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, 10:42 AM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,972
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?
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure module, Rook's Gambit, and campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, available-

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-22-2009, 10:52 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,546
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, 10:56 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,361
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, 11:17 AM
chico20854's Avatar
chico20854 chico20854 is offline
Your Friendly 92Y20!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 360
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, 01:01 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, 03:58 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,688
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 08-30-2009, 09:28 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chico20854 View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli

Last edited by Targan; 08-30-2009 at 09:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-01-2012, 07:38 PM
raketenjagdpanzer's Avatar
raketenjagdpanzer raketenjagdpanzer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,208
Default LAV-600?

Per the wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAV_600

...the LAV-600 is used by the US Army. But in what role? I thought the Stryker MGS filled the "thinks-its-a-tank-but-it-isn't" niche.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-01-2012, 07:54 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

I think a few where bought as test beds for the stryker MGS for feasibility studies.

Every Stryker chassis was needed to fill the Brigades and a Lav 600 is somewhat cheaper.

Besides all anybody wanted to know was can you fire a full 105mm SABOT 90 degree off centerline and the vehicles doesn't tip over.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-03-2012, 11:05 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,664
Default

For Twilight 2000 you may have seen a significant amount of these vehicles going into the late war light infantry divisions along with the AGS to try to give those units some ability to deal with enemy armor. Especially after the LAV-75 light tank turned out to be unable to deal with any enemy armor above an APC or armored car.

The 105mm gun means you actually have a chance to knock out Soviet armor where with the LAV-75 unless you are going for a mobility kill (i.e. shoot for the tracks and the suspension) you basically have no chance against anything more modern than a T-55 - and even then you might not get a real kill.

And it having the same gun as what is on the Stingray light tank would offer benefits as well - i.e. if the barrel was good to go still on a knocked out or out of commission Stingray it could be used for changeout, if necessary, on a LAV 600.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-03-2012, 11:47 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,664
Default

By the way speaking of the Stingray - the ammo load for it in the game in both the V1 and V2 versions is incorrect

In the game it says it has 36 round of main gun ammo

Its actually only 32, with 8 ready rounds and 24 stowed in hull

And its only sales were to Thailand so for those playing the Bangkok module the tank should be added to the Bangkok Cesspool of the Orient lineup of available tanks for the Thais.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-03-2012, 12:22 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

The 75mm on the LAV -75 should be penetrating hull side and turret side on t-72s and t-80s.

It is a hyper velocity kinetic penetrator.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-03-2012, 08:49 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,972
Default

The LAV-300, upon which the LAV-600 is based, was used by the Panamanian defense forces (armed with a 90mm gun) and may have seen combat against U.S. forces during the intervention in 1989.

I read through the LAV-75, Stingray, M8 AGS thread again today and I think it was really cool how a bunch of us collaborated to create something kind of new and very cool for T2K- the M20 (LAV-75A1) Ridgway LAV/AGS: the LAV-25 chasis with an unmanned 105mm gun turret.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure module, Rook's Gambit, and campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, available-

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
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 03:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.