Somewhat OT: ultimate IFV

[Panther Al]

Floating around the web and came across what has to be the oddest, yet most well armed and armoured IFV out there. Armed with a 125mm gun, autoloaded and using all the normal ammo types including missiles, a room for 5 in the back.

Its the Ukrainian BMPT-84, and the ammo and loader is mounted in a bustle that mimics the M1's in protecting the crew.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Hey Panther Al, that's a hell of an interesting vehicle.
There's a companion vehicle based on the T-72.
I was surprised to see that the modifications to make them into heavy IFVs haven't significantly cut their speed but I am curious for info about their overall mobility in comparison to the parent design.

More info here
BMT-84
BMT-72

[Abbott Shaull]

Sounds like they are going the Isrealis had gone with Merkava in having the ability to move infantry on MBT. Looking over the specs though I would hate to be one of those infantry men trying to climb out of either those vehicle while they were under fire.

It is interesting way to add some infantry capabilities to their Tank/Armor Companies while not compromising the effectiveness of the Company. Granted the dismounted would smaller than if they had been in the more traditional IFV equip platoon. Just another tool in their tool box.

[dragoon500ly]

I don't know about merging a IFV/tank design. It seems that there would be too much trade-off. But then I always thought that giving every Bradley a TOW system was a bad idea.

[TiggerCCW UK]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

But then I always thought that giving every Bradley a TOW system was a bad idea.

I'm intrigued - why? Surely it gives them a bit more punch and fexibility? One of the criticisms I've heard levelled at the Warrior is its lack of ATGM - in fact, IIRC the big yellow book alludes to that.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK

I'm intrigued - why? Surely it gives them a bit more punch and fexibility? One of the criticisms I've heard levelled at the Warrior is its lack of ATGM - in fact, IIRC the big yellow book alludes to that.

Tigger,

My understanding is that because they are armed with ATGM, Brads tend to tangle with things they shouldn't. Like, tanks.

That said, ATGMs are effective, if expensive, against bunkers and fortifications, so that could be useful.

There is a modern forerunner to the tank/APC combination (aside from the Canadian Kangaroo in WWII): the Israeli Achzarit, converted from captured T-55s.





I don't think this is kind of OT at all. I think that as conventional armoured warfare winds down, at least some tanks will be converted into heavy APCs.

Tony

[Mohoender]

Actually, that is an old concept that was recently revived as wiki reminded me: Canadian Kangaroo.

Another interesting exemple is the actual russian BTR-T.

About the BMT-72, I wouldn't like to be one of the infantryman carried inside, stuck and cramped between the turret and the engine.

-Waoom, waomm, BBRRRRR, RRRR!!!
- On my order, burst out.
- Waomm! What ???
- BBRRR! I said, on my order, burst out (Louder)!
- Waomm! BRRR! Huuu? Did you say something? (even louder)
- BRRRR! I said "get the f... out!!! (Screaming)

And, I'm not talking of the fact that the men have to go out by the top. Wasn't that one of the drawback of the early BTR-60.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK

I'm intrigued - why? Surely it gives them a bit more punch and fexibility? One of the criticisms I've heard levelled at the Warrior is its lack of ATGM - in fact, IIRC the big yellow book alludes to that.

And having that additional punch and flexibility is the problem. Let's pick on the Bradley. You have a 25mm auto cannon coupled with a 7.62mm co-axial and a twin TOW launcher. You have the ability to go after just about everything on the modern battlefield, right? So what's so bad about that?

TOW is a wonderful system, you stand an excellent of blowing up any tank out to about 3,500 meters. The trade off is that the missile takes about 30 seconds to reach maximum range. That's 30 seconds that you have to stand still and guide your missile onto your target. ATGMs have a rather significant black bast when they fire. The minimum training standard for a US tank crewman is to get an aimed round off every five seconds. That means that at maximum range, an AVERAGE US tank crew will place at least six rounds in the vinicity of the blackblast. Now that would break down to one Sabot round (to clear the tube) and then five HEAT rounds to hit the target or supress the area.

I was more impressed with the Warrior. You had a nice auto-cannon to kill BTRs/BMPs. Because you didn't have the extra weapons system, you saved money which allowed the fielding of more of the vehicles within a smaller time frame.

