RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-22-2009, 09:42 AM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,673
Default LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

What are your opinions of these vehicles. I'm fond of the v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide since I originally got it when I was 11. Until recently, I thought that the LAV-75 was a purely made-up vehicle, existing IRL only on the drawing board. It turns out, a couple of prototypes were actually built. The army found the 75mm HV gun to be grossly underpowered- it had trouble killing even T-55 era tanks and its HE ammo wasn't very effective against bunkers- and the program went nowhere.

So, why would the U.S. army of T2K adopt such an inneffective vehicle? Expediency alone seems like a poor explanation, especially given the other options for a tracked, relatively lightweight tank/armored gun system for airborne/motorized divisions.(see below).

The Stingray makes more sense. IIRC, it actually entered production and was sold, in limited numbers, to Pakistan IRL (or at least they seriously considered buying it). With conventional armor, it wouldn't be too hard for U.S. car manufacturers (such as they were until quite recently) to transition from making cars and trucks to building Stingrays. It makes sense that the Stingray was kept (or put back) in production in '95 or '96 as a cornerstone of military aid to China. It also makes sense that production would continue when the U.S. actively entered the war and that allotmonts for export would subsequently find their way into American units.

The M8 makes more sense than the LAV-75 since the former was most seriously considered as a viable option to replace the M551 Sheridan than the other two options discussed above. On the other hand, I'm reluctant to accept the M8 since it's not mentioned at all in the v1.0 U.S. Vehicle Guide and therefore, in my mind, as part of the v1.0 timeline. The M8 is featured in the v2.0 and v2.2 materials, though.

And then, in our timeline, there's the 105mm AGS based on the Stryker IFV (itself based on the LAV-25 which is part of the T2K v1.0 timeline).

So, what do you think about these vehicles? Which do you feature/accept in your T2K universe and/or campaign?
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-22-2009, 09:52 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,501
Default

I see no problem with the LAV-75 in T2K actually being the M8 AGS. In the same way that I treat the Tank Breaker in T2K as being the Javelin. Well okay, not exactly the same. But why not just replace whereever it says "LAV-75" with "M8"? I don't think it would be entirely unreasonable.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-22-2009, 09:56 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,353
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

I had about 50 production LAV-75 versions being made (about the same number as the Sgt York). And they were fielded only in a single light tank company attached to the 101st Air Assault Division, since their weight is just near the load limit of a couple variants of the CH-47. The remaining few could almost be anywhere.

I have M8s in all my other Active US light units.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-22-2009, 10:17 AM
chico20854's Avatar
chico20854 chico20854 is offline
Your Friendly 92Y20!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 346
Default

The DC Group isn't taking a position on what the Armored Gun System (program name for the Lt. Lank/Infantry Support Tank fielded in light divisions) in service is. I'll leave it up to the GM. I'm personally partial to the LAV-75, although mostly through nostalgia for the v1 "old school".

One factor against the M8 is that it uses the Bradley drivetrain and comes off the Bradley production line. When it gets to industrial mobilization time, a M8 is equal to one less Bradley, whereas a LAV-75 or Stingray doesn't require such a tradeoff. Eventually this concern goes away if you convert the LAV-75 production line (in Muskegon, Michigan) or Stingray line over to M8 production. It's possible both would be produced and issued - the B-17 and B-24, the P-51, P-47 and P-63, the C-46 and C-47 all being WWII analogies on the aircraft side...
__________________
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...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-22-2009, 12:01 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

As chico has been talking about it, what about the stingray? I tend to use it as it saw limited but regular production for the Thai army (sole user to this days as far as i know). About the LAV, I have a tendency to use it with a TS-90 gun under a F-4 turret.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-22-2009, 02:58 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender View Post
As chico has been talking about it, what about the stingray? I tend to use it as it saw limited but regular production for the Thai army (sole user to this days as far as i know). About the LAV, I have a tendency to use it with a TS-90 gun under a F-4 turret.

