Yes; they're all "action shots" if you will from Thai army deployments.

Ideal PC Tank?
 

I'm starting to think that the 105mm-armed LAV-"75" would be a pretty ideal PC vehicle.

First off, it's 105mm gun is powerful, but would need to be skillfully used against T-80 and later MBTs. Ammo for a 105mm would be scarce, but not impossible to find. Also, with an autoloader, no PCs crewman would get stuck with that thankless job (and/or you wouldn't need an NPC to do it).

Second, with the same basic drive-train components as the ubiquitous M113, there'd be enough spare parts out there in the game world to keep it running throughout the campaign.

Third, it doesn't have the same type/degree of high-performance composite armor that the M1/Leopard II/ Challenger have, meaning that the PCs will have to avoid risks that having "magic" armor might otherwise encourage them to make.

And lastly, with it's remote turret, a turret hit would not necessarily result in the death/incapacitation of the crew.

Of course, three PCs would be a pretty small group. The LAV-75/105 would work best with another vehicle or two. A companion M113 would be pretty ideal due to the commonality of automotive parts. It's lighter armament would be useful against soft targets, while the LAV-105's big gun could take on armor or harder bunker-type targets.

Thinking about it really makes me want to run/play in a campaign featuring a PC-crewed M-20 Ridgway AGS (i.e. 105mm-armed LAV-75). :cool:

They down side is the electronics.

The gunner is in the hull front. he can see forward with visor blocks but, any damage to the sighting system and I don't know if the TC can take over manually.

Upside M113 drive train, so the rubber track option is there. Speeds up production as any car manufacturer can do that. Doesn't divert material from M113 track production lines.

I could swear I read somewhere that all three of the crew had the ability to lay and fire the main gun of the LAV-75...? :confused:

Ooh. That's a really good point. Well, the upside could be that a PC with computers and/or electronics skill will actually have a task on which to apply it.

@Raketenjagdpanzer- thanks for posting all of those pics. I'd forgotten we actually had one of a 105mm-armed example.

From what I have seen - and its been a while since I last read up on it, so I can be wrong - the answer is...


Yeeeeeessssorta.

Yes, the driver and the TC can lay the tube, and fire. But the accuracy (Not to mention the skill level of the shooter should it be the driver) will be awful without all the equipment at the gunners disposal. Enough to get you out of trouble, as long as you are trying to get out of such.

Those rusting prototype photos are still there when I look. Strange. I sometimes find that photos won't show up for me when other people are commenting on them and others can obviously see them. I know virtually nothing about how the inner workings of forum software like ours work so I've no idea why that happens :confused:

Correct, it's in some of the posted material from earlier in this thread.

That's also true of the Swedish S-103 "S-Tank." In addition, on the S-103, any crewmember can drive the tank.

I imagine it slows up the works, though, if you're controlling the systems from a less-then-optimum crew position. Anyone know if that's true?

Not a problem. Like I said, I got lotsa action shots of the Stingray if anyone wants to see them.

That guy. I'm always impressed that he is not institionalized, based on his websites.

Some of the SF team guys I used to work with met him at a briefing where he was trying to convince someone at Group (or maybe battalion) level to spend some money on his folding, jumpable assault bicycle idea. They reported he was at least as weird in person as his website(s) would lead you to believe.

Just saw all those gorgeous pictures of the LAV-75, including the LAV-105/LAV-75A. Oh, my. I'll come back and comment more after I tidy up a bit.

Yeah; I brought up a thread about him and the obsession he has with the 113 a while back. Best let sleeping dogs lie (him getting shouted down here would be hilarious but tedious).

I wonder if he's the guy who made a series of videos claiming the Bradley fighting Vehicle is an overpriced deathtrap that couldn't have done what it's actual users claim it could do?

Yes.