There was a Bradley variant that was discussed in Armor Journal. It pulled the turret and infantry compartment for a smaller turret mounting two twin TOW launchers and a larger number of reloads. It was proposed to either field one per platoon or to field two with the headquarters platoon. The proposal went one to recommend fitting a smaller one man turret to the Bradley, with the capability of firing Dragon if needed, the space freed up would allow another 2-3 infantry. This is the second problem of the IFV squad.

A Bradley squad is the smallest rifle squad in the Army. There is no cushion if the squad suffers losses.

Just a few things to consider....

[Panther Al]

Another problem with the idea of arming IFV's with atgw's is you are making that crew and vehicle do too many things: "Here, do all the roles of a light tank with a bare minimum of armour and while you are at support the smallish squad of crunchies and, if its not too much trouble, perform all the duties of a tank destroyer. Make sure you stay well trained in all roles and remember all those roles are more important that the other ones."

Its worse for the M3, add in a scouting heavy mission without adding the equipment to properly do it. In the ACR we found that the M1A2 was a much better scout vehicle, lower profile, quieter, much better optics (basically boiled down to getting grids to whatever we was looking at, with the brad it took work and at best you could only get a six digit grid. With the M1A2 not only was the gunner scanning, so was the TC and both could get a ten digit grid, at much longer range just by hitting a button), and they tended to survive much longer than the brads who often took up the support by fire mission. We used to joke that if you wanted to find the enemy all you had to do was look for the burning brads because they felt that the tow and bushmaster allowed them to fight tanks on even ground.

The ifv as a vehicle has its own issues that the Israelis have found and has caused this whole slog to the heavy-apc. Tanks can't fight in townsH we know this so the average tactic is to have a tank platoon support by fire while the infantry push across the ground and into the town. As mentioned the israelis have found this lacking as even a haphazard at defence will eat them alive, and even a IFV's turret has limitations in MOUT. Hence the tank based apc's. They have tank armour in order to survive the rush into the town, large (relatively) squads, and with the remote weapons stations with their high angle capacity, they are just the ticket.

[Raellus]

The Bradley is a product of the era in which it was designed. An IFV is primarily an offensive weapon and here's where the criticisms seem to lie. A TOW II is not a very effective offensive weapon; an MBT is, and that's one of the knocks on the Bradley and its ATGMs. Why send an IFV to do a job that an MBT does much better? But, one must remember that the Cold War designers were anticipating their drawing board IFV having to weather waves of Soviet MBT before taking to the offensive. NATO simply didn't have enough MBTs and dedicated AT vehicles to do the job and so a secondary AT capability was built in to the Bradley. As many of you have pointed out, the result is a hybrid that's not all that great at any of its intended roles- a jack of all trades and master of none, if you will.

Perhaps a better use of funds would have to build most Bradleys without TOW launchers and designate one or two Bradleys per platoon as FSVs with TOW launchers and reloads in the back instead of infantry.

The heavy APC concept is not new but it's not necessarily a condemnation of the IFV concept either. The Israeli Achzarit was a response to the relative vulnerability of the M113 series, still by far the most common APC (if not AFV) in Israeli service. They Israelis needed a more survivable yet cost effective alternative so they converted a couple hundred of their captured T-54/55 MBTs into heavy AFVs. The Israelis simply could not afford to buy Bradley IFVs or develop and manufacture their own, more heavily armed IFVs. They are currently working on a heavy APC/IFV based on the Merkava hull but the projected cost per vehicle is pretty steep.

The BMP-T concept is almost as much a vote of no confidence of MBTs as it is APCs/IFVs. It is a vehicle designed primarily for urban warfare, an area where Russian experience in Grozny revealed serious shortcomings in both IFV (i.e. BMP series) and MBT design. For example, Soviet MBTs don't have the ability to elevate their main guns enough to engage the upper stories of tall buildings at close range. Also, their coaxial machine guns and turret-mounted AA HMG were found not to provide enough protection against dismounted AT hunter-killer teams. The BMT-T was designed to overcoming those weaknesses as well as provide some additional AT capability. That's why it has 2-3 30mm AGLs, MGs, autocannon, and bunker-busting ATGMs. It's not really an APC at all. The large crew operates the many weapons systems. IIRC, there's the driver, two GL operators, a main armament operator, and a commander.

