LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by boogiedowndonovan

In regards to the Chinese name for the LAV-75, why not stick with PLA naming convention? Type 75? Type 75A1?

Great suggestion! PLA Type 75A1 it is.

Originally Posted by boogiedowndonovan

Wasn't the M-8 AGS called the Buford after Civil War Union general John Buford?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Buford

Dunno. Maybe so. Still, I don't know if that would have stuck had the M-8 AGS been selected for production. Besides, I really like Ridgeway for the upgunned LAV-75A1/M20.

Originally Posted by boogiedowndonovan

If you're not going with the M-8 in your campaign, why not use that as the name of the LAV-75?

I don't want people to get confused and imagine the RL M-8 AGS. I think an entirely new designation is in order.

[Adm.Lee]

Just to be a little more pedantic, Gen. Ridgway spelled his name without an "e".

I support using his name, BTW, although if it's to be a cavalry vehicle, the yellow-legs might prefer Buford to a parachute-infantry general.

Lee

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I support using his name, BTW, although if it's to be a cavalry vehicle, the yellow-legs might prefer Buford to a parachute-infantry general.

But it is an air transportable vehicle isn't it? Makes perfect sense to me.

I like this concept of the vehicle being the Type 75 to the PLA and the M-20 Ridgeway to the US. I like where this whole darned thread has gone to. Kudos, people.

[Webstral]

The AT power of a Ridgway MGS/light tank/assault gun would change a lot for 10th Mountain, 82nd Airborne, and other light formations equipped with the rebuilt LAV-75. Although the front glacis of a T-80 with ERA might be impervious to fire from a Ridgway, frontal shots against just about anything else on the Soviet side have a better-than-equal chance of penetrating. Flanking shots against the T-80 should do the trick. Well-handled Ridgways in the Gulf would go a long way towards offsetting the enemy's heavier and more numerous MBT. I can see where they would be quite useful in Korea, too, albeit in more of an assault gun role than a light tank.

Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Just to be a little more pedantic, Gen. Ridgway spelled his name without an "e".

I support using his name, BTW, although if it's to be a cavalry vehicle, the yellow-legs might prefer Buford to a parachute-infantry general.

Lee

Unfortunately, we can't go totally ironic and name it after the commander of the US Army troops in China during the Boxer Rebellion -- his name was Chaffee too (not the same Chaffee that the M-24 was named after.)

When the Army rejected the name of Ridgway for the M-8, they called it the Buford instead, so that's a no-go too.

How about some more irony -- call it the Custer!

BTW, I'm already working on the stats, under the working name of LAV-75A1 - M-20. On my computer, it's in the "Best LCV that Never Were.doc" file.

We also have BG George Stoneman, commander of Union Cavalry for the Army of the Potomac in the Civil War, and by most accounts quite effective and innovative -- the Stoneman might be a good name.

[Dog 6]

The Stoneman has my vote.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

BTW, I'm already working on the stats, under the working name of LAV-75A1 - M-20. On my computer, it's in the "Best LCV that Never Were.doc" file.

Awesome! Will Web's and my origin story be included in the notes? A quick summary: Attacked by the Soviets, China buys the LAV-75 (PLA Type 75- thanks BDD!), finds it's mobility and reliability good but its 75mm main gun only marginally effective against newer Soviet MBTs; requests an upgunned version, receives shipments of 105mm-gunned LAV-75s (PLA Type 75A1) and gives it glowing reports. Based on these reports, the newly commited U.S. army orders the vehicle for its Airborne, Airmobile, Light, Mot. divisions, giving it the designation M-20 Ridgway*.

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

We also have BG George Stoneman, commander of Union Cavalry for the Army of the Potomac in the Civil War, and by most accounts quite effective and innovative -- the Stoneman might be a good name.

I'm a bit embarrased to admit that I've never heard of Stoneman.

