RPG Forums

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

View Poll Results: Which is Your Favorite T2K-era APC/IFV
M2 Bradley 19 21.59%
Warrior 5 5.68%
Marder IFV 6 6.82%
BMP series (Please specify which version in thread) 4 4.55%
M113 series 8 9.09%
AMX-10 0 0%
LAV-25 36 40.91%
Bison 1 1.14%
BTR series 3 3.41%
VAB 0 0%
OT-64/SKOT 0 0%
Other (Please specify in thread) 6 6.82%
Voters: 88. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 01-22-2011, 08:38 PM
helbent4's Avatar
helbent4 helbent4 is offline
Volunteer Timeline Errata Coord.
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 532
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull View Post
Yeah that the problem with IFVs. The turret takes up room that could be used by troops. Granted the M113 dismount was full Infantry Squad and going to the M2 it dropped to 7 men or less. Even then one could re-organize the fire team to drop the extra rifleman and still function as a Squad. On the other hand as you add more and more to the IFV the dismounted consisted of Fire Team, and what ever other flavor a unit SOP would use the remainder of them for.
Abbott,

If we're looking at a single vehicle operating alone in the context of (say) Kalsiz, then probably a BTR/OT-64 is a great choice due to the large passenger capacity. If you have other vehicles like Humvees or a Deuce present, then space becomes less of a factor.

Tony
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-22-2011, 08:46 PM
Panther Al's Avatar
Panther Al Panther Al is offline
Sabre Ready!
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DC Area
Posts: 848
Send a message via AIM to Panther Al
Default

Hrm, I agree that if you had but one vehicle, an APC would be better than and IFV for no other reason than beeing able to tote stuff around.

As far as IFV's go, I had a thought, if you had to pick the penultimate IFV, then the Merkava would qualify! High Firepower, High Protection, High Mobility, and only average troop capacity.
__________________
Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon.

Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-22-2011, 08:54 PM
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

You know it always made me wonder with the adoption of the the Stryker Vehicle system. Why they went with Platoons with only basic Stryker, and not mix the platoon with 2 of the conventional Stryker and the other two with more of LAV-25 set up. Giving the platoon better fire-power.

Granted the Merkava and their APC version would make a great team. Adding two of the APC version with platoon of Merkava with dismounts would give you a full dismount infantry platoon.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-22-2011, 11:40 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,940
Default

It's worth noting that just because a vehicle has an official passenger capacity of say 8, it doesn't mean that's all it can carry.

I've personally been sardined in the back of a buttoned Australian M113 with 14 men (plus 2 crew) including packs. Note that with the addition of the commanders turret, the rated capacity is only 9 passengers. It wasn't all that comfortable, but still better than walking.
To give you an idea of how tight it was, consider that approximately 2 packs take up about the same space as a person. Now consider cramming 20 people into a small car....
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-23-2011, 12:00 AM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Now consider cramming 20 people into a small car....
Clowns do it all the time...
__________________
My reality check bounced,

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-23-2011, 01:05 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,940
Default

Hmmm, we did have paint on our faces, no red noses though.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-23-2011, 01:40 AM
Rockwolf66's Avatar
Rockwolf66 Rockwolf66 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 281
Default

I chose the LAV-25 simply because between a forrunner of the M113 and the LAV-25 I got to examine up close in '97 at Camp Pendleton* the LAV-25 just seemed better at the sort of fast paced gun and run sorts of action members of my family seem to enjoy.


*I was visiting rather than stationed although it was much more interesting at the time to visit the Force Recon encampment and find out that tucked back in their armory they had supressed handguns that dated back to my grandfather's WWII service.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-23-2011, 03:05 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,761
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post
Clowns do it all the time...
Always wondered were clowns learned to stuff a car...
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-23-2011, 03:07 AM
Panther Al's Avatar
Panther Al Panther Al is offline
Sabre Ready!
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DC Area
Posts: 848
Send a message via AIM to Panther Al
Default

Huh, well that might be the reason why I always heard Benning referred to as Clown School...

__________________
Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon.

Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:11 AM
DCausey's Avatar
DCausey DCausey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Posts: 40
Default

I chose the LAV-25 mostly based on the mobility and repair ability mentioned above by several posters and partly because I just love the look of the thing.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 10-10-2011, 07:09 PM
Ronin's Avatar
Ronin Ronin is offline
Designated Marksman
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mid-Michigan DMZ
Posts: 53
Default

I picked the BMP-2. I dont know, I just like it. I know theres better out there. I just dig it.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:36 AM
bobcat bobcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 403
Default

depends on the situation im going into. escape from kaliz i'd have to go with a BMP due to ease of mobility(and ease of getting spare parts).
if its a heavy fight the M7 Bfist wins the day.