I had had a very similar thought about upgrading the LAV-75's gun to a 90mm low-pressure gun. There is plenty of precedent among light AFV all around the world. We might justify having the upgrade made by imagining that the LAV-75 is among the first US AFV sent to China in 1995. Naturally, the Army pays close attention to battlefield performance. When the unsatisfactory kill power of the 75mm is revealed, the Army embarks on a crash program to upgrade the LAV's gun (and turret) using off-the-shelf components. High priority Regular Army units might well receive their upgraded LAVs by October 1996 if enough priority is placed on the work. Of course, the LAV-75 moniker isn't going to be very applicable at that point. LAV-90? Some other name?

Good thinking, Mo!

Webstral
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-22-2009, 03:38 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,673
Default

I'm all for any explanation that allows for the LAV-75 in the Twilight World but I'm not sure the 90mm LVG is going to be a whole lot more effective against either tanks (especially tanks) or hardened bunkers than the 75mm HVG.

The U.S. army fielded the M56, a 90mm gun armed SPATG during the '50s and '60s. The 90mm gun's performance against MBTs (I don't think they ever engaged enemy tanks in actual combat) proved disappointing and they were retired shortly after Vietnam.

The LAV-75 is built on a relatively small, light chasis but I wonder if it could handle a 105mm gun. That's about the minimum acceptable calibre nowadays for MBTs precicely because anything lighter will have trouble handling most MBTs built after the '60s. Due to the improved protection of current generation MBTs, the trend over the past 30 years has been for larger caliber guns. Supposedly, the Russian's new T-95/Black Talon MBT is equipped with either a 135 or 150mm main gun. After 1980, I can't see the army settling for anything under 105mm on weapon system designed to engage enemy MBTs.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-22-2009, 03:45 PM
Adm.Lee Adm.Lee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,238
Default

I remember reading that the HV gun on the Scorpion was reasonably (marginally?) effective against some Soviet armor. Could have been propaganda, I don't think I've checked it out.

I always thought the LAV-75 was mythical, too, until I read about the M8... first when it was cancelled, and again when the Rangers in Mogadishu really, really wanted some! I assumed that was the LAV-75.

Today, I learned that they weren't one & the same. Huh.

While I'm on the subject, I heard from an active-duty friend about the trials that were done prior to the adoption of the LAV-25 --> Stryker. He told me that a dozen or so designs were tested, and the test teams (1 team, 2 samples for each design) were headed by NCOs, not officers. That impressed him! Of those tests, one of the primary benefits of the Stryker over the Bradley was that the passengers weren't bruised and fatigued after a long march.

Back to the game: my first campaign in v.1 Poland, I let the PCs find and fix a LAV-75, but without the gun. They had more than enough fun with the MGs, anyway. I think I refused to let them swap an 82mm mortar for the 75mm gun.
__________________
My Twilight claim to fame: I ran "Allegheny Uprising" at Allegheny College, spring of 1988.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-22-2009, 03:59 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

LAV fitted with TS-90 under F-4 turrets is not only due to my thinking but it bears more to real life. I don't think that the LAV-75 ever came to existence. However, the piranha/LAV TDG (production in 1990) is a reality as is the LAV-120 AMS and the Canadian Cougar. Then, it seems than the most recent Piranha IV can be fitted with a 105mm tank turret verry similar to that of the AMX-10RC.

About efficiency, the TS-90 gun has proved very efficient on low intensity conflict (Africa and South America). It equips the mexican Lynx and the french Panhard ERC-90 as well as several other vehicle. Unlike the cockrill 90mm gun you are reffering to, it can take out about everything but the most modern tanks and it would be a threat to many cold war tanks (T-55, T-62, M48, Type 59, AMX-30...).
Attached Images
   
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-22-2009, 04:02 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,673
Default

