T2K Themed Picture Thread

[HorseSoldier]

Don't know if there is one of these already, but thought it might be cool to have a thread of Twilight 2000 themed/relevant pictures people might have floating around, either from their own personal collections or stuff they found on the internet. At some point I need to get some of my photo albums to a scanner, as I've got a bunch of pictures from back in my armored cavalry days that'd be good stuff.

Assorted stuff I've had lurking on my hard drive for however long:

LAV-75 pictures -- this came from some T2K board, so everyone may have seen it, and the owner may be on here.


M60 crew from Reforger sometime in the 80s


Disgruntled Scout


Pretty iconic photo of an SAS sniper in Aden


Marauder band, SE USA


Late-War LRRP/Ranger in Vietnam in ERDL camo with XM177E2


80's era guy training with issue shotgun


Polish BMP crew in Kosovo


Gratuitous apocalyptic cheesecake shot

[Targan]

Nice kneepads in that last shot. Good to see that the lass is planning ahead

[waiting4something]

That is awesome to see a actual LAV-75 photo. Even cooler. is the dude with the Winchester 1200 trench gun that has a underfolding stock! It just seems like so many more weapons were in use in the 1980's compared to now days. Maybe it was a logistical nightmare back then, but it gets old when everyone is packing the same crap like nowdays.

[Webstral]

I, too, love the LAV-75 shot. I'd love to see a rendering of the LAV-75A1 (should we have called it the LAV-105) Ridgway with the L7 we talked about a while back. The turret probably would be very much like the turret on the Stryker variant. What is the variant called, anyway? Is that a light tank, a tank destroyer, an assault gun?

Webstral

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I, too, love the LAV-75 shot. I'd love to see a rendering of the LAV-75A1 (should we have called it the LAV-105) Ridgway with the L7 we talked about a while back. The turret probably would be very much like the turret on the Stryker variant. What is the variant called, anyway? Is that a light tank, a tank destroyer, an assault gun?

James1978 posted this image in the LAV-75, M8 AGS, Stingray thread. I think it makes for a pretty convincing LAV-75A1 Ridgway prototype.

Originally Posted by James1978

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I, too, love the LAV-75 shot. I'd love to see a rendering of the LAV-75A1 (should we have called it the LAV-105) Ridgway with the L7 we talked about a while back. The turret probably would be very much like the turret on the Stryker variant. What is the variant called, anyway? Is that a light tank, a tank destroyer, an assault gun?

Webstral

MGS -- Mobile Gun System.

It's a fighting vehicle similar to the Bradley minus the troop carrying capability.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I, too, love the LAV-75 shot. I'd love to see a rendering of the LAV-75A1 (should we have called it the LAV-105) Ridgway with the L7 we talked about a while back. The turret probably would be very much like the turret on the Stryker variant. What is the variant called, anyway? Is that a light tank, a tank destroyer, an assault gun?

Webstral

In military parlance, it's debatable -- it would probably be termed a light combat vehicle or fire support vehicle, but the term "tank destroyer" may also be applicable.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

In military parlance, it's debatable -- it would probably be termed a light combat vehicle or fire support vehicle, but the term "tank destroyer" may also be applicable.

It's main function is support by lethal, direct fire to the Infantry in the Rifle Company. It's a fighting vehicle, similar to the Bradley.

It's not an indirect platform. It's not a tank killer.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Eddie

It's main function is support by lethal, direct fire to the Infantry in the Rifle Company.

Right. The definition of a fire support vehicle.

[Eddie]

No, the Fire Support Vehicle, the M1131, is a totally separate variant for controlling indirect fires and CCA/CAS. Those are separate and different from organically controlled direct fires.

[Sith]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

In military parlance, it's debatable -- it would probably be termed a light combat vehicle or fire support vehicle, but the term "tank destroyer" may also be applicable.

In the American military context, the term "tank destroyer" was eliminated from the lexicon at the end of WWII.

It would probably be "[something] Gun System"

Since the 1970s we have had the Mobile Protected Gun, Mobile Protected Weapon System, Mobile Protected Gun System, Armored Gun System, and Mobile Gun System.


Edit: Considering that vehicle was developed for the AGS program. That term would probably fit best.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Right. The definition of a fire support vehicle.

Here is the definition of fire support (and by extension, those vehicles that control it):

"The fire support battlefield operating system encompasses the collective
and coordinated use of target-acquisition data, indirect-fire weapons,
fixed-wing aircraft, offensive information operations, and other lethal and
nonlethal means against targets located throughout an AO. The essential
features of the fire support battlefield operating system are acquiring and
processing tactical targets and employing fire support. ART 4.0 Air
Defense Battlefield Operating System addresses acquiring and attacking
aerial targets."

[Raellus]

If you're interested, we've already gone over a lot of this stuff in this thread:

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=1043

Perhaps we could resume discussion there and leave this thread for T2K-esque photos.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by Raellus

If you're interested, we've already gone over a lot of this stuff already in this thread:

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=1043

Perhaps we could resume discussion there and leave this thread for T2K-esque photos.

Nah, I'm not into thread necromancy and I don't really have to say anything else. Web asked what it was called and what it's purpose was. I answered.

But I can take the hint.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Originally Posted by waiting4something

That is awesome to see a actual LAV-75 photo. Even cooler. is the dude with the Winchester 1200 trench gun that has a underfolding stock! It just seems like so many more weapons were in use in the 1980's compared to now days. Maybe it was a logistical nightmare back then, but it gets old when everyone is packing the same crap like nowdays.

That stock folds over the top, I used to have one on my 870.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Eddie

No, the Fire Support Vehicle, the M1131, is a totally separate variant for controlling indirect fires and CCA/CAS. Those are separate and different from organically controlled direct fires.