*Since the tank would be intended to serve in the Airborne divisions as well as the light, motorized, and leg infantry divisions, Ridgway wouldn't be too much of a stretch. He's well known and generally has a good reputation among both historians and vets. My dad served in the 1st Cav in the Korean War and he was quite impressed when Ridgway took over. He claims most of the troops he had contact with preferred Ridgway to McArthur.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Awesome! Will Web's and my origin story be included in the notes? A quick summary: Attacked by the Soviets, China buys the LAV-75 (PLA Type 75- thanks BDD!), finds it's mobility and reliability good but its 75mm main gun only marginally effective against newer Soviet MBTs; requests an upgunned version, receives shipments of 105mm-gunned LAV-75s (PLA Type 75A1) and gives it glowing reports. Based on these reports, the newly commited U.S. army orders the vehicle for its Airborne, Airmobile, Light, Mot. divisions, giving it the designation M-20 Ridgway*.

I'm doing the stats part -- the back story will be after that. I downloaded this thread to a PDF; what other threads should I download that are relevant to the LAV-75A1?

I'm thinking that using the name "Ridgway" will be OK, since the Army decided to not use it on the M-8 AGS. I'm also thinking that the LAV-75A1 might be able to take lugs for ERA on the hull, or possibly add-on armor packages. What do you think?

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I'm doing the stats part -- the back story will be after that. I downloaded this thread to a PDF; what other threads should I download that are relevant to the LAV-75A1?

I'm thinking that using the name "Ridgway" will be OK, since the Army decided to not use it on the M-8 AGS. I'm also thinking that the LAV-75A1 might be able to take lugs for ERA on the hull, or possibly add-on armor packages. What do you think?

Based on the drawing of the original LAV-75 in the v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide and the photo James1978 posted in this thread, it looks like it would rely mostly on its low profile to survive. It has a very well sloped front hull glacis but lugs for ERA to help protect the crew from top-attack HEAT munitions or top-fired RPGs would probably be a good idea. Also the photo J'78 posted shows side skirts. I guess this is just a long-winded way to answer "yes" to your questions.

As for other threads relating to the LAV-75, I really don't remember any. There may have been some discussion in a thread discussing an updated/modified U.S. Army ORBAT/TOE but I can't remember the thread title.

[Dog 6]

ok so we got the LAV-75A1 as the M-20? also any thoughts on Production?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I'm thinking that using the name "Ridgway" will be OK, since the Army decided to not use it on the M-8 AGS. I'm also thinking that the LAV-75A1 might be able to take lugs for ERA on the hull, or possibly add-on armor packages. What do you think?

I love it. Good work Paul.

I think that we should assume that the M-20 Ridgway would have the same number and types of add-on armor packages as the M-8. Both for simplicity's sake an also because they are similar vehicles and we already know what is possible.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

PLA Type 75A1

Is it just my imagination, or have the Chinese usually named equipment after the year?
For example, a Type 89 would have been issued/developed/whatever in 1989.

Stoneman sounds like a great name, but it conjures up visions of something slow, heavy and devastating - more of a heavy, defensive tank than a light, airportable unit designed for light units.

Of course it is just a name....

Regarding the ERA, perhaps the M-20 (I presume that's what we're designating it) was the "base" model but was quickly upgraded to the M-20A1 with lugs, thermal sights, and whatever else we can justify. Models produced later on (if any) may have reverted to the simplier M20 due to lack of necessary electronics, etc.

Production of the LAV-75 would have been reasonable since it was exported to China. However, requipping entire regiments, let alone divisions is not something that would be very easy during a war.

Firstly there's retooling the production lines - not all that difficult since the hull is essentially the same as the LAV-75. Then there's alteration to the supply chain with new parts, possibly ammo (don't know how much 105mm is used after M60s and the like were phased out). Retraining crews is another bottleneck to consider.

Perhaps as little as 20% of the required number of M-20's were produced before the nukes shut everything down. Production slowed by not just the above, but also the competing resource needs of other vehicles, munitions, energy, etc.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Regarding the ERA, perhaps the M-20 (I presume that's what we're designating it) was the "base" model but was quickly upgraded to the M-20A1 with lugs, thermal sights, and whatever else we can justify. Models produced later on (if any) may have reverted to the simplier M20 due to lack of necessary electronics, etc.

