Favorite T2K-era APC/IFV

[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

[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.

[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.

[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