Light Tanks in the T2K ACR's

[schnickelfritz]

After reading my copy of The Black Madonna for the millionth time, I was left wondering why light tanks (either LAV-75 or M-8, I'm not getting into that) were designated for the M113/M115 ACR's. Specifically, why there would have been light tanks in the TO&E for B Toop, 116 ACR. Being that the only light tank in the US Army's inventory was in very limited use at the time these were written, could it have been to balance game play? It seems like 3 M1/IPM1/M1A1 tanks may have been too powerful/thirsty, but something was needed to create some measure of parity between the major armed factions in the area covered by the Module.

Any thoughts?

Thanks-
Dave

[Raellus]

It may have something to do with the fact that the M113 was/is too slow to keep pace with an M1 moving at full speed. Back in the '80s, when the original books were written, as a general rule, units equipped with M1s were also equipped with M2 Bradleys. Units still equipped with the M60 were equipped with the M113.

The authors foresaw the retirement of the M60 series. It appears that they also assumed that production of the complex and expensive M1 would not be able to fully replace all of them by 1997. In a similar vein, it seems like the authors conceded that the M2 would not fully replace the more numerous M113. So, there would still be mechanized units equipped primarily with the M113 and they would need a tank that was neither the old M60 or the more advanced M1. Therefore, they looked around at some of the light tank options being considered for the U.S. Army at the time and selected the LAV-75 & Stingray (orginally) and then the M8 (for version 2) to fill that gap.

That's my take on it. Armor parity (in terms of quality) may also have been a factor being as, even during the '80s, most knowledgable folks knew that the T-55/62 was no match for an Abrams.

[dragoon500ly]

The Series J Armored Cavalry Regiments had mixed tank/apc platoons.

At the time T2K came out a platoon was organized as

4 tanks
4 APCs (scouts)
1 APC (platoon leader)
1 mortar APC (usually detached to troop headquarters)

There would be three such platoons as well as a headquarters platoon (2 tanks) in each troop.

Three cavalry troops, plus a 14 strong tank company, a howitzer battery and the usual support would make up a squadron.

Three cavalry squadrons, plus a air cavalry squadron, a engineer company, a ADA platoon and support would make up a ACR.

[HorseSoldier]

There were Sheridans organic to the ACRs under previous MTOEs as well. The idea that an ACR was an elegantly compact buzzsaw of destruction is kind of created by the M1/Bradley combo, so in a setting where viable light tanks followed on the Sheridan design there may have been a school of thought for the ACRs remaining heavier on the recon side of things than the fighting for information/economy of force role.

Alternately, you could just chalk it up to B/116 being rebuilt after earlier losses in the war (or stripped of their M1s or M60s to cover battlefield losses by other units and rebuilt with lighter tanks).

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

Alternately, you could just chalk it up to B/116 being rebuilt after earlier losses in the war (or stripped of their M1s or M60s to cover battlefield losses by other units and rebuilt with lighter tanks).

Maybe the whole 116 ACR got LAVs, or just B Troop, so that XI Corps could have a really light cavalry unit for special uses?

Or, it was what was available in the replacement pool, and they had to give up their M1s and M2s to a division.

[dragoon500ly]

In real life, the 116th was equipped with M48A5s and M113s in the mid 1980s, later being reequipped with M-60A1s released from the Regular Army as M1s came on line.

The 116th ACR was originally slated as a National Guard NATO reinforcement (available for shipping 45-60 days after activation).

So perhaps the original thought was replacement of their equipment through combat loss.

[schnickelfritz]

Thanks for the info to all. Were my eyes playing tricks on me or is the M-8 AGS not in the US Army VG Version 2?
Thanks,
Dave

[Legbreaker]

The M8 was introduced in the Survivors Guide to Eastern Europe. From memory it may also be in the V2.2 big Yellow Book (but dont' quote me)

[schnickelfritz]

Leg-
Thanks. I don't have a print copy and am forced to rely on a pdf from drivethrurpg.com, which I haven't been able to print completely.
Thanks-
Dave

[atiff]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

From memory it may also be in the V2.2 big Yellow Book (but dont' quote me)

Correct - pg 76

[natehale1971]

I have a question, if the Cold War had continued...

What other weapon systems than just the M8 AGS would have been adopted?

[95th Rifleman]

Necessity is the mother of invention, it's a maxim of war as old as war itself.

In a full blown shooting war the peacetime methods of procurement and development go out of the window. Field mods become approved for factory builds and beurocratic redtape is thrown out of the window for quick deployment of required equipment.