He uses clips of jihadi/insurgent attacks in Iraq to show that any other vehicle is an overpriced deathtrap. M1 hits a stacked IED? Deathtrap - an M113 wouldn't have had the weight to trigger it/wouldn't have been as inviting a target. Two Marine amphib vehicles burned to the treads when hit by RPGs in the opening days of the war? Deathtraps - the Israelis put special anti-RPG armor on their M113s that the US should, and therefore the M113 would have been invulnerable and a better vehicle (it's called Slat Armor, the Stryker uses it, but of course he ignores that, plus the fact that it would make the 113 non-amphibious, and non-airdroppable). It just goes on and on. He's certifiable.

111th Brigade out of Ft. Huachuca uses the LAV-75A/LAV-105 much as anyone else uses anything with a gun and armor throughout most of CONUS—as an MBT. Obviously, a Ridgway cannot fill the shoes of an MBT anywhere opposing MBT and/or heavy AT weapons are available in numbers. But in many locations throughout the American Southwest the relative paucity of fighting vehicles and ATGM gives the Ridgway an opportunity to fill a variety of roles. In Arizona, the Samadi never face what tanks the Mexican Army possesses, as these are sent to the primary fronts in California and Texas. Ridgways based out of Huachuca face Mexican Lynxes and VAB, against which the 105mm gun is gratuitously overpowered. Of course, the 90mm gun of the Lynx is gratuitously overpowered against the armor of the Ridgway. Given that one of the hallmarks of the MBT is (supposedly) its ability to play the role of the assault gun, and given that assault guns were supposed to be better armored than MBT, there’s justification for identifying the Ridgway (and the Lynx) as cum-light tanks/tank destroyers.

I dug up a few more pictures. I wish I could find a good 3-plan view.

I think I'm in love.

It's very hard to see the return wheel assy. in the rear; as I'm trying to do a paper model of one, I'd like to see it...

Found a few more, all of the prototype LAV-75 (RDF/LT) in pretty sad shape. I think there's other shots from this same armor park upthread.

Funny how it's mint green...anyway, enjoy!

Oh, and one other thing...I found the above photos at tanknet, and per one of the guys who posted there, the ARES 75mm gun is actually in use*, but on Taiwanese M-41Ds:

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/9021/m41dtaiwan1.jpg

...

*=locally produced 76mm variant, sorry

M20 Ridgway Rough Draft
 

Here's a piece I wrote up for the fanzine. Constructive feedback is welcome. I want to make sure all of the kinks have been worked out before I submit it for publication.

A couple thoughts/questions.

A) How would the Dragon external mount work on a LAV-75. With the turret unmanned this would either require the TC to get out and climb up on the turret or if it was hull mounted by his hatch, it would require firing it from turret defilade (or higher profile) position and would probably result in no-fire zones for the 75mm gun and coax machine gun. (And all of the above doesn't even address how inadequate the Dragon was as an ATGM, as well . . .)

The T2K chronology specifically mentions the Tank Breaker ATGM being a big success when provided to the PRC. In light of that, perhaps an upgunned LAV-75 incorporated a single or pair of mounts for Javelins on the top of the turret, with either a Javelin CLU mounted on the turret or even with its function integrated into the LAV's existing optics. At the TC station or gunner's station the CLU's display function either way would probably be an add on screen.

Overall, the Javelin armed LAV-75 would still have had some short comings making it less than optimal -- without a major redesign to allow the missiles and their optic to rotate independent of the turret, you'd have issues with clearance for the gun tube if trying to engage from turret down fighting positions, for instance. And any time you start sticking more electronics inside an AFV you get ergonomic issues.

B) From the known users, I'm guessing 7th and 25th ID(L)'s didn't get the M-20s because the Pacific Theater was a lower priority?

Thanks for the feedback, Horse.

A.) I will change Dragon to Tankbreaker. As for the manner in which it was deployed, my thinking would be that it would have be mounted on the vehicle commander's hatch, requiring him to expose his upper body in order to aim and fire it. Earlier in this thread, Legbreaker posted a diagram of an external turret mount for the Dragon on, IIRC, an M113. That's sort of what I was thinking of. It wouldn't be an ideal set up, but it was added as a somewhat desperate attempt to allow the A1 to defeat the newer Soviet MBTs. I'll think some more on this and address it in the revisions.