Considering the nomenclature of the LAV-75, the Army's system for naming new gear doesn't always make sense. Maybe they just kept the original designation (based on the original 75mm gun system), after up-gunning them all, in order to avoid confusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adm.Lee View Post
I remember reading that the HV gun on the Scorpion was reasonably (marginally?) effective against some Soviet armor. Could have been propaganda, I don't think I've checked it out.
Considering when the M56 was designed/fielded, that was probably against PT-76s and T-55/55s- T-62s at best. I don't know for sure but I'm guessing it wasn't that great against the T-62, else they would have used them longer. I should do a little more research, I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adm.Lee View Post
Back to the game: my first campaign in v.1 Poland, I let the PCs find and fix a LAV-75, but without the gun. They had more than enough fun with the MGs, anyway. I think I refused to let them swap an 82mm mortar for the 75mm gun.
So you're one of those mean GMs, huh?
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus

Last edited by Raellus; 07-22-2009 at 04:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-22-2009, 04:07 PM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,501
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adm.Lee View Post
I always thought the LAV-75 was mythical, too, until I read about the M8... first when it was cancelled, and again when the Rangers in Mogadishu really, really wanted some! I assumed that was the LAV-75.

Today, I learned that they weren't one & the same. Huh.
I was under the impression that the LAV-75 was based on the TAM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adm.Lee View Post
While I'm on the subject, I heard from an active-duty friend about the trials that were done prior to the adoption of the LAV-25 --> Stryker. He told me that a dozen or so designs were tested, and the test teams (1 team, 2 samples for each design) were headed by NCOs, not officers. That impressed him! Of those tests, one of the primary benefits of the Stryker over the Bradley was that the passengers weren't bruised and fatigued after a long march.
Isn't the Stryker a lineal descendant of the LAV-25 followed by Australia's ASLAV?
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-22-2009, 04:09 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,673
Default

The LAV-75 was based, I believe, on the chasis of the M113 APC. I was looking at a Osprey book on the M151 Sheridan when I came across an actual photograph of what GDW called the LAV-75. I had to do a double-take. I read up on it and I'm pretty sure it said it was based on the M113 chasis. If I was a millionaire, I would have bought the book just for that one photo and paragraph.

On a cool little side note, I just Googled LAV-75 to see if I could find a pic of the actual LAV-75 (I can't remember the official designation of the prototype) to prove to Mo that it was real and the first two things that popped up were our forum threads!
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-22-2009, 04:40 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Actually, you are right. It was real but never reached the production line. It was undergoing testing in the mid-1980's. My confusion on that one came from the fact that I know it from the prototypes name: High Survivability Test Vehicle (Lightweight) HSTV(L).

Here are its specifications:
Crew: 3
Weight: 20450kg
Length gun forward: 8.528m
Length hull: 5.918m
Width:2.794m
Height: 2.414m
Max road speed: 83km/h
Accelaration 0-48 km/h: 11.8 sec.
Fuel capacity: 409 liters.
Max cruising range: 160km
Fording: 1m
Gradient: 60%
Side slope: 30%
Turning radius: pivot to infinity.
It was equipped with a 75mm ARES gun and 2 SMG (coaxial and AA)
Ammo was 26 and 3200 for the SMGs.

The lighter version was called Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank (RDF/LT). this lighter version could also mount a 76mm gun under a two men turret.

An interesting thing with 75mm ARES is that it was also intended as a replacement for the turret on the M551 sheridan.

I got the Jane's on armour and artillery 1984-1985 (found it in Brussel for about 25$). If you ever visit Brussel, go and check the second hand bookshops located in the islamist area next to the south railway station.

It seems that these programs were terminated because of the ARES gun fragility. After all, the Sgt York couldn't fire an accurate shot at a static balloon. LAV-AD, M6 Linebreaker... are much more impressive (IMO).
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-22-2009, 05:37 PM
Cdnwolf's Avatar
Cdnwolf Cdnwolf is offline
The end is nigh!!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, Ontario Canada
Posts: 1,444
Default

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1128_Mobile_Gun_System

Something like that?
Attached Images
 
__________________
*************************************
Each day I encounter stupid people I keep wondering... is today when I get my first assault charge??
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-23-2009, 11:13 AM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,673
Default

Mo, as to using the TW-90 gun, it's not a bad weapon, but IMO I think it's still a little too underpowered to go up against the ubiquitous T-72 found nearly all over the world and I think the army really wanted to go with a crewless turret/autoloader to keep crew size/turret size down.