I'd suggest a study of WW2 allied and german vehicles as a good starting point for this. In peacetime you can afford to scrap oboslete desighns, in war you convert them to something more useful (the Germans where masters of this paticular art, turning old tanks into effective gun platforms).

Rather than new systems, we'd see older ones being retasked. Take the M60, this would make a great base for a whole series of variants from up-armoured APCs to gun platforms and SAM/AAA platforms.

For instance you could take off the turret on an M60 and run a 120mm from the M1A1's and turn the M60 into an assault gun that is low and can be deployed in a defensive role with the same firepower as an M1 but in a cheaper (and more expendable) package that saves the valuable M1's for more aggressive deployments. This is exactly what the Germans did with their older panzers.

Take the old M113s and put various turrets onto them for expanded roles. When you cut away the peacetime crap and beurocratic nonesense you get some rapid and imaginative batlefield variants that do the job they need to do.

[dragoon500ly]

I have to agree with Rifleman, going by the time, there is less than 5 years between the end of the Cold War and the start of the Sino-Soviet War. Not enough time to field any new equipment that was not already in the development pipeline, such as the RAH-66 and possibly the Crusader artillery system.

It would be far more likely that an accelerated building rate of currently in production, such as the Navy's Bunker Hill and Arleigh Burke-classes and the Air Forces B-2 and maybe F-22.

This is the approach that I try in my games.

[ArmySGT.]

XM8 Armored Gun System
The FMC XM8 Armored Gun System
(AGS) is designed to incorporate tanklevel
firepower in a compact, mobile, and
airportable vehicle. The controversial
AGS concept originated in the early
1980s as a means to provide more powerful
direct support to rapidly deployable
forces such as the US Army's light, mountain,
and airborne divisions. Doubts remain
about its ability to avoid engaging
heavy forces while usefully supporting offensive
action.
The M8's profile resembles a conventional
tank, and the vehicle has a typical
tank layout. The high engine compartment
aft limits gun depression to a 270°
arc. The large electrohydraulic, two-axis
stabilized turret is asymmetrically laid out
with the gun left of center in the mantlet
and the turret slightly to the right of the
centerline in the hull. (The combination
of asymmetries repositions the gun on
the vehicle centerline.)
The XMS's main armament is the 105-
mm XM35 tank gun, a modified M68 that
was turned upside down by Rheinmetall
of Germany and fitted with a soft-recoil
system that doubles the recoil length and
buffers it through a rifled, multislotted
muzzle brake that is 35% efficient. A
fume extractor is fitted halfway up the
barrel. When the gun is depressed, its
breech recoils through hydraulically operated
doors in the turret roof.
FMC Naval Systems Division supplies
the 21-projectile autoloader; nine more
rounds are stowed forward near the
driver. The AGS can fire a full range of
105-mm ammunition, including Armor-
Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot
(APFSDS) rounds.
Fire control equipment includes the
Computing Devices Corp. digital fire
control system with 32-bit microprocessors
and MIL-STD-1553B digital
databus. The gunner's primary sensor is
the Hughes Aircraft Co. day/night thermal
sight and integrated laser rangefinder
in a two-axis stabilized mount on
the right side of the turret. A relayed picture
of the gunner's sight image can appear
in the commander's sight.
To balance the contradictory demands
imposed by airportability and the need
for some level of protection, the AGS can
be fitted with four levels of protection:
none, Level 1 against splinters, Level 2
against armor-piercing small-arms and
small-cannon fire, and Level 3 against
cannon up to 30-mm. The crew compartment
is sealed against Nuclear, Biological,
and Chemical (NBC) warfare effects,
even when the gun's recoil doors are
open.
Vehicle mobility is aided by a relatively
high power-to-weight ratio and relatively
low ground pressure. Maintainability is
enhanced by a powerpack that can be
rolled out through a drop-down rear
door for repair or replacement. An essential
feature of the M8's design is its airportability:
three can be loaded into a C-5 or
C-17 transport, two into a C-141, and one
in a C-130. The C-130 can deliver the
"stripped" M8—lacking any armor and
the commander's cupola—in a Low-
Velocity Airdrop (LVAD).
DEVELOPMENT • In its earlier trials
form, the M8 was known as the Close
Combat Vehicle Light (CCVL). Development
of the predecessor CCVL began in
1983, with prototype rollout on August
30, 1985. Interest in the AGS waxed and
waned throughout the 1980s for many
reasons; requirements were difficult to
reconcile—the Army and Marine Corps
had differing ideas.
After several changes and delays, a
$27.7-million contract for Phase I was
awarded on June 4, 1992, to FMC Corp.
Defense Systems Group of San Jose, California
(now United Defense); full Phase I
contract amount was $119.6 million. Approximately
300 vehicles are planned,
with an initial operational capability in
1996-97.
In September 1993, United Defense
and Taiwan's Hwa Fong Industries announced
plans to build several hundred
M8s for Taiwanese service.
COMBAT EXPERIENCE • None.
SPECIFICATIONS •
CREW 3 (commander, gunner, driver)
COMBAT WEIGHT ranges from 36,900 Ib
(16,738 kg) (airdrop) to Level 3 armor
52,000 Ib (23,587 kg)
ground pressure
12.161b/in2 (0.86kg/cm2)
DIMENSIONS
hull length 20 ft (6.1 m), with gun
forward 30 ft IVa in
(9.18m)
extreme width
8 ft 10 in (2.69 m)
height to top of turret
7 ft 9M> in (2.37 m)
ground clearance
16 in (406 mm)
length of track on ground
11 ft 10 in (3.61m)
track width 15 in (381 mm)
MAIN ARMAMENT Rheinmetall/
Watervliet 105-mm/51-cal rifled gun
with 21 ready rounds in autoloader
and 9 stowed in hull
elevation -10°/+20°, traverse 360°
weapons 7.62 coaxial machine gun
and 12.7-mm M2HB
antiaircraft machine
gun
SENSORS AND FERE CONTROL digital fire
control computer, stabilized day/
night thermal sight and laser rangefinder
for gunner, 8 periscopes for
commander, 5 periscopes for driver
with image intensifier in center
ARMOR aluminum hull with steel armor
modules
POWERPLANT Detroit Diesel 6V-921A
550-hp liquid-cooled turbocharged
2-stroke V-6 diesel engine, General
Electric HMPT-500-3EC hydromechanical,
infinitely variable transmission
with 3 forward/1 reverse
ranges
power-to-weight ratio
30.47 hp/metric ton
(Level 1) down to
23.32 hp/metric ton
(Level 3)
SUSPENSION (EACH SIDE) independent
trailing arm torsion bar, 6 road
wheels, rear drive, front idler, 5 linear
shock absorbers, 10-in (254-mm)
wheel travel, no return rollers
SPEED 43.5 mph (70 km/h), acceleration
0-20 mph (0-32 km/h) at Level 3
weight 6.5 sec, range 300 mi (483 km)
OBSTACLE CLEARANCE vertical 2 ft 6 in
(0.76 m), gradient 60%, side slope
40%, trench 7 ft (2.13 m), fording 3 ft
4 in (1.02m)

