Favorite T2K-era APC/IFV

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by 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.

Abbott,

If we're looking at a single vehicle operating alone in the context of (say) Kalsiz, then probably a BTR/OT-64 is a great choice due to the large passenger capacity. If you have other vehicles like Humvees or a Deuce present, then space becomes less of a factor.

Tony

[Panther Al]

Hrm, I agree that if you had but one vehicle, an APC would be better than and IFV for no other reason than beeing able to tote stuff around.

As far as IFV's go, I had a thought, if you had to pick the penultimate IFV, then the Merkava would qualify! High Firepower, High Protection, High Mobility, and only average troop capacity.

[Abbott Shaull]

You know it always made me wonder with the adoption of the the Stryker Vehicle system. Why they went with Platoons with only basic Stryker, and not mix the platoon with 2 of the conventional Stryker and the other two with more of LAV-25 set up. Giving the platoon better fire-power.

Granted the Merkava and their APC version would make a great team. Adding two of the APC version with platoon of Merkava with dismounts would give you a full dismount infantry platoon.

[Legbreaker]

It's worth noting that just because a vehicle has an official passenger capacity of say 8, it doesn't mean that's all it can carry.

I've personally been sardined in the back of a buttoned Australian M113 with 14 men (plus 2 crew) including packs. Note that with the addition of the commanders turret, the rated capacity is only 9 passengers. It wasn't all that comfortable, but still better than walking.
To give you an idea of how tight it was, consider that approximately 2 packs take up about the same space as a person. Now consider cramming 20 people into a small car....

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Now consider cramming 20 people into a small car....

Clowns do it all the time...

[Legbreaker]

Hmmm, we did have paint on our faces, no red noses though.

[Rockwolf66]

I chose the LAV-25 simply because between a forrunner of the M113 and the LAV-25 I got to examine up close in '97 at Camp Pendleton* the LAV-25 just seemed better at the sort of fast paced gun and run sorts of action members of my family seem to enjoy.


*I was visiting rather than stationed although it was much more interesting at the time to visit the Force Recon encampment and find out that tucked back in their armory they had supressed handguns that dated back to my grandfather's WWII service.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Clowns do it all the time...

Always wondered were clowns learned to stuff a car...

[Panther Al]

Huh, well that might be the reason why I always heard Benning referred to as Clown School...

[DCausey]

I chose the LAV-25 mostly based on the mobility and repair ability mentioned above by several posters and partly because I just love the look of the thing.

[Ronin]

I picked the BMP-2. I dont know, I just like it. I know theres better out there. I just dig it.

[bobcat]

depends on the situation im going into. escape from kaliz i'd have to go with a BMP due to ease of mobility(and ease of getting spare parts).
if its a heavy fight the M7 Bfist wins the day.


if i'm going into the kind of fight im good at, well i gotta go with the LAV-25/stryker since its one of few overglorified battle taxi's that can even get to the arena.

[Sanjuro]

I went for the M2 then regretted it- I kinda doubt the utility of firing ports in a situation where the main armament is necessary, and if it's not then why risk exposing the vehicle to man-portable missiles? Based on that I'd have gone for either the Warrior, or one of the wheeled vehicles just for the economy/repairability issues.
Of course, if use of standard parts/wheels/tyres is the priority, how about the Humber Pig?

[ArmySGT.]

KillDozer

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

KillDozer

Now there's something you don't see every day...

Too bad they didn't have any antitank weapons.

[Apache6]

The LAV-25 is quiet, tactically and operationally mobile and has an excellent stabilized weapons platform that can effectively engage with either the 25mm or 7.62 coax.

Very reliable and combat proven.

It's a scout vehicle not an IFV. As a T2K vehicle its effective.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Apache6

It's a scout vehicle not an IFV. As a T2K vehicle its effective.

I don't have my U.S. Army Vehicle Guide in front of me, but in the T2KU, the LAV-25 served primarily as an APC/IFV (at least in U.S. Army units)- that's why I included it on the list.

[CDAT]

I do not remember if it is in TW2000 or not, but I went BMP for the BMP-3. More in concept than actual vehicle, as having a big gun, auto-cannon, and MG is just kind of cool.

[LT. Ox]

as in the lav can/ is very capable in the river lake etc roll.
as to just how much you can fight with it...well it ain't gonna take on the main battle tank but it very well can get you into and out of trouble ...in a hurry.
It just might be able to cross that bit of water the other guy can not.

[Draq]

Is there no poll for tanks, helos, and unarmored/lightly armored transports, or am I just not finding them?

For tanks and helos - you're not finding the fuel for them...

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by 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.

Its a beast - we bid on making it when I was at BAE and got to see several up close and personal. And you are right an IFV its not.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Spartan-117

For tanks and helos - you're not finding the fuel for them...

If you can find fuel for an APC or IFV you can find fuel for tanks - the problem is that you have to find a heck of a lot of fuel for tanks compared to most IFV's or APC's - you get the bigger gun of course but that big gun comes with a very hungry fuel tank.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Olefin

If you can find fuel for an APC or IFV you can find fuel for tanks - the problem is that you have to find a heck of a lot of fuel for tanks compared to most IFV's or APC's - you get the bigger gun of course but that big gun comes with a very hungry fuel tank.

