LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[Legbreaker]

I picked 20% as a percentage of what the army actually wanted. What the numbers are is something that will require more research and thought.
I see only say 1 in 4-5 units eligible to receive the vehicle actually getting them. If upgrading began later in the war, I'd think very few of the 75mm guns would have been replaced - shipping them back to the production facilities, regunning them and shipping them across to Europe again, all during a period of a shortage of armour, any armour, seems a bit much too swallow. Any "field modifications" would be few and far between due to the difficulty of essentially rebuilding the top half of the vehicle in a combat zone without adequate machinery, also contributing to the low numbers of 105mm armed machines.

[ChalkLine]

Has anyone got any stats on the XM800T?

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I see only say 1 in 4-5 units eligible to receive the vehicle actually getting them. If upgrading began later in the war, I'd think very few of the 75mm guns would have been replaced - shipping them back to the production facilities, regunning them and shipping them across to Europe again, all during a period of a shortage of armour, any armour, seems a bit much too swallow. Any "field modifications" would be few and far between due to the difficulty of essentially rebuilding the top half of the vehicle in a combat zone without adequate machinery, also contributing to the low numbers of 105mm armed machines.

This is where a little tweaking of v1.0 canon is required. In our backstory for the LAV-75A1/M20 Ridgway, the decision to upgrade the existing LAV-75 fleet is taken before the U.S. enters the war. At that time, the LAV-75 was still a very new system. Furthermore, most of the units equipped with the LAV-75 hadn't been deployed yet. Refitting the existing American LAV-75 fleet would indeed delay its combat deployment, but this would be seen as an acceptable trade-off to deploying a weapon system that had already proven (in China) to have inadequate performance against most Soviet armor. Many of the M20s making their way overseas would be new production vehicles, anyway.

There's an intriguing bit of canon that could justify our little project. On page 40 of the v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide, in the plate description for a 9th Infantry Division (Motorized) LAV-75, it states,

"As it happened, the LAV-75 proved admirably suited to the 3-73rd's [of the 82nd Airborne Division] mission and, with a few alterations, was adopted [emphasis added]."

I'd like to propose that those "few alterations" included a new, 105mm-armed turret, side skirts, and lugs for ERA.

Egads, Chalkline! What is that? It's pretty neat looking. I'd guess it's some sort of cavalry scout vehicle.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Egads, Chalkline! What is that? It's pretty neat looking. I'd guess it's some sort of cavalry scout vehicle.

XM800 Project to provide an Armored Reconnaissance Scout Vehicle - XM800W (Wheeled) from Lockheed & XM800T (Tracked) from FMC (makers of the M113)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM800_A..._Scout_Vehicle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qitsOkEsMlU video of XM800T
http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_army...7614123484556/ more pics of XM800T
http://www.warwheels.net/X800WarsvINDEX.html XM800W

It looks as though Lockheed used what it learnt from the the XM800W to make the XM808 Twister
http://www.warwheels.net/XM808TwisterINDEX.html

[Legbreaker]

Looks a bit like a Sheridan body and a LAV-25 turrent.

[pmulcahy11b]

I've decided to do the LAV-75 and its variants as a combined entry. This means that the LAV-75A1 got bumped to LAV-75A4 (so far -- I'm doing research on the fly).

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Egads, Chalkline! What is that? It's pretty neat looking. I'd guess it's some sort of cavalry scout vehicle.

It was supposed to be the companion vehicle to the M2/3 precursor. It went a lot further than the LAV-75 in design, and it's one of my personal favourites.

[Raellus]

Once again, in order to reconcile our M20 Ridgway with established T2K canon...

Originally Posted by Raellus

There's an intriguing bit of canon that could justify our little project. On page 40 of the v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide, in the plate description for a 9th Infantry Division (Motorized) LAV-75, it states,

"As it happened, the LAV-75 proved admirably suited to the 3-73rd's [of the 82nd Airborne Division] mission and, with a few alterations, was adopted [emphasis added]."

I'd like to propose that those "few alterations" included a new, 105mm-armed turret, side skirts, and lugs for ERA.

Said "alterations" would then have been retrofitted to existing vehicles and incorporated into new production.

[Legbreaker]

It appears to me (and I could well be missing something obvious) that the LAV-75 (and M8) were passed over in favour of M1s, M2s and M3s as well as a number of other less widespread vehicles. Therefore, it's hard to say definatively which units may have received the LAV-75/M20.

Of course we do have the Sheridan as a precursor, but as it was phased out a little too early in our presumed timeline, and was only assigned to the 82nd Div anyway (I think)....

Perhaps new subunits (company size - battalion seems a bit big for my liking) are needed to fit the M20 (or M8) into the unit structure? :S

Ideas anyone?

[ChalkLine]

With a halt to MBT construction, it's likely that other divisions would have heavy and light armour units as more divisions were raised.

[Jason Weiser]

Here's another item to support Rae's hypothesis. The M20 is going to be going into engagements, even with the 105mm, where it will be routinely outgunned by enemy MBTs..yeah, I know, the M20 has no business taking on MBT as a matter of course, but like the TDs of WWII, since when does one always have a choice in this matter? Frontally speaking, a 105mm is going to knacker anything less than a T-72, anything more modern than that, that's where it might get a bit squirrly. So, a second or third round from said 105mm as a quick followup against Mr. T-80 is a damn good thing IMHO.

