*another* US light tank for T2k?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Image and data for the FMC CCV-L, from The Encyclopedia of World Military Power (c. 1989)

Found some notes about it here:
The Politics of American Light Armor From Post-Vietnam to Post Cold-War

[rcaf_777]

This already list in the several publications as the Stingray Light Tank in service with Thailand since 1990.

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

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

This already list in the several publications as the Stingray Light Tank in service with Thailand since 1990.

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

No, it's a different piece of equipment; the Stingray is listed just above it in the book.

[rcaf_777]

Ok but

"AGS-Stingray - Stingray modified for the AGS competition but lost to the FMC/UDLP/BAE Close Combat Vehicle Light which became the type-classified M8 Armored Gun System"

isn't the M-8 AGS listed in a few TW 2000 pulications?

On another note Check Out the Stingray II

"Dimensions of the turret were deliberately designed to allow it to be refitted to M-41 Walker Bulldog and M-551 Sheridan vehicles as an upgrade"

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Ok but

"AGS-Stingray - Stingray modified for the AGS competition but lost to the FMC/UDLP/BAE Close Combat Vehicle Light which became the type-classified M8 Armored Gun System"

isn't the M-8 AGS listed in a few TW 2000 pulications?

On another note Check Out the Stingray II

"Dimensions of the turret were deliberately designed to allow it to be refitted to M-41 Walker Bulldog and M-551 Sheridan vehicles as an upgrade"

Just found some info - there was a BAE option designed to allow for a bigger turret and more protection...so...yeah...CCV-L == M8 AGS. Mystery solved. Pity; thought I'd found some cool "new" vehicle!

[boogiedowndonovan]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Just found some info - there was a BAE option designed to allow for a bigger turret and more protection...so...yeah...CCV-L == M8 AGS. Mystery solved. Pity; thought I'd found some cool "new" vehicle!

well, it is a nice picture...

[.45cultist]

The Stingray is a Textron product, the M8 is made by Food Machinery Corperation. I wonder how they compare to each other?

[rcaf_777]

Here's the thing

"Following a massive decline in orders for tracked combat vehicles between 1983 and 1994 FMC and the Harsco Corporation agreed in January 1994 to combine their defense businesses to form United Defense. The new company owned the former FMC California-based Ground Systems Division and Harsco's Pennsylvania-based BMY Combat Systems Division. The new company restructured its operations to concentrate final assembly and testing to Pennsylvania."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Defense

M8 Armored Gun System was a light tank that was intended to replace the
M551 Sheridan in the 82nd Airborne Division, as well as being expected to replace TOW-equipped Humvees in the 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment (2nd ACR). It was to enter production in 1996, this never happened. This might entered service in the Twilight War as replacement for the US M551 Sheridan and the US ACR's TOW-equipped Humvees and possible a replacment for the M41 Walker Bulldog and M24 Chaffee still in service with some NATO nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_Armored_Gun_System

By contrast the Stingray is already in production and in service (Thailand) by the start of the Twlight war. This might make more appleaing since is a proven? design and in production. I could see the AGS-Sheridan coming online later in the Twilight War.

The AGS-Sheridan was a mating of the standard M551 Sheridan hull with the turret of the Stingray light tank.

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

[.45cultist]

The M8 is in the Eastern European Sourcebook.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

The M8 is in the Eastern European Sourcebook.

Coming from the Eastern European Sourcebook, it may be dodgy.

[.45cultist]

Thanks for the tip on that.

[boogiedowndonovan]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Coming from the Eastern European Sourcebook, it may be dodgy.

its also in the 2.2 BYB.

but yeah I agree on your point about the Eastern European Sourcebook. I've ranted about it before.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Coming from the Eastern European Sourcebook, it may be dodgy.

I just noticed I used a word that I must have picked up from our British posters!

[Targan]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I just noticed I used a word that I must have picked up from our British posters!

Or the Aussies But obviously we inherited it from our British cousins too.

[Sanjuro]

obviously we inherited it from our British cousins

Inherited? Traditionally a less formal way of transferring property was involved...

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

Inherited? Traditionally a less formal way of transferring property was involved...

Well that's what you get when a country is founded from a collection of former prison colonies!

[raketenjagdpanzer]

In a T2k setting would these be fundamentally MBTs or organized into TD units?

[schnickelfritz]

I've studied WW2 Armored Doctrine...a lot. I've always thought that the US TD doctrine got a lot of M4 Sherman Crewmen Killed. IMHO, the only really useful part of the TD force was to replace the largely static towed AT guns. By 1944, viable ATG's were just too big for reasonable handling, and the 100mm D-10 and 125mm Rapira-3 weapons are 2-3 times the size of the WW2 75mm weapons.

However, the idea of independent TD unit, attached to light divisions instead of the traditional ID tank battalion or in addition to it to replace the traditional light TOW AT units would have a lot of merit.

If you could keep the RPG's at a distance and keep what Soviet ATGM's that remain suppressed, the M8/LAV-75/Stingray could have a lot of impact. I bet the infantry sure would like having LCG fire support.

-Dave

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

In a T2k setting would these be fundamentally MBTs or organized into TD units?

By the final phase of the war (mid-2000 and after), would many forces have the logistical capability to keep "pure" armor units in the field in greater than platoon strength? I'd think the combination of fuel and parts issues would restrict most such vehicles, whether actual MBTs or less-armored vehicles, to static defense and reserve roles. To me, it's more likely that anything with a large gun, armor, and movement capability will be used as an assault gun, supporting infantry and horse cavalry with direct fire on enemy strongpoints, unless scouts report the presence of enemy armor. And in that event, the winner may be the stealthier and more fuel-efficient vehicle that can effectively maneuver into a decent ambush position based on those scouts' reports. So, tank destroyer versus tank destroyer duels - duels of the infantry companies' armored champions.

... hey, I think I just accidentally advocated for a T2k-era equivalent of the Stryker MGS...

- C.