I've made my decision.

If they can fit a 105mm gun to the LAV-25/Stryker chasis (thanks for the pic, Cdnwolf), I'm reasonably sure that they can fit the same type of gun/turret to the M113 chasis.

So, in my T2K world, the LAV-75 has a 105mm gun. It looks just like the LAV-75 in the v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide except for the turret. The Army keeps the 75 designation due to inane bureucratic considerations.

That means no gumming up Bradley production by also trying to manufacture significant numbers of the M8 AGS and it maintains my prefered v1.0 timeline.

The Stingray is still around as per the USAVG. No M8 AGS in my T2K U.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus

Last edited by Raellus; 07-23-2009 at 11:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-23-2009, 11:36 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
Mo, as to using the TW-90 gun, it's not a bad weapon, but IMO I think it's still a little too underpowered to go up against the ubiquitous T-72 found nearly all over the world and I think the army really wanted to go with a crewless turret/autoloader to keep crew size/turret size down.
Definitely right. I like your idea of a 105mm gun. As a result, the ERC-90 is essentially used abraod. Units stationed in Europe are using the AMX-10RC.

Last edited by Mohoender; 07-23-2009 at 11:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-23-2009, 09:30 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,687
Default

It certainly does seem like a 105mm gun is going to be the best option, provided it can be wedded to the chassis. I don't know enough about low-pressure ammunition and guns to know if our new light tank is going to require a low-pressure 105mm (I suspect so, but I'm no expert) and whether HEAT ammunition can be exchanged between various types of 105mm tank guns. I'd be curious to know what the 105mm gun and turret will do to the LAV's profile and weight.

What about a name for the new LAV, or at least a modifier? (LAV-75B?)

Webstral
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-24-2009, 08:31 AM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,673
Default

I don't see too much of a problem wedding a 105mm gun to the LAV-75 (M113) chasis. Like I said, if they can put a turretless 105mm gun on a wheeled LAV-25/Stryker chasis, they can probably fit the same turret to the LAV-25 chasis.

I don't know about ammo commonality between the low and high pressure 105mm guns. I was assuming there was cross-commonality but I have no evidence for that. Anyone?

I like your new designator. LAV-75B has a nice ring to it. Or LAV-75A1, maybe?
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-24-2009, 04:06 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,687
Default

LAV-75A1 seems more consistent with Army nomenclature. I'll use your idea.

It seems that the M1128 Mobile Gun System uses the L7 105mm rifled cannon—the same as many other NATO AFV. This is a powerful argument in favor of retrofitting the LAV-75 fleet with a 105mm gun firing the same ammunition as the M60A4. I don’t know about the turret. Someone else is going to have to conjecture on that one. The added firepower and simplified logistical requirements (no further requirement for 75mm rounds that can only service one type of vehicle present in only one or two battalions per division) will be very attractive to the Army.

I suggest a brief revision of v1 history to justify the LAV-75A1.

Following the outbreak of the Sino-Soviet War, the US provides substantial numbers of the LAV-75 to the PRC. The PLA (People’s Liberation Army) is eager to accept the American AFV because it can arrive by air and thus be on the front lines earlier than platforms arriving by sea. The US is eager to provide LAV-75s because the system is new: too late for Operations Desert Storm and Provide Hope, the LAV-75 is an untried system. XVIII Airborne Corps in particular is eager to have the Sheridan replacement put through its paces against Soviet forces without exposing American troops to hazard.