Love it.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Is it just my imagination, or have the Chinese usually named equipment after the year?
For example, a Type 89 would have been issued/developed/whatever in 1989.

That's a good point -- the Chinese might put into service with its own designation (I would guess Type 96 or 97). They have already done this with the stuff they copied or bought from the Russians and French, and with the Black Hawk helicopters they bought from the US. They don't seem to have a problem with several different vehicles having the same designation, though that may be a translation problem.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Is it just my imagination, or have the Chinese usually named equipment after the year?
For example, a Type 89 would have been issued/developed/whatever in 1989.

That would make our LAV-75 the Type 96. This could get confusing.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Regarding the ERA, perhaps the M-20 (I presume that's what we're designating it) was the "base" model but was quickly upgraded to the M-20A1 with lugs, thermal sights, and whatever else we can justify. Models produced later on (if any) may have reverted to the simplier M20 due to lack of necessary electronics, etc.

I think that thermal sights are pretty much standard issue on most modern MBTs/AFVs c.'97. I don't think the U.S. Army would order one without it. The wheeled M1128 Stryker AGS uses a very similar (if not identical) unmanned turret and it has thermal sights.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Production of the LAV-75 would have been reasonable since it was exported to China. However, requipping entire regiments, let alone divisions is not something that would be very easy during a war.

Firstly there's retooling the production lines - not all that difficult since the hull is essentially the same as the LAV-75. Then there's alteration to the supply chain with new parts, possibly ammo (don't know how much 105mm is used after M60s and the like were phased out). Retraining crews is another bottleneck to consider.

Perhaps as little as 20% of the required number of M-20's were produced before the nukes shut everything down. Production slowed by not just the above, but also the competing resource needs of other vehicles, munitions, energy, etc.

I don't think early production would be a problem, especially since production lines would have been open since '96. I see the 105mm as being under development (perhaps for a different or completing AGS) already in '96. With the design in place (R&D, prototypes, testing, etc.), starting production wouldn't take too long.

In the v1.0 timeline, the M60 is still in service in infantry divisions, so there would be some 105mm ammo already available just in U.S. army circles. The Leopard I, still in service with Canada (and IIRC, Belgium and Holland) and W. German reserve units, also uses 105mm ammo so presumably there would be ammo producing capacity abroad as well. I would also imagine that setting factories to produce a well established ammo type wouldn't be too difficult or time consuming.

I don't see the Chinese being interested in replacing their 75mm-armed "Type X" LAV-75, just supplementing those that remain. They seem so hard pressed, they'd use anything they could get their hands on. Beggars can't be choosers and all. There's lots of precedence for this. For example, the Sherman served with short 75 & 76mm guns, long 75s, 17-pounders all during WWII. Upgrades happen but that doesn't necessarily mean older versions will be retrofitted.

Once the U.S. enters the war, all LAV-75A1 production would be diverted from any existing Chinese orders/consignments to meet U.S. army requirements. I agree that the TDM would halt production well short of what Army was hoping to acquire. 20% sounds pretty reasonable. Only a few U.S. divisions in v1.0 canon are listed as using the LAV-75.

[Webstral]

20% is a number out of a hat. It may be reasonable, or it may not be reasonable. 20% of how many? What is the pre-war production rate? How do events in China affect the production rate? How many are produced after 12/96? These are all a bit unknown to settle on any figure without some thought, be that number 0%, 100%, or something in between.

We don't know how many divisions with LAV-75s in their TO&E as given in the US Army Vehicle Guide (v1) have a full complement of them in 1995. LAV-75 already in service can be upgraded to the 105mm standard without being fabricated from scratch. I don't know how long upgrading a single LAV-75 would take from the moment a particular vehicle was tapped for movement to the refit location to the time the vehicle returned. A more useful timeframe might be how long it takes from the moment an LAV-75 rolls in the door at its refit location to the time it rolls back out with a 105mm gun. At any rate, do we really have enough information to say 20%--or any other figure--with any authority?

I will say one thing in favor of the 20% assumption. It's not overly optimistic. Optimism kills.

Webstral