Favorite T2K-era APC/IFV

[Raellus]

Sorry guys. I must have caught the poll bug. I don't think we've had this one before. I'm sure most of our PCs, if not our actual selves, have been stuck in one or two of these glorified metal boxes before. Which is your favorite and, of course, why?

[waiting4something]

I went with the LAV-PIVAD. I like speed of the LAV plus the 20mm vulcan cannon. I know it's for air defense, but I like the idea of using it on armor and infantry too. I was always jealous of the LAV-25 crewmen and their scouts. Those bastards had everything inside them too. AT-4'S, M249, M240G, and some units got issued SASR's(M82A1's) too. Yeah, and to top it off like most vehicle personel they got to have a ice chest with cold water in them. I never really considered infantry personel that ride true infantry. Must be nice to ride.

[cavtroop]

I went with the Bradley, mostly because I used to crew one

[leonpoi]

BMP 2 - good to throw some limited fear into the hearts of players. Easy enough to kill but can also kill them, a good old tactical challenge.

[Legbreaker]

My heart says Marder (it just looks soooooo cool) but brain says LAV-25.
Firepower is very important, but so is fuel economy in T2K. Tracks are great for resisting damage but they chew waaaay too much fuel as a rule.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

LAV-25, also easier to fix, in theory, since they are wheeled. You can also use truck tires if need be or jury rig other tires if you have to.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I was torn between the LAV-25 and the OT-64 and I couldn't decide which to choose although the 25mm on the LAV-25 would sway me. I agree with the sentiment behind wheeled vehicles. If you lose a wheel on a LAV-25/OT-64, you can still drive the vehicle to relative safety then repair it at your leisure - if you lose a track link, you're going nowhere until you get out of the safety of the vehicle and fix the track.

[Raellus]

I picked the LAV-25 for the same reasons already cited. I've had a soft spot for it in my heart since I first thumbed through the v1.0 core book. I figured that if it was good enough for them, it was good enough for me.

Given the right ammo, the 25mm chain-gun could defeat most threats short on an MBT (and I've heard stories of Iraqi T-54/55s being destroyed by 25mm Bradley fire).

[kato13]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I was torn between the LAV-25 and the OT-64

I remember calculating that in the V.1 rules it was possible for a strong, highly trained, martial artist to punch through the OT-64 armor. Even 25 years later it is still the first thing I think of when I see that designation

[TiggerCCW UK]

I went with the M2 - I really like the missile gun combo, plenty of poke at long range.

[jimbo4795]

Ive always been partial to the AAV-7 series. They can haul sooooo much stuff.

[pmulcahy11b]

It was a tough choice, but I voted for the Marder. Yes, it has a low-power autocannon, yes, it's engine gulps fuel -- but the armor protection is amongst the best of IFVs.

[Slappy]

In T2k, the LAV-25. Has enough armor and armament to deal with most threats active in central Poland, nice carrying capacity and easy to fuel. Only real drawback is that finding spares is a bitch.

For really extended campaigning, you might be better off with a BTR-80. Lower punch but much easier to find local parts.

At the end of a real 1990s supply line, the Bradley every time.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Slappy

In T2k, the LAV-25. Has enough armor and armament to deal with most threats active in central Poland, nice carrying capacity and easy to fuel. Only real drawback is that finding spares is a bitch.

For really extended campaigning, you might be better off with a BTR-80. Lower punch but much easier to find local parts.

At the end of a real 1990s supply line, the Bradley every time.

For an end of the 1990s vehicle, the CV-9040 would be up there in my mind too. But you'd run into the same problem as the LAV-25 -- spare parts. And just about anywhere but Scandinavia, the GM would have to reach to come up with a good explanation of why the CV-9040 is there in the first place.

[Webstral]

I wonder if the IFV are still carrying troops in Twilight: 2000. Let's face it: anti-tank fire would have caused stupendous losses among the IFV. Weapons not capable of killing a T-55 can take out an M2 or a Marder. I wonder how many armies with operable IFV turn them into CFV (cavalry fighting vehicles) or light tanks by 2000. Of course, as with all things in Twilight: 2000, it comes down to location, location, location.

Webstral

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I wonder if the IFV are still carrying troops in Twilight: 2000. Let's face it: anti-tank fire would have caused stupendous losses among the IFV. Weapons not capable of killing a T-55 can take out an M2 or a Marder. I wonder how many armies with operable IFV turn them into CFV (cavalry fighting vehicles) or light tanks by 2000. Of course, as with all things in Twilight: 2000, it comes down to location, location, location.

Webstral

I would think you would see many IFVs being operating as tanks much in the same fashion that several late-WWII tanks of various make trooped on for years in places like the former Yugoslavia and the Middle East. I was never big fan of the entire Mechanized concept with such vehicles as the M113 to begin with, only made matters worse when they came out with IFVs. For people who should know the limitation of those vehicle seem to forget them when they aren't the one riding them into battle.

Same with the Light Motorized concept tested at Fort Lewis, even though it basically been used to one extent or another. As for getting small units to points to start patrol, it fine. As convoy protection, okay if that all you have is HMMWVs then so be it. To use them much the same way the M113 were suppose to be use as fire support vehicle...Someone needs their head examined.

The FAV concept and whatever it morphed into was taking an old idea such Jeep being used as scout/command car and returning a light vehicle to a scout role. Yes the vehicle was light, but one of the things made the jeep so successful was it quickness to get itself out of trouble. Similarly FAVs in the right terrain could do that, but I wouldn't use in villages and cities.