[Panther Al]

Oh to be sure: for the 80's russian horde the bradley wasn't a bad IFV, not great, but not bad either. The TOW, which I'll grant is damn good missile even today does have its weaknesses though, shared by about every wire guided system: flight time, and bodies of water over which they must fly. At any rate I think for the time the germans got it right (remember they started working on the Marder in the 50's so they should get credit for starting the whole IFV thing, they just didn't build them till much later because they felt it was more important to get jagdpanzers fielded - whoops) when they modified the Marder to be able to mount the squads Milan- allowing it to take a tank destroyer role when conditions favoured or demanded yet not letting the crew get any delusions of being able to square off against tanks. You may think I am not of fan of IFV's by all this plus earlier bits favouring the heavy-apc concept, but I do think there is a role for the cannon (only) medium IFV, and that's in low intensity conflicts. Tanks are not needed in large quantities nor is heavy constant fighting expected, it role is to provide a presence that can intimidate yet be light and flexible enough that it can be airlifted anywhere easily, and being tracked it would be also treated by those who might be hostile as more of a tank that can't be killed instead of "ohn its just a car with some armour...".

[Targan]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

There was a Bradley variant that was discussed in Armor Journal. It pulled the turret and infantry compartment for a smaller turret mounting two twin TOW launchers and a larger number of reloads. It was proposed to either field one per platoon or to field two with the headquarters platoon.

Sounds like the M920 M2 Hellfire AT Vehicle described in the T2K V1 US Army Vehicle Guide, with two twin TOW launchers instead of the quad Hellfire launcher. Except that the M920 had no turret at all, the Hellfire gunner's position was inside the hull. Similar concept though.

[TiggerCCW UK]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Just a few things to consider....

Thanks I hadn't thought of the Bradley crews getting an invulnerability comlex and trying to take down tanks

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Targan

Sounds like the M920 M2 Hellfire AT Vehicle described in the T2K V1 US Army Vehicle Guide, with two twin TOW launchers instead of the quad Hellfire launcher. Except that the M920 had no turret at all, the Hellfire gunner's position was inside the hull. Similar concept though.

Except that the Armor Journal was talking about this prior to GDWs release date. It was in a article discussing various proposed Bradley variants, this also included mounting a 90mm cannon, the 75mm Aeries auto-cannon, the 4.2-inch and 120mm mortars, a ambulance and a command version.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Except that the Armor Journal was talking about this prior to GDWs release date. It was in a article discussing various proposed Bradley variants, this also included mounting a 90mm cannon, the 75mm Aeries auto-cannon, the 4.2-inch and 120mm mortars, a ambulance and a command version.

Indeed. I imagine the GDW writers used such sources to postulate what sorts of variants would be fielded in the Twilight War. The M18 described in the US Army Vehicle Guide is a Bradley variant with a 120mm mortar.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK

Thanks I hadn't thought of the Bradley crews getting an invulnerability comlex and trying to take down tanks

One REFORGER I was in charge of a two tank section of M1IPs covering the advance of a scout section. While the scouts were completing their move up to a ridge and clearing the ground behind, a mech infantry company from the 1st Infantry Division launched a hasty attack. It was not a bad plan, they had waited until the M-3s had cleared their front and by a simple hook, the 1ID boys would have flank and rear shots. Too bad they didn't take the time to see if anybody was in overwatch. This engagement was fought with MILES gear and Hoffman simulators.

My wingman spotted the movement in the trees as the grunts started their move. We waited until the company had exited the tree line and started its wheel to the left. At this point, two M-1s, at 1,200 meters range proceeded to teach the lesson that when you fuck with the cav, you will get fucked up.

Our first 4 shots resulted in 4 Bradleys lighting up. While my wingman displaced to his next position, I took the time to nail 2 more Bradleys and then displaced. By the time I reached the next firing position, the Bradleys were making smoke and reacting to the loss of 2 more Bradleys. While my wingman moved to his next position, I nailed 2 more Bradleys that had halted to raise their TOWs. My wingman and I still argue over who got the last Bradley. Net result, 11 Bradleys and their crews and infantry squads "killed", we "expended" 13 main gun rounds and we did this within seven minutes.

While the smoke cleared on the field, we displaced away from the area, beating the umpire and his god gun arrival in response to the grunts call for artillery...

