LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[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.

[Raellus]

I've read that the M1128 MGS carries 18 rounds of ammo for its 105mm gun. That really doesn't seem like a whole lot. I'm pretty sure on that episode of Lock 'n Load that I mentioned, they said 8 rounds in a magazine between the commander and gunner but I may have misheard. I'm sure all concerned would prefer to carry more rather than less ammo and would do what they could to make this happen.

[Legbreaker]

Consider that it usually only takes one hit from a large cal cannon to destroy the target. Consider also that 20 shots is likely to last a long time on the modern battlefield since it first shot hits are now the norm.
Just a few decades ago, the "bracketing" method developed by the British in WWII was really the only way to go - you fired long, you fired short, then once you'd assessed the range correctly, fired your kill shot (hopefully).
Ranging machineguns first introduced in the Centurion (I think) made the job a bit quicker and easier, followed by coincidence rangefinders, etc, etc....

[ChalkLine]

Still, 18 shots is not a lot on a wheeled gun system that is intended to move fast and cover a lot of ground. If it was a tracked infantry support weapon I could see it being useful as they tend to be placed on haulers for road marches.

Of course, who in T2K has ever fired off 18 main gun rounds?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by 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.

IIRC, it comes in sometime in mid-1996 (Word 2002 just takes way too long to open; excuse me for not looking right now, but there's no "looking real quick" with Word 2002 on Vista). The 20 rounds are in the autoloader; another 16 would be beside the driver and just behind the turret basket.

With the 750hp engine, the LAV-75A4 turns out to be practically an armored equivalent of a race car, without a giant fuel consumption, and even with the heaviest applique armor package. The armor is nothing to write home about, but I "replaced" some of the aluminum armor with aluminum/ceramic sandwich armor. This considerably lightened the vehicle while slightly improving the protection level.

[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.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Targan

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.

I thought of doing that, but that engine is physically a bit too large. The 850-hp Caterpillar diesel engine I based the fictional engine on is physically a little smaller than the gas turbine that is in the LAV-75.

[Legbreaker]

What role is the M-20/LAV75/etc supposed to have? How the vehicle is intended to be used (pre nukes, not post) is going to have a great impact on armour protection, speed, etc.

For example, a scout vehicle is likely to be lightly armed and armoured, fast moving and probably amphibious. If the M-20 was intended for light units (airborne, leg mobile, etc) to have some basic armoured support, then speed isn't likely to be of high importance.

I like Targan's idea of using the 6V-92TA 6 cylinder Detroit Diesel or perhaps the 8V-92TA 8 cylinder Detroit Diesel. Makes sense to use something already in production (would certainly help the supply chain), but availability could be a problem with these other vehicles also needing them.

Obviously size of the engine bay as Paul mentions is a limiting factor also unless we're looking at rebuilding the hull as well (not something likely to be done after the nukes).

[Webstral]

Great work, Paul. Thanks for putting in the time and effort. Without refuting any of the observations so far, I’d like to add a couple of notes.

[Paul, you mention a 36-round capacity for the design but a 20-round capacity for the autoloader. Does this mean that the autoloader carries 20 rounds while 16 more rounds are carried in elsewhere in the hull, or is 20 the maximum number of rounds the design can carry because of the autoloader?] Paul, you answered this while I was working. Thanks.

What is the impact of the (possible) new hull on the manufacturing process? What is the impact of the new hull, if any, on the other components? Commonality is a virtue, as is making the most of the existing assembly lines. I have no idea how difficult it would be to resize the hull, but I think the decision-makers at the top would make this an important consideration.

I agree with others that the crews are going to want as much ammunition as possible. How great a weight the Pentagon attaches to crew preferences is an open question. An encouraging point, however, is that with increasing use of computers in designing AFV, the engineers have been increasingly inclined to bring in crews to provide feedback even before the first models are constructed. If the A4 is being designed in late 1995, crew feedback may play a major role. By this point, it shouldn’t be too hard to round up a few disabled Chinese veterans and some American crews.

As for the intended role of the Ridgway (I’m throwing my voice behind this moniker), the US Army Vehicle Guide (v1) tells us that the original LAV-75 was organized into light tank/assault gun battalions. Light tanks might be used for reconnaissance, but assault guns are definitely not intended for that role. Traditionally, light tanks play a tank destroyer role (albeit a light tank destroyer in most cases) and a fire support role. By definition, assault guns are infantry support weapons first, anti-tank weapons second. Obviously, troops will use the Ridgway in whatever capacity it can serve. However, it’s the big brass who set specifications and create TO&E. We should look as well at the formations that have been issued the LAV-75 in the TO&E: five light divisions (one battalion each), an airborne division (one battalion), and a motorized division (two battalions). If we see the light divisions operating in roughly parallel modes to the heavier infantry divisions of the National Guard (42nd and 43rd being good examples), then we might see the LAV-75 filling the role of the divisional tank battalion for a motorized (not mechanized) infantry division. Yes, I know this is a bit of a stretch. Still, the basic idea is that a tank battalion offers the division commander a heavy-hitting force in case he finds himself up against a mechanized opponent or just needs some muscle to tip the scales. Pack this thinking aboard aircraft, and you have a possible interpretation for the LAV-75 role.

Although speed is not typically a value associated with assault guns or tank destroyers, we might see the Pentagon wanting an agile light tank in that single divisional tank battalion. A fast AFV with the firepower to tackle everything but the very best Bloc tanks can be moved from place to place on the battlefield very rapidly. Alternatively, a fast assault gun quickly can be moved from place to place across a two-brigade light infantry advance.

Therefore, it seems to me that the Pentagon would prioritize agility over increasing the 36-round capacity. If the Ridgway is operating in close coordination with the infantry, resupply will be a lot easier than if the Ridgway is supposed to be out in front.

9th ID is a bit of a mystery to me. It may be that there are two battalions so that one can remain under divisional control, while another is split up among the brigades. Or there might be another reason entirely. I’m at a bit of a loss, so I’ll stick to what I understand and opine that the A4 is supposed to act like an air-transportable tank within the light divisions.

Of course, the Pentagon is going to be influenced by how things have been working out for the Chinese. If the motorized/light infantry divisions with a single tank battalion are seen to have been cost-effective in the Far East, the whole concept will be much more attractive than if the Chinese equivalent of the 25th ID has been used in a fashion that is doctrinally similar but has been waxed anyway. Lots of variables here. Mind, it’s probably not possible to do anything about the TO&E of US Army formations in the time allotted anyway. The Pentagon isn’t likely to want to be caught flat-footed by an unexpected escalation of the Sino-Soviet War; a significant reorganization might not be in the cards.

Webstral

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Mind, it’s probably not possible to do anything about the TO&E of US Army formations in the time allotted anyway. The Pentagon isn’t likely to want to be caught flat-footed by an unexpected escalation of the Sino-Soviet War; a significant reorganization might not be in the cards.

My thoughts exactly. It's doubtful there would have been enough time to reorganise and retrain whole units so it's more likely older vehicles would simply have been replaced on a 1 for 1 basis as the new M-20/LAV became available. Crews would probably be drawn from reinforcements and draftees rather than veterans. As it's highly unlikely that the full complement of M-20s would have been supplied, it's probable than an armoured battalion would still consist of say 3 companies of the older vehicle and just one of the M-20.

It's also possible that the M-20 was only issued to one or two divisions, with other divisions having to wait their turn to receive them (and due to the nukes, never seeing them).

For ease of supply and maintence I'm for the second choice. To allow for them to be encountered pretty much anywhere, the first choice is probably the better.