[pmulcahy11b]

For better or worse, here it is:

http://www.pmulcahy.com/best_stuff_t...never_were.htm

I await your comments and corrections.

[chico20854]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I picked 20% as a percentage of what the army actually wanted. What the numbers are is something that will require more research and thought.
I see only say 1 in 4-5 units eligible to receive the vehicle actually getting them. If upgrading began later in the war, I'd think very few of the 75mm guns would have been replaced - shipping them back to the production facilities, regunning them and shipping them across to Europe again, all during a period of a shortage of armour, any armour, seems a bit much too swallow. Any "field modifications" would be few and far between due to the difficulty of essentially rebuilding the top half of the vehicle in a combat zone without adequate machinery, also contributing to the low numbers of 105mm armed machines.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I stand by the statement. Any work which purports to be canonical should not ignore in part or in full anything already written and published.

Individual players and GMs have differing takes on the world, but again, that's their interpretation, their creation. It is not canon and cannot be passed off as the "real" Twilight:2000 world.

Those views, like T2K itself has become, are an alternate reality. In many ways they are similar, but change too much and it completely changes the balance of power. Change too much and it's no longer T2K but something entirely different.

!

[kato13]

Originally Posted by chico20854

!

I noticed the inconsistency as well.

[Legbreaker]

I'm not purporting the "M-20" is canonical at all. The LAV-75 on the other hand, is, at least in regard to V1.0.

As has been said by many, upgunning it to a 105mm is both possible, and believable if the arguement that it was supplied to China is supported.

Note also that a single system like this with a limited production run is not likely to change the course of the Twilight timeline very much at all, unlike wholesale rewriting of divisional structures, unit histories, etc. It's these broad brush changes in the name of Canon that I'm opposed to, not changes individuals wish to apply to their own game world.

In other words, the M20 can be taken or left by everyone, just like the DC group work.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I'm not purporting the "M-20" is canonical at all. The LAV-75 on the other hand, is, at least in regard to V1.0.

We went way beyond canon a long time ago; we are basically the only ones still developing T2K (not T2K13, of course).

[Kellhound]

Agreed.

Canon is the base for YOUR version of T2K, after all.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Kellhound

Agreed.

Canon is the base for YOUR version of T2K, after all.

It's the base for all of us.

[Jason Weiser]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

In other words, the M20 can be taken or left by everyone, just like the DC group work.

That's very interesting coming from you Leg. You might want to reconsider your vehemence towards certain members in light of this statement by yourself.

[pmulcahy11b]

I haven't statted out the A4 completely yet (it'll will probably be finished by the end of the day), but my offhand guess is that the A4 will end up 1-2 tons heavier than a LAV-75. The original LAV-75 used a 650hp gas turbine; I replaced it on the A4 with a 750hp diesel (I put "a modified form of a Caterpillar heavy tractor engine" and gave the engine a name that sounds like a Caterpillar engine, but is not actually used by the company.

OK, never mind. The LAV-75A4, with it's more advanced armor and smaller engine, actually comes out 0.3 tons lighter than a LAV-75. Should I keep the more powerful engine anyway? It actually coming out to about $70,000 less than the LAV-75.

The LAV-75A4 is part of a "super-entry" that includes the other LAV-75 variants as well.

I also wondered about the ammunition load; it works out to 36 105mm rounds, with the autoloader only being able to hold 20. If you want, we can make the A4 a little bigger (I was thinking 200mm wider, 100mm higher, and about a meter longer). This would allow for larger fuel tanks and more ammunition stowage. (The fuel tanks are already a bit larger, since the Caterpillar engine I used as a base is smaller than the gas turbine engine.)

[Legbreaker]

What date are you looking at the A4 variant being produced?

20 ready rounds seems quiet good for what is essentially a light combat vehicle. Late in the war, a larger capacity in both fuel and ready rounds is likely to be less important although it would certainly make sense if several years of peace were available to further develop the vehicle.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I haven't statted out the A4 completely yet (it'll will probably be finished by the end of the day), but my offhand guess is that the A4 will end up 1-2 tons heavier than a LAV-75. The original LAV-75 used a 650hp gas turbine; I replaced it on the A4 with a 750hp diesel (I put "a modified form of a Caterpillar heavy tractor engine" and gave the engine a name that sounds like a Caterpillar engine, but is not actually used by the company.

In my post which resurrected this thread a few weeks ago I mentioned the engine used in the M8 which is a 6 cylinder diesel closely related to the HEMTT's engine. I'd go with that engine or something very similar.

Ah what the heck, I'll just quote myself from that post:

Originally Posted by Targan

I have discovered during some reading that this is only partially correct. The suspension and track system contains elements from the M113A3, the M2 Bradley and some M8-specific components. The hydromechanical transmission is from the Bradley but the engine, the 6V-92TA 6 cylinder Detroit Diesel, has 65% parts commonality with the 8V-92TA 8 cylinder Detroit Diesel used in the M977 HEMTT truck. The Cadillac Gage Stingray and Stingray II light tanks actually use the M977 HEMTT's 8V-92TA engine as well.