Franken-AFVs
 

Over in the recent LAV-25 thread, cawest and StainlessSteelCynic had some thoughts about field-expedient AFV modifications. In the spirit of technicals writ large, what are your most implausible turret transplants or other AFV hacks that might have arisen in the Twilight: 2000 universe?

For me, I've got a few:

From published canon, it's the M691 Diana (American Combat Vehicle Handbook, p. 72). Visually, it's the epitome of the musclebound dude with the tiny head stereotype. But it's also a waste of a perfectly good Abrams chassis. I mean, why put an ADA turret on that when you can put an M1 turret on it and have another M1?

Also from canon, there's a throwaway line in the Stingray's description (American Combat Vehicle Handbook, p. 41) about its turret being transplantable to the wheeled Cadillac Gage Commando models. Well, it might work - consider the AMX-10-RC - but sticking a light tank turret on top of an M706 seems a lot like putting a 75mm recoilless rifle on a Vespa.

For homebrew factory modifications, I'll submit my old Louisville Slugger from 2011's US Army AAA in T2k thread. Because nothing screams "ridiculous" like a CIWS jutting up from a Bradley chassis, swiveling around in full autonomous mode, and terrorizing everyone who's seen The Terminator.

- C.

I have over in my Best Tanks that Never Were: A T-72 hull with a Leclerc turret. Got the idea from deviantART. I have a whole back story about how this came to be and a little bit of how it did in the Twilight War.

I do not remember where I saw it, but putting two GAU8 on a M1. For both ADA and urban combat.

ZU-23-2s mounted to the backs of MT-LB is a fairly common phenomenon. In some cases, it may be a purpose-built model (MT-LBM izdeliye 6MB5); in others, it appears to be a field expedient battlefield modification.

Although not strictly-speaking "Franken-AFVs", because nothing significant is being added, only taken away, I think you'd see a lot of tank and IFV hulls with the turret removed (due to irreparable damage/lack of spare parts) serving as ersatz APCs in the later days of T2K.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...mna_Sur_02.JPG

Mohoender found this photo of BTR-60 mounting an AML-90 turret (presumably somewhere in W. Africa) several years back.

https://forum.juhlin.com/attachment....p;d=1230757642

Sticking support weapons on MT-LBs seems to be a proud tradition wherever they're found. The Syrians re-gunned some with 57mm guns, they and the Iraqis have put armored cupolas on them either around existing gun mounts or to make new ones, the Ukranians have replaced the SAM arms with helicopter rocket pods for MLRSes.

https://i.imgur.com/ILBx35n.png

https://i.imgur.com/rB2Jlbe.jpg

And a Libyan Humvee with an AML-90 gun I saved from somewhere. They were sold so many places in such volume, there are all kinds of reuses of their guns and turrets. Second is Djibouti MRAPs with AML turrets.
https://i.imgur.com/OXy1tNp.png

https://i.imgur.com/1tC5AKu.jpg

Two Vietnam era examples, featuring helicopter miniguns on ground vehicles.
https://i.imgur.com/k3u6lIT.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Qgmry8e.jpg

At least with the recoilless rifle on the Vespa, it was a movement solution, not a combat solution. The Vespa was solely for transporting the recoilless rifle and it was never meant to be fired from the vehicle.

Well, I think GDW came up with the idea because they figured by the time the war rolls around there's PLENTY of Abrams hulls to go around. I doubt it, and you're right, but then again, considering the mobility of the M1/M2 series? You really do need something that will keep up with them.

I would hate to be the poor guy who is in the vehicle when it engages a target to the flank. I think the recoil might cause a rollover.

So this is where Skynet came from? :D Seriously, it read like the experiences of WWI crews, who cheerfully got into their tanks, got bashed around, risked getting killed any number of ways and had the fumes from firing and the engine fill the cabin. They would then celebrate their survival by when they actually came to a halt, promptly dismounting and throwing up.

But seriously, Libya in 2011 had some truly weird stuff.

https://tse1.explicit.bing.net/th?id...=0&w=270&h=180

BMP turret on a cutdown HMMWV hull, don't see that every day.

https://www.scalemates.com/products/...399-72-720.jpg

This was common enough, someone made a model kit out of it?