Too bad, nice try, and it sucks to be a grunt when cav is on the field!!!!

[Abbott Shaull]

That is perfect example why having all Bradleys have TOW.

It is great if the people remember it is tool that best used when you have the surprise due to the flight time of the missile. Yet, since it had the capabilities too many Commanders felt they could be used as Anti-Tank more freely than the vehicles were intended for and to the frustration of the crews, infantry, and cavalry scouts who manned them.

I find it ironic that in some armies the Artillery Forward Observers use Tank for much the same reasons that was mention too.

[dragoon500ly]

The problem with the Bradleys is that the TOW system takes several seconds to deploy and then engage. Time enough for a tanker to pump a few 120 rounds into the target.

The problem with that company commander is that he saw only his target, 4 M-3s moving away from him about 1,000 meters off. Instead of engaging with TOWs or calling in a fire mission, he decided to commit his attack in a hasty attack, failing to leave anyone in overwatch and failing to recon the area properly.

Panther Al states it correctly, the Germans have the more realistic approach towards the IFV, by not mounting ATGM, they discourage the crews from engaging in duels with heavy armor...a fight that the IFV loses.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The problem with that company commander is that he saw only his target, 4 M-3s moving away from him about 1,000 meters off. Instead of engaging with TOWs or calling in a fire mission, he decided to commit his attack in a hasty attack, failing to leave anyone in overwatch and failing to recon the area properly.

Lee,

Interestingly, the Soviets eventually adopted a doctrine of grouping their BMPs and BTRs into elements known as "Bronegruppa". The Bronegruppe would support the dismounted infantry at a stand-off range, not travel with them, unless tanks were involved in the attack (where they would revert to normal echelon formations).

Somewhat off-topic, I found some interesting posts on the re-appraisal of Soviet doctrine that happened in the 80's:

"Mures Arad in personal communication on "Soviet Doctrine Arab Armies"

No Arab army has ever utilized Soviet Tactical Military Doctrine. The reason being that Soviet "Military Advisors" never taught doctrine or tactics. When one hears the phrase "Military Advisor," one generally thinks of US Special Forces or British SAS. Soviet "Military Advisors" were not Spetnatz, in fact, many were non-military. The Soviets were Technical Advisors, many being civilians employed by the contractor who built the weapons system, much in the same way that Martin-Marietta provided civilian advisors to the US Army for the Lance and Pershing I, IA and II missile systems. Soviet Technical Advisors provided advice on training and maintenance to the host nation, not tactics.

This is further evidenced by the fact that the 1973 Arab-Israeli war was the genesis for the creation of the US Army's AirLand Battle 2000 doctrine. It had always been assumed that the Arabs used Soviet tactics and the Israelis used Western tactics. A captain at one of the war colleges wrote a paper identifying the Arab armies as using classic Western Style warfare and the Israelis using a modified version of standard Wehrmacht tactics. A review of all Arab-Israeli conflicts confirmed this and led to the question: What exactly is Soviet Tactical Doctrine?

The US began collecting books written in the Soviet Union about WWII and interviewing surviving German officers in the east and west and Warsaw Pact military defectors. To their horror, the US realized that it had completely misunderstood Soviet tactical warfare and began reviewing and rewriting their own doctrine, leading to the AirLand Battle 2000 doctrine. The Israelis were discovered to be using a combination of Wehrmacht and Soviet doctrine."

http://balagan.org.uk/war/arab-israeli-wars/soviet.htm

Not completely germane, but interesting!

Tony

[Abbott Shaull]

It was one of the things the West kinda over looked about Soviet tactics. The Soviet Motorized Rifle Regiment had a Tank Battalion assigned to it. In general it meant depending on the terrain they were going into. Each Motorized Rifle Company of the Regiment could have a Tank Platoon attached to the Company. Given the Motorized Rifle Company 4 tactical Platoons to operate with...

Conversely each Tank Company in Tank Regiment might have Motorized Rifle Platoon assigned to help out take out certain positions or to help with dealing tank trenches...

Where the NATO seemed to kept to have forgotten that in WWII US and UK would heavily attach units to Divisions on down as needed for a particular mission. The way they practiced Combined Arms training and the Team/Task Forces looks good on paper and having troop deployed with other troops they had trained with with long extended periods of time. Then reality keeps showing that even in the era of Modular Division units are usually thrown together and various attachments and break off certain detachment that they never would of envision as short as 15 years ago.