if i'm going into the kind of fight im good at, well i gotta go with the LAV-25/stryker since its one of few overglorified battle taxi's that can even get to the arena.
__________________
the best course of action when all is against you is to slow down and think critically about the situation. this way you are not blindly rushing into an ambush and your mind is doing something useful rather than getting you killed.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-11-2011, 01:19 PM
Sanjuro Sanjuro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 288
Wink

I went for the M2 then regretted it- I kinda doubt the utility of firing ports in a situation where the main armament is necessary, and if it's not then why risk exposing the vehicle to man-portable missiles? Based on that I'd have gone for either the Warrior, or one of the wheeled vehicles just for the economy/repairability issues.
Of course, if use of standard parts/wheels/tyres is the priority, how about the Humber Pig?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-11-2011, 06:48 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

KillDozer

Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-11-2011, 11:50 PM
Schone23666's Avatar
Schone23666 Schone23666 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Posts: 440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post

Now there's something you don't see every day...

Too bad they didn't have any antitank weapons.
__________________
"The use of force is always an answer to problems. Whether or not it's a satisfactory answer depends on a number of things, not least the personality of the person making the determination. Force isn't an attractive answer, though. I would not be true to myself or to the people I served with in 1970 if I did not make that realization clear."
David Drake
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-13-2016, 11:07 AM
Apache6 Apache6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 213
Default LAV-25 excellent mobility, very accurate stabilized gun

The LAV-25 is quiet, tactically and operationally mobile and has an excellent stabilized weapons platform that can effectively engage with either the 25mm or 7.62 coax.

Very reliable and combat proven.

It's a scout vehicle not an IFV. As a T2K vehicle its effective.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-13-2016, 02:37 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apache6 View Post
It's a scout vehicle not an IFV. As a T2K vehicle its effective.
I don't have my U.S. Army Vehicle Guide in front of me, but in the T2KU, the LAV-25 served primarily as an APC/IFV (at least in U.S. Army units)- that's why I included it on the list.
__________________
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
  #48  
Old 04-13-2016, 06:49 PM
CDAT CDAT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 362
Default

I do not remember if it is in TW2000 or not, but I went BMP for the BMP-3. More in concept than actual vehicle, as having a big gun, auto-cannon, and MG is just kind of cool.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-14-2016, 08:46 PM
LT. Ox's Avatar
LT. Ox LT. Ox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: West Colorado
Posts: 304
Default Water,water

as in the lav can/ is very capable in the river lake etc roll.
as to just how much you can fight with it...well it ain't gonna take on the main battle tank but it very well can get you into and out of trouble ...in a hurry.
It just might be able to cross that bit of water the other guy can not.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-16-2016, 05:53 PM
Draq Draq is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: texas
Posts: 329
Default

Is there no poll for tanks, helos, and unarmored/lightly armored transports, or am I just not finding them?
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-12-2020, 10:11 PM
Spartan-117's Avatar
Spartan-117 Spartan-117 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: living rent free in your head
Posts: 35
Default

For tanks and helos - you're not finding the fuel for them...
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-12-2020, 10:46 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,664
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther Al View Post
You mean the Merkava? Yes, about the same, but recall that the Merkava still retains all its abilities as a main battle tank while doing so. Just the ammo load is dropped to 24 rounds. The Namer, based on a turretless Merkava I've heard holds around 10, though I have seen reports saying a little more and a little less. But the Namer isn't an IFV, its (A one hell of) an APC.
Its a beast - we bid on making it when I was at BAE and got to see several up close and personal. And you are right an IFV its not.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-12-2020, 10:48 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,664
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan-117 View Post
For tanks and helos - you're not finding the fuel for them...
If you can find fuel for an APC or IFV you can find fuel for tanks - the problem is that you have to find a heck of a lot of fuel for tanks compared to most IFV's or APC's - you get the bigger gun of course but that big gun comes with a very hungry fuel tank.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-15-2020, 01:35 AM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
If you can find fuel for an APC or IFV you can find fuel for tanks - the problem is that you have to find a heck of a lot of fuel for tanks compared to most IFV's or APC's - you get the bigger gun of course but that big gun comes with a very hungry fuel tank.
And it's even easier for many modern tanks as they are powered by multi-fuel diesel engines.
But regardless of that, the big issue is exactly as you say - getting the needed amount of fuel to keep that big ol' piece of overwhelming firepower moving.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-23-2020, 11:52 AM
B.T.'s Avatar
B.T. B.T. is offline
Registered Kraut
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ruhrgebiet, Germany
Posts: 258
Default Poppa Charlie

When I saw the poll, my first thought was: "I'm so biased. Maybe I should vote for something else than the old M113."
Well, as some of you certainly have guessed, my vote is the old M113. But I really spent some time with finding arguments.

Here are the cons:
- It's not an IFV. Other vehicles are better armed and give more protection.
- Fuel consumption. Not as thirsty as several other tracks, but still ...
- It is tracked. Maybe this is not a real con, but wheeled vehicles seem to be easier to maintain.