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/in...3_24022277.jpg

Proof you can mount ANYTHING on a Toyota Hillux, including a rocket pod meant for an aircraft.

https://milinme.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/lau-416.jpg

Hillbilly armor on a T-55. Well, that is a bit new.

Speaking of T-55s, let's discuss Iraq's entry into the "T-55 Pimp My Ride Sweepstakes." yeah, the Enigma.

Better yet, I'll let these guys discuss it, it's crude, it's rude, it makes engineers weep with "Why the hell did you people do this?"

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Iraq/t-55-enigma/

As we all know, the real-world answer to that mobility issue was the Bradley Linebacker. Oddly, I don't think there's a canonical Bradley-based ADA platform in T2k.

That was not the design intent, but it works. :)

- C.

I was thinking of was taking like a LAV and replacing the turret with a single or twin 23mm or a recovered 30mm from a BMP. you could maybe even go with a 40mm like they are doing with the new Stryker. Maybe a 57mm in a thin skin turret.

But what if you have a tank with a turret blown off or otherwise that can not be fixed. you could take a page from WW 2 Kangaroo or you can put other weapons. Egypt and a few others have 130mm cannons mounted on them (without turrets). In Twilight 200 I would not go that way, but you can used that hull to carry heavy weapons.

lets take the t-72 with out a turret.

take part of the Kangaroo and build up the hull's turret ring. (it will not be armor plate but steel. take the turret ring from BMP or a ZSU23-4 Shilka.

you can mix an match this method a M1/m60 hull with a Shika or ZSU 57-2

One of the most important things to consider here is turret ring size. Will the borrowed turret even fit the vehicle? Will you have to make a new deck & turret ring to fit the borrowed turret to the hull?
After that are the various requirements for turret rotation (mechanical, electrical, manual, etc. etc.) and installing the needed components.
Before that you have to find out whether the vehicle (or turret if giving it a different weapon) can handle the recoil of the weapon because that would mean extra gear to counter recoil forces.
Then there's the ammunition feed & storage. They will have to be changed to accommodate the different ammo requirement.
If you're just cramming a different (and larger calibre) weapon into the vehicle's standard turret, how crowded will this new weapon make the turret?

It's for all these reasons that I suggest making this sort of conversion a side-adventure for any Players who want to convert a vehicle. Finding a vehicle already converted is a different situation and I'm not attempting to address that.

An excellent post - and would make an interesting exercise for the players and the GM to thru as a way to have to gather the materials and expertise to do that - let alone the facility you would need to be able to do something like that

I could see players who are adventuring in CA possibly doing this in conjunction with the facility that Littlefield had - i.e. if anyone has the expertise to make a working FrankenAFV its him and his mechanics - and they had the facility - now its up to the players to get the parts he needs

I'm not sure about paired GAU-8, but the GE entry for DIVAD was an Abrams with a shortened Avenger, since they were already building the gun for the A-10.

For paired guns, the Abrams-based Liberty II had a pair of 25mm Bushmasters and 12 Crotale NG missiles. It was proposed for FAADS, the replacement for DIVAD, by Thomson and Vought.

or something like this https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Iraq/T-55-130SPG

I can see something like the following happening in basic workshops: -

https://pp.userapi.com/c637728/v6377...kcoLwl15EI.jpg

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LKqyLcrrc...16-870x643.jpg

And there's plenty more where that came from...
Images from this site: - https://philippinestoday.blogspot.co...ood-armor.html

And even improvised fighting vehicles such as trucks given armour and carrying a field gun portee-style like this: -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...AEC_Deacon.jpg

Image from wiki: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port%C3%A9e_(military)

But as mentioned in my earlier posts, I think for armoured vehicles, replacing the turret or main armament with something the vehicle was not originally configured for, would take skilled personnel with a proper workshop (e.g. one that can do repair & refurbishment levels of work)

Better Than NO Extra Armor?
 

Interesting pics. I wonder how effective those wooden boards are IRL, and what their AV would be in T2k [v2.2] rules.