[dragoon500ly]

Often overlooked in the NATO armies is the Royal Danish Army, there TO&E reflects their combined arms approach. While the rest of NATO cross exchanges companies between armored and mech infantry, the Danes take it to its logical conclusion. They permamently assign a tank company to the mech inf bn and vice versa for the armored bn. Intresting approach!

[Panther Al]

I agree that on the whole the US seems to have forgotten how to be a true combined arms army. There was some exceptions: Notably the ACR's - and I'm not saying that because I was in one (well, mostly....) They had an organic approach to combining heavy armour and infantry, but being scouts, they lacked enough crunchies to be a perfect example. Its no surprise though if you look at the new army that has gone CA in big way all the new brigades (be it heavy or stryker) seems to look like (but not exactly) an armoured cav regiment, this time instead of scout sections they have infantry squads. It seems that the army has learned that the acr's was their most able and flexable unitary units that could almost do it all and for once used what worked as a basis for the army instead of some beltway bandits idea.

That said- out of idle curiosity what would you consider to be the perfect IFV? Either existing or better yet, what would you say the ultimate IFV has to have?

For me its the CV90 series.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

I agree that on the whole the US seems to have forgotten how to be a true combined arms army. There was some exceptions: Notably the ACR's - and I'm not saying that because I was in one (well, mostly....) They had an organic approach to combining heavy armour and infantry, but being scouts, they lacked enough crunchies to be a perfect example. Its no surprise though if you look at the new army that has gone CA in big way all the new brigades (be it heavy or stryker) seems to look like (but not exactly) an armoured cav regiment, this time instead of scout sections they have infantry squads. It seems that the army has learned that the acr's was their most able and flexable unitary units that could almost do it all and for once used what worked as a basis for the army instead of some beltway bandits idea.

That said- out of idle curiosity what would you consider to be the perfect IFV? Either existing or better yet, what would you say the ultimate IFV has to have?

For me its the CV90 series.

I've always felt that the Army screwed up royally when they made the decision to go with a smaller rifle squad and picked the Bradley. A better choice whould have been to keep the larger squad, and then build a vehicle around that. To be sure, there would have been major trade-offs! But yanking the TOW from the Bradley and replacing it with a Dragon/Javelin mount would not have been that great a loss. You could have kept a Bradley in the platoon as a TOW carrier, which would still have been a major upgrade in the mounted firepower AND had the larger squads.

I've noticed in a lot of MILES engagements, that the smaller squad, once it loses one or two men, seems to bog down a lot faster than a twelve man squad does. But thats just me.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

I've always felt that the Army screwed up royally when they made the decision to go with a smaller rifle squad and picked the Bradley. A better choice whould have been to keep the larger squad, and then build a vehicle around that. To be sure, there would have been major trade-offs! But yanking the TOW from the Bradley and replacing it with a Dragon/Javelin mount would not have been that great a loss. You could have kept a Bradley in the platoon as a TOW carrier, which would still have been a major upgrade in the mounted firepower AND had the larger squads.

I've noticed in a lot of MILES engagements, that the smaller squad, once it loses one or two men, seems to bog down a lot faster than a twelve man squad does. But thats just me.

Oh, agreed. The brad by and large was a mistake. What I like about the CV90 family is that with the addition of the planned but never built CV90 archer spg, you can re-equip an ACR's entire collection of random mishmashed afv's with one basic chassis right off the lot so to speak. The cannon armed AFV is a scout vehicle in my mind: armed well enough to screen past the MLR but not so well they take on tanks for fun. Now for line units, I'd go with a apc based off of the standard mbt (ok, so you can't do that with the M1) armed with a rws equipped with a large calibre mg or a agl. Enough fire power to provide localised support (the tanks providing the bulk of the support by fire mission), room for a ten man squad at least, and the armour to get into the thick of it.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Oh, agreed. The brad by and large was a mistake. What I like about the CV90 family is that with the addition of the planned but never built CV90 archer spg, you can re-equip an ACR's entire collection of random mishmashed afv's with one basic chassis right off the lot so to speak. The cannon armed AFV is a scout vehicle in my mind: armed well enough to screen past the MLR but not so well they take on tanks for fun. Now for line units, I'd go with a apc based off of the standard mbt (ok, so you can't do that with the M1) armed with a rws equipped with a large calibre mg or a agl. Enough fire power to provide localised support (the tanks providing the bulk of the support by fire mission), room for a ten man squad at least, and the armour to get into the thick of it.