B.) I wrote up the list by thumbing through the v1.0 U.S.A.V.G. and looking for users c.2000 and I didn't think to add in users that would have, at an earlier date, still been equiped with the Ridgway- a major oversight, to be sure. I'll add the 7th and 25th to the list.

Pages 5 and 6 of this thread contain much of the previous discussions regarding ATGM-equipped versions. Some good food for thought there.

Nice work on the M20 Ridgway article so far, Rae. Very nice indeed.

I can't see much of a problem with this at all really - the commanders hatch is on the turret deck, some images appear to show a GPMG there, and the stock standard (although I believe rarely issued) Dragon mounting therefore shouldn't be too hard to adapt... http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php...&postcount=158

What about ERA? Anything to improve survivability can only be a good thing.

So then it's a manned turret on the LAV-75? I was under the impression that the whole crew was down in the hull.

Fantastically written. I like the way used history to repeat iteself, especially the revivial of the WW2 tank destroyer concept of mobile assualt guns moving with the infantry and using speed and surprise to get kills. I also agree with the analisis (sp) of the performance of both the vehicles and the 3 US army main weapons systems. I agree with the other comments regarding tankbreaker and I would adjust that accordingly. I scanned over it quickly for spelling, grammer and continuity (my own sucks too!) and the only thing I caught was near the bottom of page two, you called it the LAV25 instead of LAV75. Good job!

Thanks for the kind words, fellas.

On the LAV-75 schematics Rak posted, it looks like the commander sits mostly inside the hull with maybe his head and shoulders in the turret. In most of the photos, the commander's hatch appears to be on top of the turret. My thoughts would be that the Dragon/Tankbreaker would be mounted there, and the commander would have to stick his head and shoulders outside the vehicle to fire it- not an ideal solution to the lack of effectiveness of the 75mm HVG against heavy armor. Desperate times...

@Leg: That's a good idea. I will add something about ERA to the article.

Nope. See schematics in post #259 of this thread: http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php...&postcount=259

There were two prototypes of the "LAV75" built, one with a driver and commander/gunner, both in the hull, and one (IIRC) a driver and commander in the hull, and a gunner partially in the turret, but mostly in the hull. (T2K would still call this a "crew-in-hull design," though I've always felt there needs to be a fourth category for turrets that are totally or mostly unmanned.)

I get the feeling that a two man crew on a light tank might lead to information overload on the part of the commander/gunner.

In the schematics I posted a link to in the post above your's, Paul, it pretty clearly has the crew position in the turret as being for the commander. I suspect you may have been writing your post before I posted mine. ;)

You know what would be sort of weird? If we were both writing our posts at roughly the same moment. Just a matter of what direction the electrons fly...:p

I guess I should have looked in my Jane's first.

Do these numbers look OK? I basically averaged the M113 and M8 stats and made a few tweaks. I want to make sure I'm not way off on any of this before I publish.

M20 Ridgway Game Statistics (v2.2)

Price: $250,000 (S/R)
Fire Control: +2
Armament: 105mm gun, MAG MG coaxial, M2HB or MAG MG (C)
Stabilization: Good
Ammo: 18x105mm in magazine, 18x105mm in internal storage, 3000X7.62mm, 500x.50 BMG
Fuel Type: D,BD,A
Load: 150kg
Veh Wt: 30 tonnes
Crew: 3
Mnt: 10
Night Vision: passive IR/thermal
Radiological: Shielded

Tr Mov: 150/130
Com Mov: 35/30
Fuel Cap: 600
Fuel Con: 150

Combat Statistics
Config: Veh TF: 12 HF: 20/30
Susp: T4 TS: 10 HS: 6/10
TR: 6 HR: 6/10

What's wrong with using Pauls stats? http://www.pmulcahy.com/best_stuff_t...never_were.htm

Nothing at all. I just thought I'd try to come up with my own. In most cases, I like his better. He's given me permission to use his stats but I see a couple of things a little differently, though, and I'm not sure how he feels about tweaks. I figured that it might be better to just go with my own stats than to bastardize Paul's. It'd be great if he weighed in.