Here are the pros:
- The passengers are seated on benches. There is not a certain seat for every member of the group/squad/fire team. If the M113 is not too crowded, there is enough room for everyone.
- The basic M113 comes with a stretcher kit: You can use every M113 as a MedEvac, even if it has no Red Cross markings.
- If the sealings are okay, that tracked box is amphibous.
- The M113 and various vehicles, that are based on it, are/were in widespread use throughout NATO, from Norway over Belgium and Germany to Turkey and Spain (Looking only to some of the European States). Spares are certainly easier to find than for some other vehicles.
- There are so many different settings of the old PC: the German version with a MILAN, the US version with added Dragon, several gun-shields and coppulas, the ACAV versions and so on. The M113 can easily be adapted to the needs and wishes of the crew.

One last point on the vehicles. From my experience as GM a vecicle can be so much more to a group of survivors. Sometimes it is the closest thing to a home you have. Hauling stuff and having a roof, to shelter you from the elements, can be so important, that you can do without the second co-ax MG or the 30+ mm gun.

Well, that's it from my sight. Over and out, Gentleman.
__________________
I'm from Germany ... PM me, if I was not correct. I don't want to upset anyone!

"IT'S A FREAKIN GAME, PEOPLE!"; Weswood, 5-12-2012
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-23-2020, 01:15 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,971
Default Customizable

The M113 also has air-guard hatches in the top deck, so passengers can help defend it from enemy infantry, and have another option for exiting the vehicle. It's simple boxy shape also makes it relatively easy to add field-expedient stand-off armor like sections of chain-link fence or bed springs.

It was so common in NATO armies that spare parts wouldn't be especially hard to find.

In T2k, I reckon most US Army M113s would be already be up-armored with applique spaced armor (similar to the Israeli Toga system) or slat armor packages, giving it protection from HMG/light canon fire. Quite a few US Army M113s employed in Operation Iraqi Freedom were so equipped.

I'm pretty sure that I voted for the LAV-25, but I like the M113 too. It'd probably be my 2nd pick. The first T2k party I ever imagined had one of both.
__________________
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
  #57  
Old 08-25-2020, 04:56 AM
ChalkLine's Avatar
ChalkLine ChalkLine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 494
Default

I'm going to buck the trend because I'm a special snowflake and say the AAVP-7A1



This is because while I wouldn't want to ride in one in an actual war they're awesome for Twilight 2000.

My thoughts are that in Twilight 2000 no one in their right mind risks their vehicles to enemy fire but rather it's an infantry setting where ambush and patrolling is the thing. Really, nothing in the APC/IFV range can stand up to an RPG-7 so heavy armour isn't really necessary. All the bus has to do this thing does:

- It should have suppressing ability in case it gets surprised so the players can get out and kill the threat. It does this in spades with the M2HB 12.7mm (1,000r) and the Mk19 40mm (768r).
- It has to be resistant to rifle-calibre rounds and artillery fragments
- It has to be able to carry tons of junk. It's the best of that category (4.5 tonnes).
- It can swim without preparation, something that players always need.
- It can go up steep, slippery slopes with all your gear onboard and also go over rough ground like trenches and rubble.

So it doesn't matter that it has flimsy armour, evidently attracts mines and is the size of an actual bus because to me its just the armoured Winnebago my PC walks well in front of!
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-28-2020, 09:38 AM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,971
Default Barn Door

You make a strong case for the AAVP-7A1, Chalk. It's got a lot going for it. This probably wouldn't factor into the game rules, but the one big hold up in my mind is that it's a really big target. Also, the setting where one could reasonably expect to have/find/acquire an AAVP-7A1 would require a USMC unit in its history, or you'll have to get really creative with backstory.
__________________
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
  #59  
Old 08-28-2020, 11:35 AM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
You make a strong case for the AAVP-7A1, Chalk. It's got a lot going for it. This probably wouldn't factor into the game rules, but the one big hold up in my mind is that it's a really big target. Also, the setting where one could reasonably expect to have/find/acquire an AAVP-7A1 would require a USMC unit in its history, or you'll have to get really creative with backstory.
Also, they don't swim quite as well as the advertising claims - very few amphibious vehicles do. That in itself might not be something to worry too much about... unless of course you're one of the 20 or so people inside it trying to get out when it starts to sink.

There have been deaths from AAVPs sinking, for example in 2011 where one Marine drowned.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...htmlstory.html
This very recent incident (July 2020) involved an AAVP sinking but the casualty rate was much higher.
https://sofrep.com/news/marine-corps...le-casualties/
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-28-2020, 11:39 AM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
<snip> the setting where one could reasonably expect to have/find/acquire an AAVP-7A1 would require a USMC unit in its history, or you'll have to get really creative with backstory.
Not quite as difficult as it might first seem. Operators of the AAVP-7 include Italy and Spain who have had them for a few decades.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 10:14 AM.


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