISING RANGE 500 km
FORDING 1 m
ENGINE General Motors 6V53T, turbo-charged, 6-cylinder diesel developing 350 hp
TRANSMISSION General Motors, Allison Division, X-200 cross drive, automatic
SUSPENSION torsion bar
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 24 V
BATTERIES 6 × 12 V. 190 Ah
ARMAMENT (main) 1 × 75 mm (coaxial) 1 × 7.62 mm MG
AMMUNITION (main) 60 (coaxial) 2600
FIRE-CONTROL
turret power control hydraulic/manual
by commander yes
by gunner yes
Gun elevation/ depression +40°/-15°
Turret traverse 360°
Turret slew rate 60°/s
Gun elevation rate 60°/s

Status: Prototype. This vehicle has been designed to meet the US requirement for a Mobile Protected Gun System.

Manufacturer: AAI Corporation, PO Box 6767, Baltimore, Maryland, 21204, USA.

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...er/rdflt01.jpg
Powerpack of AAI RDF/LT slides out for ease of maintenance and field replacement

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...er/rdflt02.jpg
Prototype of AAI Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...er/rdflt03.jpg
Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank fitted with Universal One-Man turret armed with 75 mm ARES gun

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...er/rdflt04.jpg
75 mm ARES automatic gun as fitted to the HSTV-L, RDF Light Tank and the High Mobility Agility Test Vehicle (HIMAG)

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...er/rdflt05.jpg
AAI Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank prototype fitted with new one-man all-cast turret armed with 75 mm ARES automatic gun undergoing trials in 1982

Grendal, this is a tremendous addition to our knowledge base of the LAV-75. It's exciting to know that the initial combat experience of the LAV-75 might have been very positive, whether that would have been in China in 1995 or Europe/Korea in 1996.


Webstral

Absolutely Outstanding Grendel, thanks for the post, I think it will give everyone a good perspective on the LAV75 - might even have to adjust a few things in our minds as to how good or bad it might have actually been. :)

Amazing amount of information there Grendal. Thanks very much.

Very cool info.

I can't see front line US/NATO AFVs being sent to China in 95-96 to bolster their war effort, due to the threat of technical intelligence being giftwrapped for Soviet forces capturing vehicles.

I could possibly see older AFVs, but suspect that the real fight changer for the Chinese would be if we could just dump Javelin CLUs and missiles (Tankbreaker, whatever) by the boat load. Training Chinese troops to use an M1/LAV-75/M60 or whatever else can take some time, especially because it's not just the crews fighting the vehicles it's the maintainers and mechanics, the logistics guys who have to learn what widgets need to be front loaded due to frequent breakage and on and on.

Worst case you send them some seriously game changing piece of kit that they end up just abandoning because they can't maintain it or resupply it (apparently a lot of German troops ended up doing this with StG-44s -- get handed this super assault rifle without any programmed ammo resupply scheduled so after a few days in the line you're back to a Mauser bolt gun or something . . . ).

Javelins, though, would be kind of like the Afghan Stingers if you were facing a conventional Soviet armored attack. Getting the Chinese Stingers probably wouldn't hurt either -- both can be taught to somebody with zero formal education at all (for which: see previous reference to Stingers in Afghanistan) and both can be learned fast. Soviet units pushing up against Chinese infantry formations where the squad level anti-tank weapon just changed from an RPG-7 to a Javelin launcher would be deep into the realm of rude surprises.

Horse, I absolutely agree that there will be voices calling for the United States to limit aid to China. There is, however, a logic to sending top-notch vehicles and missiles to the PRC that has nothing to do with military planning. We know from the v1 chronology that the West sends state-of-the-art missiles to China prior to the start of the Soviet Spring offensive in 1996. Therefore, we know that the West is willing to risk having some of the best technology of the free world fall into Soviet hands.

The Chinese Communists are smart people. We can see today that they know how to use Western capitalism to their advantage. As I have argued in the past, the Chinese capacity to employ the dynamics of capitalism in service of their own purposes would find expression in Twilight: 2000. While many conservative Western voices (none more so than American voices) might tell the Chinese to go hang, the bankers, investors, and arms manufacturers of the West will sing a different tune. France will lead the way, since France has a well-developed arms industry and a penchant for doing her own thing. Once France arranges for loans at handsome rates and closes her first multi-billion dollar (franc) deal, the bankers, investors, and arms manufacturers of the western democracies will be howling for their elected officials to open the doors for British, American, German, etc. involvement. It's hard to imagine how the House of Representatives would be able to resist such an opportunity and such strident calls for profit-making. Once the US acquires a major stake in the future of the PRC, the various barriers will come crashing down.