Here are Paul's stats for comparison:

M20 Ridgway Game Statistics (v2.2) [on Paul's site, it is called the LAV-75A4]

Price: $392,600 (S/R)
Fire Control: +4
Armament: 105mm gun, MAG MG coaxial, M2HB or MAG MG (C)
Stabilization: Good
Ammo: 18x105mm in magazine, 18x105mm in internal storage, 3000X7.62mm, 500x.50 BMG
Fuel Type: D,BD,A
Load: 500kg
Veh Wt: 14.01 tonnes
Crew: 3
Mnt: 9
Night Vision: FLIR (G, C), Image Intensification (G, C), Passive IR (D)
Radiological: Shielded

Tr Mov: 170/119
Com Mov: 43/30
Fuel Cap: 409
Fuel Con: 202

Combat Statistics
Config: Veh TF: 10 HF: 19
Susp: T4 TS: 8 HS: 10
TR: 4 HR: 4


I think that the hull front armor would be thicker. It's very sloped and I think that would make it hard to penetrate with AP or HEAT ammo. In the BYB, the Marder II has a HF armor rating of 25. I also think that the vehicle weight is a little light. It's only 4 tonnes more than a standard M113; the Marder II is 29 tonnes, and the AGS with supplemental armor is 49.5 tonnes. I think the Ridgway should be somewhere in between those two figures.

A collaboration between two greatly respected members of the forum? Sounds good to me!

The weight difference between the two versions is significant (yours is basically double that of Paul's, Rae). That would have to be more than just armour, I'm thinking powerplant and drivetrain differences as well. I'd love to see you guys brainstorm a version you were both happy with.

I'd be happy to split the difference. I figure that because of the extra armor and the 105mm main-gun system, the M20 would be heavier than a standard M113, but without a conventional armored turret, it would be lighter than the AGS. The Marder seems like the best match, chasis-wise, but its turret/gun is smaller than the Ridgway's so I figure that the latter would be heavier still.

How does 25 tonnes sound?

The armour doesn't need to be heavy. The Marder, and virtually all APCs, tanks, etc, have to have armour strong enough to withstand a few hits now and then. By their very nature they're going into harms way just to carry out their job of transporting troops across the fire-swept battlefield, or bully their way over the top of the enemy (I know it's more complicated than that, but I think you get the point).

The LAV-75, etc is another beast entirely. A light armoured vehicle, it's primary mission is to put fire down upon the enemy (as well as scouting, etc of course). Stealth, concealment, and above all, fighting from hull down positions is where it's all at for this class of vehicle. If it needs to expose it's hull to observation, let alone enemy fire, it's mission is already a bust.

Therefore, I'd say a thin armour rated/hoped to protect against shrapnel and the occasional small arms fire should be more than sufficient for it's intended role. Optional add on armour packages and ERA may be available, but only issued in extremis.

I agree with your statement regarding tactical doctrine when operating in the anti-armor role. Still, the Chinese, using the LAV-75 primarily as a a tank destroyers and MBT stand-in, found that it would not survive long on the modern battlefield without additional armor protection. The U.S., much more casualty conscious than the PLA, would have concurred and insisted on adding hull armor to the upgunned version. As an assault gun (the primary role of the LAV-75, as per the v1.0 USAVG), the Ridgway would be advancing in support of dismounted infantry, and would not have the luxury of operating from the hull down position. Therefore, it would need additional armor in order to survive attacks from enemy AT weapons and/or the occasional enemy AFV. When pressed into service as a tank, this would be doubly so. Therefore, supplemental armor is a must.