![]() |
![]() |
#331
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Thanks, Leg. I'll have to take a closer look at the numbers tomorrow. The pic you posted at the bottom left looks most like the M20 Ridgway. The caption says "30 ton configuration with skirst and applique". That's pretty darn close to the weight I listed in my stat block. Lucky guess!
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module |
#332
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Well the caption says ton and 30 short tons = 27.2155 tonnes so actually it's eerily similar to the compromise weight of 25 tonnes you suggested. So either way you choose to interpret it they're good guesses indeed.
__________________
![]() |
#333
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Thanks for all of the feedback. I could probably continue to tweak it for weeks but I'm pretty happy with this version so I think I'll call it a day. Here's the final draft.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module |
#334
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I summon this thread to rise from the grave!
Ahem. While looking for some unrelated miniatures information, I stumbled across an offering of a metal and resin Stingray kit in 1/48th scale (should be an acceptable, albeit not perfect, fit with 25mm/28mm miniatures): ![]() http://www.hlbs.co.uk/product.php?id=725 Take note of the paint scheme. ![]() - C.
__________________
Clayton A. Oliver Occasional RPG Freelancer Since 1996 Author of The Pacific Northwest, coauthor of Tara Romaneasca, creator of several other free Twilight: 2000 and Twilight: 2013 resources, and curator of an intermittent gaming blog. It rarely takes more than a page to recognize that you're in the presence of someone who can write, but it only takes a sentence to know you're dealing with someone who can't. - Josh Olson |
#335
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
That is B2 from the v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide!
![]()
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module Last edited by Raellus; 02-23-2014 at 02:10 PM. |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It is, indeed!
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them. Old USMC Adage |
#337
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Passive IR uses artificial illumination to see in low light conditions. Note that I said low light conditions.
FLIR is a common term used for what others call a 'thermal' sight. This type of sight allows the users to see via the heat radiated by the objects. It is much better than passive sights as FLIR does not require illumination and can allow the operator to see through smoke and fog. Here is a very good history on the subject, plus a kewl army video! http://www.nvl.army.mil/history.html HEre is another website for history on NODS; http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ground/nvg.htm and a couple more that explain the difference with pictures; http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/nigh...-can-hurt-you/ http://www.infrared1.com/ANIR.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision Last edited by robert.munsey; 02-28-2014 at 07:38 PM. |
#338
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
__________________
![]() |
#339
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There is still a "near 75mm" option for the LAV-75. Considering how "Anti-Aircraft Weapons light" both the Army and the Marines are; One can easily see them adopting "off the shelf" alternatives to fill the AA and light AT gaps in the inventory. That "off the shelf" alternative would be the OTO Melara 76/62mm Compact Rapid Fire Cannon. Originally built as a compact self contained naval cannon; OTO Melara designed a special turret to fit on armored vehicles in the 90's but saw no real sales. I could see both the Army and Marines buying the turrets and fitting them to either a tracked or LAV chassis (the original Italian design was mounted on a MOWAG chassis). This would give such a force both a heavy AA capability AND a light AT capability in one gun. The only disadvantage I could see, is that the gun turret is very high/tall. It was fitted with a radar as well. This means that you could use this vehicle as a "picket" for your forces. The only target it couldn't engage is an MTB.
|
#340
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I'm sure somewhere, Tim, "TR" Walker is very happy about this if it goes through. IIRC, he was a big supporter of the M-8 Buford in the 1990's.
__________________
Slave to 1 cat. |
#341
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#342
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Doesn't the STRYKER already come in a variant with the 105mm low recoil gun?
|
#343
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
No doubt. I liked the vehicle since I saw it in Tom Clancy's Armored Cav. Clancy never forgave the Clinton Administration for canceling the vehicle to pay for the Bosnia Peacekeeping Force.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them. Old USMC Adage |
#344
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
It's also a taller vehicle that is much more difficult to airdrop.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#345
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Is it the Center of g or is it because of the height at the door?
__________________
Tis better to do than to do not. Tis better to act than react. Tis better to have a battery of 105's than not. Tis better to see them afor they see you. |
#346
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The M8 is the perfect weapon for the 82nd and any light infantry forces - gives you a real weapons system that can take on enemy tanks and armored vehicles if need be and light enough to be easily air-dropped - and its a lot more surviveable than a TOW equipped light vehicle or a Stryker
and with the different armor packages you have the ability to tailor the vehicle for the mission |
#347
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
It's also a little dicey when you're dropping something that's not much bigger than the rampway door. More space between the cargo and the doorway is better. Murphy's always there, waiting for you.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#348
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]()
__________________
THIS IS MY SIG, HERE IT IS. |
#349
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The quote below is from the following article:
Innovative, Feasible, Formidable: What I saw at AUSA 2015 "The Army, however, is paying attention. At the battalion or brigade level, the service wants to further redress its lack of firepower with not just missiles, but a new light tank, or mobile protected firepower vehicle. BAE Systems brought to the show an M8 Buford, the 17-ton air-droppable tank that the Army had ordered in the mid-1990s. A whole battalion were supposed to replace the M551 Sheridan tanks in the 82nd Airborne Division, but only six examples were built before budget priorities and a queasiness about MOOTWA led to the programs cancellation in 1996. Still, this is no warmed-over concept. With a new engine, the electronics of the CV90 Mark III or the latest Bradley, suspension components from either, BAE's transparent armor, one of those active protection systems, and perhaps the turret from the CV90-105the vehicle could be more than innovative. It could be formidable."