By the end of 1995, reports from the battlefield paint a mixed picture. The automotive performance of the LAV is good—excellent where quality care can be provided. Fuel economy is good, and survivability against small arms and shell splinters is very good. Maneuverability is excellent. Kill power, on the other hand, is disappointing. In the assault gun role, the LAV is disappointing due to the mediocre power of its HE/HESH 75mm shell versus bunkers and fighting positions prepared inside concrete structures. As a light tank, the LAV is perfectly acceptable against all Soviet APC, IFV, and assault/mobile guns. However, the 75mm gun proves to have unreliable killing power against T-55s and T-62s. The front slope of the T-72 proves invulnerable to the LAV; only flank and rear shots with low deflection prove effective. The very good maneuverability of the LAV enables Chinese crews to obtain flanking shots heavier tanks might not achieve. However, this fact does little to make up for the lack of killing power of the 75mm gun.

US Army users of the LAV-75 bombard the Pentagon with requests for either a new mobile gun system/assault gun/light tank or an upgraded version of the LAV-75. Light divisions, such as 6th Infantry Division, 7th Infantry Division, and 10th Infantry Division, will be seriously compromised if their primary tank cannot defeat the kinds of armor US forces are most likely to encounter. China also requests upgrades and refits for its fleet of LAV-75s. The Pentagon orders a prototype LAV-75 with a 90mm gun and a prototype LAV-75 with a 105mm gun to be constructed and tested with maximum priority. Very quickly, the 105mm-equipped version proves its superiority in virtually every category. Orders go out for all LAV-75s in the US Army park to be upgraded simultaneously with new production for China.

By the time war erupts in Europe, all Regular Army divisions equipped with the LAV-75 have received the LAV-75A1 version. Some have come from new production, with the previous variants being sent back for refit. Other vehicles are post-production refit. When the war in Europe starts, the US puts a hold on all shipment and refit for the PLA. New and refitted LAV-75A1s are diverted to Army National Guard units and a national stockpile. It is from this stockpile that LAV-75A1s are distributed to formations in CONUS from 8/97 onward.

Webstral
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-24-2009, 04:22 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,673
Default

Outstanding, Web. Outstanding.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-24-2009, 06:50 PM
James1978 James1978 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 52
Default Ares 75mm Gun

There was a brief thread on the Ares 75mm recently on TankNet - http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=28830. They seem to think that it could handle a baseline T-55 or T-62 well enough, but the gun became very inadequate against more modern tanks/armor or reactive armor. There are also some pictures of the rusting prototype of the HSTV-L.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-26-2009, 12:19 AM
Abbott Shaull Abbott Shaull is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere in the Eastern U.P. on the edge of Civilization.
Posts: 1,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
The LAV-75 was based, I believe, on the chasis of the M113 APC. I was looking at a Osprey book on the M151 Sheridan when I came across an actual photograph of what GDW called the LAV-75. I had to do a double-take. I read up on it and I'm pretty sure it said it was based on the M113 chasis. If I was a millionaire, I would have bought the book just for that one photo and paragraph.

On a cool little side note, I just Googled LAV-75 to see if I could find a pic of the actual LAV-75 (I can't remember the official designation of the prototype) to prove to Mo that it was real and the first two things that popped up were our forum threads!
Yes the LAV-75 chasis was a M113. Popular Mechanics...lol My dad use to get them, and they had article shortly after Reagan took office and the RDF, the predecessor of Central Command. In the article they looked at the vehicles that 9th Infantry Test Bed Division were giving try outs too. LAV-75 proto-types and LAV-25 were there as well as various versions of the FAVs. Many of the various configuration of the HMMWV were tested here too.

The Modular Division concept was only 20 too late. As I recall when the 25th was made into Light Infantry Division, it was like many of the Mechanized/Armored Division in the states that had 2 active units. Well as the 6th and 7th Light Infantry Division were stood up, and 10th Mountain. One problem with all 4 divisions was ideally they had round out Light Brigades, but many of the top brass was hoping if and when they were sent to combat that they would have something of the Stryker Brigades now or Light Motorized concept tested in the 9th. For the only other real option was to attach a Mechanized/Armored Brigade to these Divisions.