[Targan]

Please include the source of this info ArmySGT.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Targan

Please include the source of this info ArmySGT.

[HorseSoldier]

I don't know if he's still active on any of the T2K boards, but Robert Munsey (1SG, maybe 1SG Ret at this point) used to post on some forums -- his resume (besides time in 2 ACR and other cavalry units) included being one of the guys from the cavalry side of the house who was tasked to the troop trials for the M8.

The one time I got to meet him face to face he still had all the TMs and other manuals they'd issued to the crews putting the M8s through their paces, and was generally a wealth of info on the system. His take on it was very favorable and that it was basically 100% ready to go, had the money not been pulled from the program. (In the finest tradition of military programs we of course spent several conex containers full of cash, courtesy of the US tax payer, before pulling the plug, but that's a whole other thread . . .).

[boogiedowndonovan]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

I don't know if he's still active on any of the T2K boards, but Robert Munsey (1SG, maybe 1SG Ret at this point) used to post on some forums -- his resume (besides time in 2 ACR and other cavalry units) included being one of the guys from the cavalry side of the house who was tasked to the troop trials for the M8.

The one time I got to meet him face to face he still had all the TMs and other manuals they'd issued to the crews putting the M8s through their paces, and was generally a wealth of info on the system. His take on it was very favorable and that it was basically 100% ready to go, had the money not been pulled from the program. (In the finest tradition of military programs we of course spent several conex containers full of cash, courtesy of the US tax payer, before pulling the plug, but that's a whole other thread . . .).

wow I didn't know that about Muns (trial for M8 AGS). that is pretty cool.

shame about the M8, but yes thats a whole nuther thread!