__________________
![]() |
#350
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
mobile protected firepower vehicle
OMG-WTF! A vehicle that's, wait for it... MOBILE! MOBILE! VEHICLE! A mobile vehicle!? Who woulda thought! It's a vehicle that can actually move!!!!!! ZOMGBBQ!!!!!!! What the hell is it with naming conventions these days when they start to incorporate completely redundant terms into a phrase? Or is it just me overreacting to this stupidity in language? Keep in mind that I am defining the word vehicle as it is typically understood and as it's typically listed in a dictionary, example as follows: - "any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport:" |
#351
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I also had a classroom instructor at my Truck Driving School who didn't have a CDL and had NEVER driven a big rig. It's hard to take someone seriously who's never done the job. |
#352
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Also, there is a lot of grumbling going on in the Army right now about the MGS. It seems that they are not too happy with it. But, that could be translated a multitude of ways with even more outcomes.
__________________
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum |
#353
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
So, we've pretty much established that a 105mm gun-armed LAV light tank would be superior in pretty much every way to the 75mm version introduced in the US Army Vehicle Guides but I've thought of a reason to keep the original LAV-75 in US Army service.
The LAV-75A2 (or M20 Ridgway, if you will) proved unsuitable for air-dropping. Its remote turret was easily knocked out of whack by the shock, and it was difficult to repair in the field. The LAV-75's turret, however, was immune to this defect, meaning that it was kept for use by US airborne forces. Sound plausible/reasonable?
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module |
#354
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Plausible. But the fact the 105 version was introduced later also works.
|
#355
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
True, but in the timeline we came up with for it a few years back (document earlier in this thread), US LAV-75s were up-gunned after combat testing in China demonstrated that its 75mm high velocity gun was unable to defeat modern Soviet MBTs' frontal armor at anything beyond medium-short range. That's why I wanted to come up with a reason for the US to still field the LAV-75 in my T2kU. I realize that folks that don't want to include the LAV-75A2/M20 Ridgway, or prefer the M8 as their light tank for US forces, don't have this problem, so this is admittedly a bit niche.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module |
#356
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Without taking a look at the numbers... the LAV-75 was originally intended for RDF deployment to the Middle East. Would it have had to deal with modern Soviet MBT frontal armor or would the 75mm have been sufficient to deal with the obsolete/export models that were its intended prey there?
- C.
__________________
Clayton A. Oliver Occasional RPG Freelancer Since 1996 Author of The Pacific Northwest, coauthor of Tara Romaneasca, creator of several other free Twilight: 2000 and Twilight: 2013 resources, and curator of an intermittent gaming blog. It rarely takes more than a page to recognize that you're in the presence of someone who can write, but it only takes a sentence to know you're dealing with someone who can't. - Josh Olson |
#357
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The LAV-75 would have most likely been hopelessly inadequate against any Soviet armor other than the T-54/T-55 and possibly not even against that tank if they had to take on its frontal armor.
And there was better armor than that in the Middle East on both sides by the time the original edition was released. The Syrians and the Iraqis had T-72 tanks as did Ethiopia. Now against the side or rear armor of those tanks it probably had a real chance but good luck with penetrating the frontal armor. |
#358
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
The LAV-75 was never really intended to fight MBTs, it was more of an assault gun kind of thing. But could be used against other armored vehicles if needed. Now this is where my memory is a little sketchy, but I believe most folks referred to it as a light tank, which brings a connotation that is was intended to fight other tanks. This was why the Army made great efforts to say the M8 was not a light tank during its development. They did not want future M8 crews, or unit commanders, thinking they could go after MBTs.
__________________
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum |
#359
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The M8 could take out enemy tanks - its gun was similiar to the one on the original M1 tank - but it definitely was not a stand toe to toe and slug it out tank. What it could do was have a real chance to take out a modern MBT and survive - notice I didnt say participate in a stand up tank battle like 73 Easting.
Used to work at BAE and actually got a chance to ride in an M8 on our test track when we did a maintenance cycle on one of the ones we had there. |
#360
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
![]() |
Tags |
ground vehicles, vehicles |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|