I know that sandbags, extra track links, and even bed-springs have been used to detonate HEAT warheads before they reach the armor proper, but the boards in the pics aren't but one or two inches thick and are mounted flush against the hull. I reckon they wouldn't do much to stop a standard RPG=7 or M72 LAW HEAT warhead from penetrating the vehicle armor.

Does the placebo effect work against shaped charges? :D

maybe not against the shaped charge, but it might work against the detonator. if they have degraded by time, water, or other issues? then the crush switches might become very weak, and go off even under just the g loading of the launch.

Wood is 0.2 AV per cm. It's in TNE's World Tamer's Handbook.

It's in all versions of T2k rules too.

There is with the M757 Blazer. it's found in the US Army Vehicle guide. I have a couple of photos of the prototype it's based on. I'll share them in the Discord.

Good catch! I keep forgetting to flip through the 1e Vehicle Guides. My paper copies went out on loan years ago and never came back, so I only have them in PDF, and the hardcopy 2e Combat Vehicle Handbooks are more convenient if I'm not doing a Ctrl+F text search.

(It looks like three other vehicles failed to make the jump from 1e USAVG to 2e ACVH: the ambulance and weapon carrier HMMWVs, which are no big deal, and the M920 Bradley Hellfire carrier. Weirdly, both the M757 and the M920 already had line art in 1e, so GDW presumably could have ported them over to 2e with little added expense. The M2A3 is the obvious replacement for the M920 and makes more sense, from a mass-production and deployment perspective, than a dedicated Hellfire carrier. The M757's omission is more inexplicable - we probably could've done without something like the XM12...)

- C.

One swap that should work for turret ring size is Abrams/Chieftain/Challenger 2/M48/M60 and probably T-72/T-80. The NATO tanks all have the same diameter, as do the two WP tanks, and there's only 3mm of difference between the turret ring sizes between the two groups. The T-64 probably won't work, because its ring is 2.245m instead of 2.159/2.162m, nor will the Leopard 2 with its 1.980m turret ring or the T-54 at 1.825m. There would be issues with the autoloader or lack thereof if swapping between NATO and WP.

I'm not sure what the turret ring diameters are for Leclerc, K2, Type 90 (Japan), or China's Type 80/88/85/96 or Type 99.

Unfortunately, if you do not have a facebook account, you cannot log in and thereby cannot see this post :(

I have taken some of the vehicles in the various handbooks, updated their stats, and given them back stories. They be found in the various "vehicles that never were" pages.

The Berlin brigade converted some FV432's by adding 30mm cannon turrets from fox armoured cars.

The principle could apply to American M113's perhaps? Put on a bradley or LAV turret maybe?

And it has certainly been done to the M113. Both Israel and Australia fitted cannon-armed turrets to their M113s and I vaguely recall that during the 1980s-90s fitting a turret was an upgrade option some companies offered to nations that used the vehicle.
The weapons being suggested were everything from 20mm autocannon up to soft-recoil 90mm.
I believe the Egyptians had a plan to mount a Bradley turret on a lengthened M113 but it never went into production (was given the rather generic name Egyptian Infantry Fighting Vehicle if I remember...)

It's Alive!
 

IIRC, there's an M113 with a LAV turret in the US Army Vehicle Guide.

-

M115A1 ACCV. Page 24.

Throw the LAV-25's proposed TOW sidesaddle mount on there and it's... still not a Bradley, but definitely closer to one in capability.

- C.

How close do the turret rings of the Bradey and the LAV-25 measure up?

I haven't found the turret ring diameter of the LAV-25 (but I haven't really searched for the info either) but according to one site I've visited a few times, the Bradley turret ring diameter is 150cm.
Does anyone have the the diameter for the LAV-25 so we can compare the two?

Information source http://afvdb.50megs.com/
Specifically this page for the Bradley http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m3bradley.html#M3

The M2 Bradley has a turret ring of 150cm (60"). Having a bit of trouble finding info on turret ring dimension of the LAV-25, LAV II, ASLAV or any related vehicle though, but I'm thinking it would have to be similar.