From what I could see the Brass didn't really support the Light Infantry concept nor did they care for the 9th either. Even though twenty year later the concepts developed in the 9th were dusted off and given a new look with a shrinking Army. In real life even the 82nd had lost it Armor Battalion in the 1990s. Too many sheridans had crashed and burned.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-26-2009, 12:26 AM
Abbott Shaull Abbott Shaull is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere in the Eastern U.P. on the edge of Civilization.
Posts: 1,086
Default

In reality, with the Light Infantry Divisions, it was always hoped that the Stryker Brigades now would be developed and attached to these Division to give them some punch, but Armor/Mechanized felt it was better to "rush" a Brigade to beef them up if they needed.

Honestly like I said, modularization should of taken placed in the 80s. Grenada and Panama operations weren't exactly Corps size operations, and Panama was probably the first taste of borrowing units from several divisions to make a complete field unit that was needed. Again in 1990-1991 they did the same thing for Desert Shield/Storm, strong arguments should of prevailed then, but it wasn't until 2003 when it was realized it easier to keep the Division organization loose, but that another story.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-26-2009, 07:44 PM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 887
Default

TR, before he passed on, did V.1 stats for the M-8 AGS on his site. I saved the info, and in all my OBs, I use the M-8. RIP, my friend.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-14-2009, 05:45 PM
ChalkLine's Avatar
ChalkLine ChalkLine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 430
Default

I might add, that with war clouds looming the US army might not rid itself of the M551 Sheridan as well, and would make another upgrade package available.

In my mind, this would be applique armour bringing it up to 20 tonnes, a snorkel system as it could no longer swim. A new solid state system for its missile launcher system and an upgrade package for the vision systems implemented in the A1 upgrade to bring them up to standard. The Shillelagh

The 'visual mod' vehicles are recalled and rebuilt. However, as the 152mm gun/launcher is no longer built, these vehicles are fitted with surplus 105mm howitzers from the M108 SPG and used in the direct fire role. These vehicles are designated M551A3(IS) for infantry support, a tacit acknowledgement that the army can no longer provide close air support.

The MGM-51 Shillelagh is no longer produced, but 75,000 were built and were still in store. These missiles are repacked in modern materials to remove the cook-off danger and replaced in service. It should be noted that this missile has similar penetrative characteristics as the Hellfire missile, and until the TOW 2B entered service was the most destructive combat missile in US service (the reason they were retained in storage).
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-14-2009, 06:19 PM
Dog 6 Dog 6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 219
Default

In my games I use Sheridan, LAV-75 and M-8. I have the US army built up to 80+ divisions. I have light motorized divisions and light armored divisions about 3 corps worth. working up my 4th ed OBO now.
__________________
"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.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-14-2009, 06:36 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,353
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog 6 View Post
In my games I use Sheridan, LAV-75 and M-8. I have the US army built up to 80+ divisions. I have light motorized divisions and light armored divisions about 3 corps worth. working up my 4th ed OBO now.
I've tried to do something similar a while back. Had military spending increase through 2000 at the same rate as the Reagan years. Delayed the war 5 years as well. Had trouble hitting the required personnel and some equipment bottlenecks, but I would be interested in seeing what you have.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-14-2009, 06:38 PM
Dog 6 Dog 6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kato13 View Post
I've tried to do something similar a while back. Had military spending increase through 2000 at the same rate as the Reagan years. Delayed the war 5 years as well. Had trouble hitting the required personnel and some equipment bottlenecks, but I would be interested in seeing what you have.
ok I'll send it along. pm ok?
__________________
"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.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-14-2009, 06:49 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,353
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog 6 View Post
ok I'll send it along. pm ok?
Sure.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-14-2009, 06:50 PM
Dog 6 Dog 6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 219
Default

meh I'll just upload it here
Attached Files
File Type: doc US OBO 3 no pics.doc (47.0 KB, 370 views)
__________________
"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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ground vehicles, vehicles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.