RDF/LT with 105mm or GDLS Expeditionary Tank w/105?
 

...which fits the role of light tank armed with 105mm gun in your T2k universe, and why? They're nearly identical in performance and protection. Chief differences that spring to mind are that the GDLS offering has a crew of two versus the LAV-105's three-man crew, otherwise...?

I would go with the M8 AGS from United Defense actually - if the real balloon had gone up it would have been in production for sure - the question is if it would have been ready in time for an initial deploy or if it would have gone over in a late 1997 convoy as a reinforcement

Depends on what you mean by "late 1997" - if you mean by Nov/Dec all that would have gone over would have been ad-hoc reinforcements consisting of anything that they could scrape together. M56's, M48A6s, etc. etc.

I've decided to go with the LAV-105. I just like the look better. Plus I found stats for it on Paul's page, so... :)

I'd use the M8, and have its development cycle sped up by the continued Cold War -- at least in service with the 82nd and 9th ID, with maybe some of the active duty light divisions waiting on them and substituting their NG roundout hum-vee AT battalions or something along those lines.

I'd use both. The demand from China in 1995-1996 will get production lines for the M8 and LAV-75 spun up to high gear. After that, the demand for AFV will go through the roof.

Good idea.

+1

In addition, for reasons stated in the LAV-75/Stingray/M8 AGS thread, I'd have to say Bradley replacement production would prevent the manufacture of significant numbers of M8s. I'm sure the government would contract CG to produce Stingrays, at first for export to hard-pressed allies (i.e. China) and later for U.S. forces.

I'm in complete agreement with this. The demand for M2s and M3s would simply be too great to allow the production lines to build anything else in the time available.

Bradley replacement won't begin until Bradleys start being lost. This doesn't happen until the end of 1996. A case can be made for ramping up production to replace M113 in National Guard divisions in 1995. A shrewd bureaucrat will point out that expanding the Bradley chassis line to meet the needs of M8 production wouldn't be in conflict with the existing procurement scheme for Bradleys while facilitating expansion of the line as a whole should the US have a sudden need for lots of replacement Bradleys. I suppose turret production could be increased at the same time, and the extra turrets could be mounted on M113 chassis and sold to China or used as VISMOD at NTC. Once the balloon goes up for the US, M8 production comes to a screeching halt, hypothetically. At this point, the need for the LAV-105 becomes acute, and its production accelerates.

Quoting myself from August 2009:

So that's the Ridgway drive train. How much of the Ridgway chassis has shared componentry with the M2/M3 family?

The York plant would have been able to do Remanufacture and Reset production of Bradleys and build new M8 AGS systems at the same time. The real question would be if they tried to build new Bradley's at the same time.

Building M8's and new build Bradley's at the same time would have pushed the limits of the aluminum welding capacity of the plant to the limit.

So it really comes down to if they spent their time repairing Bradley's or trying to build new ones. New Bradely's mean very few new M8's.