Getting off topic. I think no matter if it APC or AFV if the troop has anti-tank weapon regardless if it is way overkill for the vehicle in question and there were other weapon nearby that could kill just as effectively. They would still look to kill it, just for their own piece of mind. Know what anti-tank round does to the inside of real Tank, it would play havoc with the dismounts inside an IFV or APC on it way to go through the other side of the vehicle.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Slappy

In T2k, the LAV-25. Has enough armor and armament to deal with most threats active in central Poland, nice carrying capacity and easy to fuel. Only real drawback is that finding spares is a bitch.

For really extended campaigning, you might be better off with a BTR-80. Lower punch but much easier to find local parts.

At the end of a real 1990s supply line, the Bradley every time.

The LAV-25 or Stryker would have been sent to Europe in number to make up Bradley losses or so the stories goes. Much like the LAV-75 being assigned to the 8th Mechanized Division to make up tank losses. The one ironic thing I find about the LAV-25 is that it didn't come with Anti-Tank missiles like the M2/M3 had. Not that after you shot the ones loaded you would have chance to reload. Hence always considered more a vehicle more qualified for recon troop.

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

And just about anywhere but Scandinavia, the GM would have to reach to come up with a good explanation of why the CV-9040 is there in the first place.

I always wanted to run a game along the Baltic coast that featured Scandinavian merchant-pirates prowling the area with some serious firepower.

[Mohoender]

The South African's Ratel (with its siblings the Belgian Sibmas) and second the South African Casspir.

Always found that these had a terrific look and the Casspir was 20 years well ahead of everyone else.

[copeab]

Sorry for the thread necromancy. I was looking back through old polls and saw I hadn't voted in it -- and forgot voting bumped the thread.

Anyway, I went with the M113. Not because it's value in combat, but because it's a simple machine (relatively speaking) that kinda floats and has decent fuel economy. Oh, and hold s a lot of people and cargo.

[Panther Al]

CV90 all the way. Granted its rare in the T2K timeline, but its well protected and as a firepower level that can scare older tanks.

[dragoon500ly]

Make mine a Marder, had a chance to run with one on a exchange tour...nice, very nice!

[Abbott Shaull]

Didn't the Marder have a remote mini-turret dual 7.62 MGs behind their main turret?

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Didn't the Marder have a remote mini-turret dual 7.62 MGs behind their main turret?

Single MG3 in the remote turret, another on a co-axial mount with the 20mm, duel feed cannon, a Milan mount for those "oh shit its a tank" moments, and four firing port Uzis for the guys in back.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Didn't the Marder have a remote mini-turret dual 7.62 MGs behind their main turret?

On early models. It was removed on later models. Not sure why. It might be due to the addition of extra armor around the troop compartment. That's why the later version don't have troop firing ports anymore.

I do dig the Marder, though. I like it's low profile.

[Panther Al]

The Marder places second on my list, mainly because of its lack of carrying capacity. When they upgraded it to mount the squads MILAN, they had to kick the squad size down to 5 to make room for the missiles, which left the dismount numbers rather short. Some say they fixed that in later versions, but since I have seen some sources that say yes, and some that say no, I can't place it any higher than 2nd. Granted, troop capacity is a weakness in all IFV's, but the Marder takes it to an extreme. The upside is, is that it defines what well armoured means for IFV's.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by kato13

I remember calculating that in the V.1 rules it was possible for a strong, highly trained, martial artist to punch through the OT-64 armor. Even 25 years later it is still the first thing I think of when I see that designation

Kato,

Doing some figuring, I see this is entirely correct in the v1 rules.

A beginning Martial Artist with STR and STA 16 and the max allowed BC (Body Combat) skill of 80 has a damage of 12+1D6, enough to penetrate the OT-64's side armour of 15 50% of the time by rolling 4 or better. (16 + 16 x 8 / 200.) For that matter, someone with a STR and STA of 19 and a BC skill of 80 can just punch through the LAV-25's side armour of 20 with a little luck (Hand damage of 15+1D6).

Quick, someone call Murphy's Rules!

That said, for me it was pretty much a toss-up between the BTR/OT-64 and LAV-25 in v1 rules in terms of mobility and fuel consumption. The LAV can haul more and has the 25mm autocannon to use against light armour and infantry (although the KPVT isn't all that shabby for an MG). In v2/2.2 the OT-64 does a little better in the range department but only because it has a larger fuel tank. It would be nice to have an ATGM for heavy armour, but you can still carry a crew of dismounts (assuming other players have the foresight to pick one up as starting equipment).

Tony

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

The Marder places second on my list, mainly because of its lack of carrying capacity. When they upgraded it to mount the squads MILAN, they had to kick the squad size down to 5 to make room for the missiles, which left the dismount numbers rather short. Some say they fixed that in later versions, but since I have seen some sources that say yes, and some that say no, I can't place it any higher than 2nd. Granted, troop capacity is a weakness in all IFV's, but the Marder takes it to an extreme. The upside is, is that it defines what well armoured means for IFV's.

I think the Isreali tank had similar size dismount when the storage area was used to transport dismounts...

It one of the reasons I think why the Soviets/Pact still used a large number of APC based Regiments in their MRDs. They realized that with the APC based units had larger dismounts, and why with the exception of some Cat A MRD that they usually have 2 APC based regiments.

[Panther Al]

You mean the Merkava? Yes, about the same, but recall that the Merkava still retains all its abilities as a main battle tank while doing so. Just the ammo load is dropped to 24 rounds. The Namer, based on a turretless Merkava I've heard holds around 10, though I have seen reports saying a little more and a little less. But the Namer isn't an IFV, its (A one hell of) an APC.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah that the problem with IFVs. The turret takes up room that could be used by troops. Granted the M113 dismount was full Infantry Squad and going to the M2 it dropped to 7 men or less. Even then one could re-organize the fire team to drop the extra rifleman and still function as a Squad. On the other hand as you add more and more to the IFV the dismounted consisted of Fire Team, and what ever other flavor a unit SOP would use the remainder of them for.