Webstral

I was thinking more about the Ridgway as I was reading about assault guns in the WW2 era. Grendal’s superb information about the 75mm Ares tells us that the LAV-75 as originally conceived would have provided good service as a tank destroyer. I’m thinking now that a version equipped with a 105mm gun might still have been desirable for assault gun purposes. Granted, the LAV-75 doesn’t have the frontal armor that characterized mature German and Soviet assault guns designs, but a Ridgway with a 105mm gun could do double duty in the anti-tank role and the fire support/assault gun role. This is not to say that the LAV-75 would have been replaced. Rather, it might be possible to see two variants—one optimized for tank killing, the other a more general purpose platform.

Webstral

Being able to provide effective fire support for infantry units and engage soft targets was the big criteria driving the 105mm gun for the Stryker MGS (well that and a desire to capitalize on existing stocks of 105mm ammo). Makes sense that a 105mm version would have been considered, possibly even fielded alongside the 75mm version in some quantity. A 105mm armed system, for instance, would be a better replacement for the Sheridans in the 82nd for contingency operations, etc.

What sort of weight different could there be between the 75mm and 105mm?
With an airdroppable/transportable vehicle, every last kilogram could be important.

I think I can see my next write up coming.

Rough outline:

1980s - RDF Light Tank proposed and trialed Not a huge success but workable. Not adopted
Late 1980s M8 proposed and prototypes built
1993 ish - M8 getting nowhere, Congress orders off the shelf package
1994 trials of Sherridan with 105 Stingray turret, RDF Light tank (slightly improved), Sherriden with ARES gun, Scorpion 90, maybe a couple of others (THM301?)
1995 Sino-Soviet War, rapid numbers needed, Sherridan with Stingray turret, LAV75 adopted as little impact on M2 production. Standard Sherridans also refurbished
1996 LAV75A1 with 105mm gun adopted, some LAV75 with Stingray turrets tried
1997 M8 trial vehicles pulled from storage and issued

Thoughts?

My thinking exactly. The fighting in the Far East would have shown the value of a modern assault gun for light forces. During the main Chinese counteroffensive in late 1995, Chinese light infantry would have gone up against at least some prepared fighting positions occupied by Soviet troops. While the Chinese would have employed large numbers of RPG firing HE against Soviet fighting positions, the fighting would have revealed the value of having self-propelled guns to help reduce the enemy's fortifications. A few perceptive folks in the Pentagon might have recognized that while SP guns are available to the heavy divisions, the light divisions would have no weapons acting in the assault gun role. (The Sheridans of the 82nd Airborne are a noteworthy exception, if they remained in service through 1995) Assuming that the LAV-75 had been approved for deployment in the light divisions prior to the start of the war, the same logic that applied to our earlier discussion about refitting all of the LAV-75s would apply to refitting, say, half of them for the assault gun role. The TO&E wouldn't even have to be reorganized. Each battalion of LAV might contain two companies of LAV-75 acting in the tank destroyer role and two companies of LAV-105 acting in the assault gun role. Against most of the enemy's AFV, the assault gun variant would have been reasonably effective with the added bonus of greater flexibility.

The Soviet offensive in 1996 might have served to reinforce the value of the assault gun, depending on how things worked on the battlefield. We know from the v1 chronology that the PLA made good use of the respite between the main Chinese counteroffensive in late 1995 (Operation Red Willow) and the Spring 1996 offensive launched by the Pact. Tying into previous discussions on the matter, the Chinese almost certainly made extensive use of mines and other obstacles, plus hardened fighting positions. Where Soviet assault guns were available, they would have been in high demand to knock out bypassed Chinese strong points (since the tanks, in accordance with Soviet doctrine, would have been pushed through gaps in the enemy's defenses to keep the offensive moving forward). Depending on how this worked out, Western observers in-country probably would have seen the value of a heavily mechanized force using specialty weapons instead of diverting SP guns for the job. There's a lot of room for interpretation here, though.

Nonetheless, the Chinese experience of using light infantry forces against mechanized forces would have caught the attention of the command and staff of the light US divisions, of not the higher-ups.

Webstral

I could definately see the LAV-75 upgunned with the predecessor of the MGS' 105mm turret in the assault gun role under the designation LAV105. I would organize them as 3 plts of 75mm armed LAV75's with 1 plt of LAV105's per company to facilitate the destruction of bunkers and other fortifications. The LAV105 would travel in the middle of the formation and could swing forward to engage fortifications. They could even have flechete or "beehive" rounds to take care of infantry. This tactic was used in Vietnam when NVA sappers would swarm an M48 in an attemot to remove the hatches and drop grenades into the turret, another M48 would fire a behive round at the M48 which would quickly dispatch the sappers with no damage to the M48's armor integrity.

I keep trying to avoid the term LAV105. How about LAV75(105)?