And it's even easier for many modern tanks as they are powered by multi-fuel diesel engines.
But regardless of that, the big issue is exactly as you say - getting the needed amount of fuel to keep that big ol' piece of overwhelming firepower moving.

[B.T.]

When I saw the poll, my first thought was: "I'm so biased. Maybe I should vote for something else than the old M113."
Well, as some of you certainly have guessed, my vote is the old M113. But I really spent some time with finding arguments.

Here are the cons:
- It's not an IFV. Other vehicles are better armed and give more protection.
- Fuel consumption. Not as thirsty as several other tracks, but still ...
- It is tracked. Maybe this is not a real con, but wheeled vehicles seem to be easier to maintain.

Here are the pros:
- The passengers are seated on benches. There is not a certain seat for every member of the group/squad/fire team. If the M113 is not too crowded, there is enough room for everyone.
- The basic M113 comes with a stretcher kit: You can use every M113 as a MedEvac, even if it has no Red Cross markings.
- If the sealings are okay, that tracked box is amphibous.
- The M113 and various vehicles, that are based on it, are/were in widespread use throughout NATO, from Norway over Belgium and Germany to Turkey and Spain (Looking only to some of the European States). Spares are certainly easier to find than for some other vehicles.
- There are so many different settings of the old PC: the German version with a MILAN, the US version with added Dragon, several gun-shields and coppulas, the ACAV versions and so on. The M113 can easily be adapted to the needs and wishes of the crew.

One last point on the vehicles. From my experience as GM a vecicle can be so much more to a group of survivors. Sometimes it is the closest thing to a home you have. Hauling stuff and having a roof, to shelter you from the elements, can be so important, that you can do without the second co-ax MG or the 30+ mm gun.

Well, that's it from my sight. Over and out, Gentleman.

[Raellus]

The M113 also has air-guard hatches in the top deck, so passengers can help defend it from enemy infantry, and have another option for exiting the vehicle. It's simple boxy shape also makes it relatively easy to add field-expedient stand-off armor like sections of chain-link fence or bed springs.

It was so common in NATO armies that spare parts wouldn't be especially hard to find.

In T2k, I reckon most US Army M113s would be already be up-armored with applique spaced armor (similar to the Israeli Toga system) or slat armor packages, giving it protection from HMG/light canon fire. Quite a few US Army M113s employed in Operation Iraqi Freedom were so equipped.

I'm pretty sure that I voted for the LAV-25, but I like the M113 too. It'd probably be my 2nd pick. The first T2k party I ever imagined had one of both.

[ChalkLine]

I'm going to buck the trend because I'm a special snowflake and say the AAVP-7A1



This is because while I wouldn't want to ride in one in an actual war they're awesome for Twilight 2000.

My thoughts are that in Twilight 2000 no one in their right mind risks their vehicles to enemy fire but rather it's an infantry setting where ambush and patrolling is the thing. Really, nothing in the APC/IFV range can stand up to an RPG-7 so heavy armour isn't really necessary. All the bus has to do this thing does:

- It should have suppressing ability in case it gets surprised so the players can get out and kill the threat. It does this in spades with the M2HB 12.7mm (1,000r) and the Mk19 40mm (768r).
- It has to be resistant to rifle-calibre rounds and artillery fragments
- It has to be able to carry tons of junk. It's the best of that category (4.5 tonnes).
- It can swim without preparation, something that players always need.
- It can go up steep, slippery slopes with all your gear onboard and also go over rough ground like trenches and rubble.

So it doesn't matter that it has flimsy armour, evidently attracts mines and is the size of an actual bus because to me its just the armoured Winnebago my PC walks well in front of!

[Raellus]

You make a strong case for the AAVP-7A1, Chalk. It's got a lot going for it. This probably wouldn't factor into the game rules, but the one big hold up in my mind is that it's a really big target. Also, the setting where one could reasonably expect to have/find/acquire an AAVP-7A1 would require a USMC unit in its history, or you'll have to get really creative with backstory.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Raellus

You make a strong case for the AAVP-7A1, Chalk. It's got a lot going for it. This probably wouldn't factor into the game rules, but the one big hold up in my mind is that it's a really big target. Also, the setting where one could reasonably expect to have/find/acquire an AAVP-7A1 would require a USMC unit in its history, or you'll have to get really creative with backstory.

Also, they don't swim quite as well as the advertising claims - very few amphibious vehicles do. That in itself might not be something to worry too much about... unless of course you're one of the 20 or so people inside it trying to get out when it starts to sink.

There have been deaths from AAVPs sinking, for example in 2011 where one Marine drowned.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...htmlstory.html
This very recent incident (July 2020) involved an AAVP sinking but the casualty rate was much higher.
https://sofrep.com/news/marine-corps...le-casualties/

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Raellus

<snip> the setting where one could reasonably expect to have/find/acquire an AAVP-7A1 would require a USMC unit in its history, or you'll have to get really creative with backstory.

Not quite as difficult as it might first seem. Operators of the AAVP-7 include Italy and Spain who have had them for a few decades.