You're mistaking an FSV and a FISTV.

[Spoe]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

You're mistaking an FSV and a FISTV.

Really? The M1131 is the Stryker Fire Support Vehicle
http://www.sbct.army.mil/Fire-Support-Vehicle.html

The FSV provides enhanced surveillance, target acquisition, target identification, target designation, and communications supporting the SBCT with ”first round“ fire-for-effect capability. It integrates the current M707 Striker Mission Equipment Package. The FSV provides the Fire Support Teams (FIST) with the capability to automate command and control functions, to perform fire support planning, directing, controlling and cross-functional area coordination, and execution.

I'm pretty sure the Stryker Brigade Combat Team project management office would know the difference...

[pmulcahy11b]

I think we have a generational difference in terminology here. I apologize; in my day, an FSV tackled the hot spots for you, took out light armored vehicles, and if they were lucky, a tank or two. A FISTV (FIRe Support Team Vehicle) carried a team that spotted for the artillery, strike aircraft, and shipborne guns, designated targets, and the vehicle carried special equipment to do so. Just a mixup in terminology caused by changing times.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I think we have a generational difference in terminology here.

My point exactly. The BFIST (Bradley FIST Vehicle) and the FISTV (the 113 converted for it) still exist in Heavy Brigades.

But we're talking about Stryker vehicles in a Stryker Brigade, of which I spent the last three years of my life until I left it in December and went to a school fo six months where I learned the operational, definitional and doctrinal differences between Fire Support and Support by Fire (which is what you're arguing for).

[pmulcahy11b]

Terminology! It's a bitch getting old. Now where did I put those percussion caps and that powder horn...

[Webstral]

I went to save that gorgeous image of the LAV-75 with the bug gun and unmanned turret and discovered that I already had it. How could I have forgotten such a thing? It's like forgetting that I found $100 in my jacket pocket.

I'm less concerned with what the current name of such as thing is as what it does on the battlefield. A favorite author of mine once pointed out that anyone can call a light truck with an ATGM a tank destroyer, but whether it fits the general specifications of the terminology is another matter. I imagine the Ridgway as combining anti-armor fire and direct fires in support of troops. Is "gun system" a catch-all for these functions?

Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

Which General Buford is the M8 AGS named after? My guess is John Buford Jr, a Union cavalry officer during the Civil War who found himself in command of infantry units more often than cavalry units.

I personally think they should have kept the name Ridgeway for the M8, after Matthew Ridgeway. He commanded the 82nd Airborne for much of World War II, later commanded the XVIII Airborne Corps, and was largely responsible for holding the fort until MacArthur's Hail Mary pass at Inchon during the Korean War. He was also a strong proponent of Airborne armor.

[Raellus]

That's why we chose to call the upgunned LAV-75 the Ridgway.

[Webstral]

I support of the original intent of the thread, I too appreciate that the young has had the foresight to bring kneepads.

Webstral

[HorseSoldier]

SEALs coming ashore during a training exercise up here in AK



Marius Marai -- huge guy who served in the Rhodesian Light Infantry, supposedly slung an MAG-58 around the way most guys handled a FAL.



Some assorted pics of Russian troops











Another LAV-75 image



Canadian Cougar LAV

[Sith]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I'm less concerned with what the current name of such as thing is as what it does on the battlefield. A favorite author of mine once pointed out that anyone can call a light truck with an ATGM a tank destroyer, but whether it fits the general specifications of the terminology is another matter. I imagine the Ridgway as combining anti-armor fire and direct fires in support of troops. Is "gun system" a catch-all for these functions?

I hesitate to say "gun system" is a catch all, but given recent history I think there is a natural draw toward the term. Although I can't confirm that.

On a side note: none of these vehicles were intended to perform anti-tank functions, despite a capability to do so.

Naming a vehicle is a lot more detailed than most people think. Normally when people describe what a particular vehicle should do they rattle off a couple of capabilities as you did above with anti-armor and direct fire. I did, and still do on occasion, the same thing. then follow that up with something like "sounds like an assault gun/MBT/light tank."

To use the AGS as an example, there were 96 characteristics that the vehicle had to satisfy. The name had to be reflective of all those nuances. Technically, the “AGS” program began in 1976 with the objective of developing a replacement for the Sheridan. The characteristics changed in both number and style a number of times, and with it came a name change. Ultimately, the name AGS was selected as holistically representative of those characteristics. The CCV-L was chosen as the closest physical manifestation of those 96, but only became the AGS after development changed the vehicle to fit all 96.

[Sith]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Which General Buford is the M8 AGS named after? My guess is John Buford Jr, a Union cavalry officer during the Civil War

Yup.

[Raellus]

I don't know this for certain but, based on the image quality, the cleanliness of the gear, uni types, and the dudes' faces, I think that the "Soviet" soldiers in the snow shots posted by HorseSoldier are reenactors.

[HorseSoldier]

The detail shot of the naval infantry guys in the snow may be reenactors or air softers, or may be PR shots of guys on exercise -- I have a tendency to save random cool pictures and and much less developed tendency to note where I found them on line.

If they are reenactors or airsofters, though, they spent some money on that kit (unless somebody in Hongkong is doing knockoffs of Soviet/Russian body armor).

[James1978]

Originally Posted by Raellus

James1978 posted this image in the LAV-75, M8 AGS, Stingray thread. I think it makes for a pretty convincing LAV-75A1 Ridgway prototype.

Funny this should come up. I just found a page yesterday with more pictures of the the OTL Expeditionary Tank / T2K LAV-75A1.

LINK: Expeditionary Tank Pictures and Background