As for organisation, I suggest it is done as the Sherman 76s were used in WW2, each division can make it's own plan, some will have separate companies to ease logistics, others will have them integrated within troops for flexibility, others will compromise with separate companies. Most will just slot them in wherever they can get a vehicle as a replacement.

I think Paul calls it the LAV-74A4 on his website.

The only reason I suggested it is that it is obvious the guys at GDW renamed the HSTVL the LAV75 was the weapon it carried. But hey LAV75(105) works to. Of course I would have expected had it actually entered service it would have recieved a "M" designation.

Well here we go...

Nice!!

While at the sharp end, task organization would be standard, I can't see the Big Army signing off on a "make it up as you go along" approach to the MTOE.

First, even if it's a common chassis, fire control, and everything else, ultimately a different gun system means variation in parts streams on the logistics side, as well as the more obvious ammo issue. Second there will be standards for gunnery, doctrinal employment, etc., that will be better supported by consolidation on the organizational side. Think mech infantry Echo Companies and the M901.

I'd suggest the light infantry Light Tank Battalion (Armored Gun Battalion, Direct Fire Support Battalion, whatever) would be three companies of LAV75s organized into 14 vehicle companies as per standard tank companies, with a fourth company of 20 LAVs with 105. Nominally this gives a mobile anti-armor company per brigade and a two vehicle section of 105mm armed vehicles per battalion for direct fire support (though obviously the usual METT-T realities will drive who gets at any given time). In a more real-world scenario, the 105 would probably be the format of choice -- able enough anti-armor and more anti-infantry bang -- but LAV75 heavy when part of the equation is fighting off the Soviet AFV hordes makes sense.

The manual may well say one thing...

See the Osprey on the 76mm Sherman for a comparison of 2 similar tanks with different armaments. Cross attaching would also be common. I may even put a comment in that some tankers preferred the 75mm for the rate of fire and reliability of the autoloader as fighting tanks rare late war.

James, excellent work finding photos to support the writing! I feel the images really strengthen the presentation. Inclusion of the M551 chassis as a basis for some of the light tank variants found in the US tank park during the Twilight War indeed is creative. I have concerns about the timeline. It’s one thing to have a 105mm variant of the LAV-75 on the drawing board and examples of the original vehicle in service in 1995. It’s quite another to try to introduce a new AFV for US light divisions after the fighting starts in the Far East but before the US gets involved in the world war. Still, it would be hypocritical of me to point fingers at someone going off-reservation in terms of timelines, allocation of resources, troops, materiel, etc.

Horse, I’m intrigued by your idea for task organization. I like the idea of a reinforced company to provide fire support. If such a thing were fairly standardized within the Army in 1997, it would be easier to explain how a company-sized body of Ridgways with 105mm guns was assigned to Huachuca.

I'd have to disagree with the idea of a armored battalion trying to maintain ammunition loads of two major caliber weapons just from a logistical standpoint alone. It would be far more likely for the 75mm versions to be assigned to the airborne/light divisions with the 105mm versions beings assigned to the cavalry squadrons...

What seems logical to us here for some reason never seems to be to senior officers and politicians...

Remember the 105 version is only issued later on, it would be too hard to standardize then. Also it has been fairly common to have different ammo types in the same unit. Actually 75mm and 105mm is less ammo types than an M2 unit with 25mm, TOW and 7.62mm, even before we consider the M231s and dismounts.

Depending on your take of history, feel free to change, after all I'm not canon. an earlier issue would easily allow your change.

All too true and I did consider that argument; but I also remember an episode that happened in Germany during a Table VIII gunnery, we had just converted to M-1A1s and had ordered 120mm ammo....and the transportation company delivered 105mm...funny in peace time, but in war time...OUCH!

Hmmmm, on the other hand, what a horrible thing to do to a group of players!

On the other hand having both types means SOME will have ammo :-)

"Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics."

There is a logic to both arguments regarding task organization. US mech units already are accustomed to maintaining large numbers of different vehicles. For example, in 1993 the 4th Combat Engineer Battalion (Mech) used M113, M577, HMMWV, 2.5 ton trucks, 5 ton trucks, at least two models of bulldozer, HMMIT fuelers and wreckers, and other vehicles. Granted, none of these vehicles used unique large caliber ammunition. Large caliber ammo is a supply consideration all its own. Still, the folks empowered to make such decisions will base their conclusions on the perceived need/usefulness of adding LAV fire support vehicles to existing LAV-75 battalions versus the additional logistical burden. Light divisions will need both the anti-armor capability and the fire support capability. This might be one of those moments when the maneuver commanders tell the support people to suck it up and do their [expletive deleted] jobs. Sometimes there will be ammunition mix-ups. If the LAV FSV is deemed sufficiently useful, some mix-ups might be judged a price to be paid.