Well, in spite of my views on the Brad....it beat the hell out of the M113 (and that is the Brads ONLY redeeming grace), its just that it is such a typical example of the Pentagon (or should I say the contractors and their Congressional puppets) telling the line dawgs what equipment the dawgs really need.

I also have to say that the ACRs, should have been kept ACRs...this 2nd Light Cav and 2nd Stryker Cav simply means that the Army has forgotten just what the ACRs were there for; to perfrom the screening mission for the corps, and to shoot the crap out of any enemy stupid enough to try take a ACR on!

What the service is really lacking is any sort of decent light tank. Sure, sure, they mounted a 105 on a Stryker...try firing that over the side while the vehicle is on any kind of slope, just set back and take bets on how many times it rolls over. Even an armored car like a AMX-10RC would have been a decent choice.

Had high hopes for the M-8 MGS...it was an intresting concept with some real potential....too bad that the budget was needed for something really important, what was that again? Oh right! The money went for the upgrades to the Presidental fleet of UH-60s...no wait...that got killed for going over budget, I'm sure that some district out there got themselves a 2 Billion dollar highway going nowhere....

[Panther Al]

I have nothing against wheeled light infantry units, being borne on light trucks or inside lightly armoured cars. They have a place on the battlefield and hold a useful role. But the whole stryker episode made the chaos surrounding the bradley's development seem honest and straightforward. How else can you explain taking what's actually a good 8x8 armoured car (the MOWAG Piranha) and turning it into a vehicle that's twice as complex, twice as expensive, and half as capable? And from what I've heard (and I could be wrong here) its more expensive in its base mg armed version than not only the aslav, but the lav-25 as well. And both are much better.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Oh, agreed. The brad by and large was a mistake. What I like about the CV90 family is that with the addition of the planned but never built CV90 archer spg, you can re-equip an ACR's entire collection of random mishmashed afv's with one basic chassis right off the lot so to speak. The cannon armed AFV is a scout vehicle in my mind: armed well enough to screen past the MLR but not so well they take on tanks for fun. Now for line units, I'd go with a apc based off of the standard mbt (ok, so you can't do that with the M1) armed with a rws equipped with a large calibre mg or a agl. Enough fire power to provide localised support (the tanks providing the bulk of the support by fire mission), room for a ten man squad at least, and the armour to get into the thick of it.

According to my Jane's and a couple of credible online sources, the CV-90 can carry a standard complement of 8 (not "ten... at least") soldiers in its troop compartment vs. the Bradley's 7. That's not such a huge difference.

I like the CV-90's lower profile. I've always thought that the Bradley offers enemy gunners too big a target.

[Panther Al]

The 10+ referenced a nominal tank based APC, not the CV. Besides, believe it or not the brad is rated to seat 8 in its original configuration.

[helbent4]

The movie "Pentagon Wars" is a hilarious and insanity-inducing look at the development of the Bradley:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyakI...E7178&index=20

I don't know if it's factual enough in this regard, but it's not the contractors and Congressional puppets that get the lion's share of the blame.

Out of curiousity, what would an APC made out of the hull of an M1 look like in T2K game terms? I'm sure a few were converted in the field in the Twilight War, there would be recoverable hulls with no replacement turrets for destroyed ones. Perhaps with diesel power packs to take up less room.



Tony

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Out of curiousity, what would an APC made out of the hull of an M1 look like in T2K game terms? I'm sure a few were converted in the field in the Twilight War, there would be recoverable hulls with no replacement turrets for destroyed ones. Perhaps with diesel power packs to take up less room.

Tony

They'd be a lot like the Nagmasho't -- simple built-up superstructures in the center with the troops riding in the center which is now vacated by the absent turret. More complicated conversions would probably be beyond the abilities of forward maintenance. Alternatively, there might be M-1 hulls with Bradley turrets or other turrets, perhaps some jury-rigged.