RPG Forums

RPG Forums (http://forum.juhlin.com/index.php)
-   Twilight 2000 Forum (http://forum.juhlin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS (http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=1043)

kato13 08-17-2009 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stilleto69 (Post 12457)
Ah, but remember when it comes to the Government "Who cares how much it's going to cost, think of all the jobs it will create."

I mean if you really want to look at it the government would just pass an Appropriation Bill, and worry about the 'cost' later. In their eyes the increased weapon production means jobs in their community "Bringing home the Pork".

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.

Dog 6 08-17-2009 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kato13 (Post 12460)
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

pmulcahy11b 08-17-2009 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stilleto69 (Post 12457)
I mean if you really want to look at it the government would just pass an Appropriation Bill, and worry about the 'cost' later. In their eyes the increased weapon production means jobs in their community "Bringing home the Pork".

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.

pmulcahy11b 08-17-2009 01:52 PM

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.

ChalkLine 08-17-2009 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b (Post 12464)
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.

Legbreaker 08-17-2009 07:02 PM

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?

Raellus 08-17-2009 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kato13 (Post 12460)
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.

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.

Targan 08-30-2009 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chico20854 (Post 11186)
One factor against the M8 is that it uses the Bradley drivetrain and comes off the Bradley production line. When it gets to industrial mobilization time, a M8 is equal to one less Bradley, whereas a LAV-75 or Stingray doesn't require such a tradeoff.

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.

Abbott Shaull 08-31-2009 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b (Post 12464)
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.

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.

Raellus 09-07-2009 09:19 PM

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.

James1978 09-07-2009 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raellus (Post 13008)
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.

. . . . .

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

Raellus 09-07-2009 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James1978 (Post 13009)

Bless you, James! That's it!

James1978 09-08-2009 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raellus (Post 13012)
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.

Webstral 09-08-2009 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raellus (Post 13012)
Bless you, James! That's it!

Ye gods, what a beauty!

Webstral

TiggerCCW UK 09-09-2009 03:55 AM

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

Mohoender 09-09-2009 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK (Post 13034)
Is it just me or does it look like the tanks from Tron?

Indeed it does.:)

boogiedowndonovan 09-09-2009 04:34 PM

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.

boogiedowndonovan 09-09-2009 06:25 PM

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

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

Raellus 09-09-2009 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogiedowndonovan (Post 13048)
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?

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.

Targan 09-09-2009 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raellus (Post 13060)
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 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.

pmulcahy11b 09-10-2009 05:46 AM

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?

Targan 09-10-2009 06:16 AM

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

Webstral 09-10-2009 12:38 PM

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

Jason Weiser 09-10-2009 02:05 PM

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

Webstral 09-10-2009 04:40 PM

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

Adm.Lee 09-10-2009 04:54 PM

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.

Raellus 09-10-2009 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b (Post 13067)
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?

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.:)

boogiedowndonovan 09-10-2009 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raellus (Post 13085)
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?

Raellus 09-10-2009 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogiedowndonovan (Post 13088)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogiedowndonovan (Post 13088)
Wasn't the M-8 AGS called the Buford after Civil War Union general John Buford?

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogiedowndonovan (Post 13088)
If you're not going with the M-8 in your campaign, why not use that as the name of the LAV-75?

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

Adm.Lee 09-10-2009 10:31 PM

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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.