![]() |
![]() |
#91
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
![]() |
#92
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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 |
#93
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com Last edited by pmulcahy11b; 09-11-2009 at 07:30 AM. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The Stoneman has my vote.
![]()
__________________
"There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." --General George S. Patton, Jr. |
#95
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
*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.
__________________
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 |
#96
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#97
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
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 |
#98
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
![]() |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ok so we got the LAV-75A1 as the M-20? also any thoughts on Production?
__________________
"There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." --General George S. Patton, Jr. |
#100
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#101
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
![]() |
#102
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#103
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
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 |
#104
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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 |
#105
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I picked 20% as a percentage of what the army actually wanted. What the numbers are is something that will require more research and thought.
I see only say 1 in 4-5 units eligible to receive the vehicle actually getting them. If upgrading began later in the war, I'd think very few of the 75mm guns would have been replaced - shipping them back to the production facilities, regunning them and shipping them across to Europe again, all during a period of a shortage of armour, any armour, seems a bit much too swallow. Any "field modifications" would be few and far between due to the difficulty of essentially rebuilding the top half of the vehicle in a combat zone without adequate machinery, also contributing to the low numbers of 105mm armed machines.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#106
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Has anyone got any stats on the XM800T?
![]() |
#107
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
There's an intriguing bit of canon that could justify our little project. On page 40 of the v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide, in the plate description for a 9th Infantry Division (Motorized) LAV-75, it states, "As it happened, the LAV-75 proved admirably suited to the 3-73rd's [of the 82nd Airborne Division] mission and, with a few alterations, was adopted [emphasis added]." I'd like to propose that those "few alterations" included a new, 105mm-armed turret, side skirts, and lugs for ERA. Egads, Chalkline! What is that? It's pretty neat looking. I'd guess it's some sort of cavalry scout vehicle.
__________________
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 |
#108
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM800_A..._Scout_Vehicle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qitsOkEsMlU video of XM800T http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_army...7614123484556/ more pics of XM800T http://www.warwheels.net/X800WarsvINDEX.html XM800W It looks as though Lockheed used what it learnt from the the XM800W to make the XM808 Twister http://www.warwheels.net/XM808TwisterINDEX.html |
#109
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Looks a bit like a Sheridan body and a LAV-25 turrent.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#110
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I've decided to do the LAV-75 and its variants as a combined entry. This means that the LAV-75A1 got bumped to LAV-75A4 (so far -- I'm doing research on the fly).
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#111
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
It was supposed to be the companion vehicle to the M2/3 precursor. It went a lot further than the LAV-75 in design, and it's one of my personal favourites.
|
#112
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end... |
#113
|
||||
|
||||
![]() |
#114
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem Last edited by Legbreaker; 11-11-2012 at 04:31 AM. |
#115
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
We went way beyond canon a long time ago; we are basically the only ones still developing T2K (not T2K13, of course).
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#116
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Agreed.
Canon is the base for YOUR version of T2K, after all. ![]() |
#117
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
It's the base for all of us.
![]() |
#118
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
Author of "Distant Winds of a Forgotten World" available now as part of the Cannon Publishing Military Sci-Fi / Fantasy Anthology: Spring 2019 (Cannon Publishing Military Anthology Book 1) "Red Star, Burning Streets" by Cavalier Books, 2020 https://epochxp.tumblr.com/ - EpochXperience - Contributing Blogger since October 2020. (A Division of SJR Consulting). |
#119
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.)
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com Last edited by pmulcahy11b; 09-16-2009 at 03:30 PM. Reason: Forgot a few things. |
#120
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
![]() |
Tags |
ground vehicles, vehicles |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
|
|