*another* US light tank for T2k?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Coming from the Eastern European Sourcebook, it may be dodgy.

I just noticed I used a word that I must have picked up from our British posters!

[Targan]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I just noticed I used a word that I must have picked up from our British posters!

Or the Aussies But obviously we inherited it from our British cousins too.

[Sanjuro]

obviously we inherited it from our British cousins

Inherited? Traditionally a less formal way of transferring property was involved...

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

Inherited? Traditionally a less formal way of transferring property was involved...

Well that's what you get when a country is founded from a collection of former prison colonies!

[raketenjagdpanzer]

In a T2k setting would these be fundamentally MBTs or organized into TD units?

[schnickelfritz]

I've studied WW2 Armored Doctrine...a lot. I've always thought that the US TD doctrine got a lot of M4 Sherman Crewmen Killed. IMHO, the only really useful part of the TD force was to replace the largely static towed AT guns. By 1944, viable ATG's were just too big for reasonable handling, and the 100mm D-10 and 125mm Rapira-3 weapons are 2-3 times the size of the WW2 75mm weapons.

However, the idea of independent TD unit, attached to light divisions instead of the traditional ID tank battalion or in addition to it to replace the traditional light TOW AT units would have a lot of merit.

If you could keep the RPG's at a distance and keep what Soviet ATGM's that remain suppressed, the M8/LAV-75/Stingray could have a lot of impact. I bet the infantry sure would like having LCG fire support.

-Dave

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

In a T2k setting would these be fundamentally MBTs or organized into TD units?

By the final phase of the war (mid-2000 and after), would many forces have the logistical capability to keep "pure" armor units in the field in greater than platoon strength? I'd think the combination of fuel and parts issues would restrict most such vehicles, whether actual MBTs or less-armored vehicles, to static defense and reserve roles. To me, it's more likely that anything with a large gun, armor, and movement capability will be used as an assault gun, supporting infantry and horse cavalry with direct fire on enemy strongpoints, unless scouts report the presence of enemy armor. And in that event, the winner may be the stealthier and more fuel-efficient vehicle that can effectively maneuver into a decent ambush position based on those scouts' reports. So, tank destroyer versus tank destroyer duels - duels of the infantry companies' armored champions.

... hey, I think I just accidentally advocated for a T2k-era equivalent of the Stryker MGS...

- C.