Leg - I searched and couldnt find it so far but will keep looking

What I did find I bet you you would love to look thru - Armored Car Newsletter

http://www.warwheels.net/images/ACJfinal32.pdf

File is too big to upload so may break it up - but great article on the ASLAV

Okay here you go its M113/TS90

Thanks for posting that image.
I have to say, it kinda looks "wrong", as in, the turret look too big for the hull - like seeing a fat head on a tiny body kinda wrong (and not photoshop kinda wrong)

The M113/LS90 looks less top-heavy, since it uses a smaller LP90 turret from the Cadillac Gage V-300/LAV-300 with a Cockerill Mk. III gun. It's quite a bit smaller than the GIAT TS90 turret with CS90 gun. Ammunition stowage was 42 rounds, and the fully equipped and crewed turret weighed about 4900 pounds.

Australia had a number of turreted M113s that loosely fit into the Frankenvehicle concept - they were standard production, but cannibalized parts from vehicles being retired. I expect the Australian board members will know more than I do, but my understanding is it started with an interim fire support vehicle that had the Saladin armored car's turret added, giving the M113 a 76mm and .30 coax. It was replaced by the medium fire support vehicle with the FV101 Scorpion's turret, also 76mm and .30. There was also a light fire support vehicle with the T50 turret from the Cadillac Gage V100/V150, which had a .50 and a .30. Troops were generally equipped with 3 light and 2 medium support vehicles.

In regard to how Australia equipped units with the M113, it depends on the time period.
Initially, Cavalry units were equipped with the the Saladin turret M113 which was know as the Fire Support Vehicle (M113 FSV), other vehicles retained the standard commander's hatch and pintle mounted MG until it was decided to fit the T50 turret to protect the commander (from memory, as a response to casualties in Vietnam). They still retained their APC designation as the Cavalry units were essentially still "battlefield taxi" units despite having the fire support of the Saladin turret M113.

When some units were re-roled as Armoured Reconnaissance units, they were taken away from the "taxi" role and were equipped with the Scorpion turret M113 but as befits the role, they were known as Medium Reconnaissance Vehicles (M113 MRV) while the standard APC M113 was known, only within the Armoured Recce units, as the Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (M113 LRV).
Even though, by this time, all troop carrying M113s had been fitted with the T50 turret, those vehicles in cavalry units were know as APCs while M113s with the exact same configuration (i.e. T50 turret) in the Armoured Recce units were know as LRVs.

All the 76mm armed M113s in Australian service had been retired before the 2000s and the common talk at the time was that the smoke from the 76mm ammunition was carcinogenic so it was done for health reasons. Neither the Saladin or Scorpion turrets had any sort of bore or barrel evacuator so a lot of that smoke ended up in the turret.

You really don't need the bore evacuator on a smaller caliber main gun the turret blower is all you really need.

Almost all NATO standard cannon ammunition is ammonia -based, after firing several rounds, blowers get switched on and hatches get cracked! Another problem on AFVs without escape hatches, is the practice of using a spent case as a piss tube, not so nice on a hot day....

As mentioned, it was "common talk" i.e. soldier's gossip.
The actual reason for withdrawal of the M113 MRV may have been as prosaic as plans for the future structure of the army no longer saw a role for it.
Or because the 76mm was seen as no longer effective against current and/or potential future threats.
However, what was commonly mentioned at the time was that it was done for health reasons because the 76mm ammo was claimed to produce carcinogenic smoke.
How accurate that belief was, I don't particularly know.

EDIT:
After some checking on the web, it seems the claim most likely originated in the UK in 1991. The belief is that the Scorpion was classified as a "tank" under the Conventional Forces Europe treaty and was earmarked for removal from British forces, apparently in order to prevent the number of MBTs on strength from having to be reduced further. However soldier's gossip made that into "Scorpion was removed because it caused cancer etc. etc."
Other claims about the smoke from the 76mm ammo are that it was toxic, that it caused Alzheimer's disease and even Parkinson's disease.
Why Australia chose to remove the MRV from service could have been a knee-jerk reaction to the those rumours or it could indeed be something as mundane as the 76mm (which if I recall, only carried HESH and HE as offensive rounds in Australian service) was considered no longer up to the task.