Expendable but Unbowed: The LAV-25 in the Twilight War

[Olefin]

No actually I am pointing out that the LAV-25 was deployed to Africa as well and I cited the source. Thats not being rude thats just pointing out a unit that had the vehicles the deployed to Africa and used them in combat in Kenya.

[Olefin]

@SSC - In no way did I take it poorly. I was just amused. I hadn't considered the area in which the original photo was taken to be a major selection factor. When I was doing my image search for this piece, I was mainly trying to avoid photos with Marines in anachronistic MARPAT or with vehicles clearly from a non-T2k timeline (e.g., KFOR markings or counter-IED electronics masts).

(By the way, I didn't address the ASLAV in this article because I wanted to leave that territory for whoever does a comprehensive article on the Australian military in T2k. Ahem.)

This, on the other hand:

@Olefin - You come into a thread I started on my fan work and try to dictate content to me in a poorly-veiled attempt at self-promotion Eight years here, and you still haven't internalized advice point #5. Congratulations. You are now the first person on this forum with the right combination of arrogance, rudeness, and tenacity to earn a slot on my ignore list.

- C.

Yes I remember your post - it was rude and implied that there was no way that any new material for Twilight 2000 could ever be published and that I could not get what I was writing published.

Sorry but you were wrong big time - because Raellus and I have written three stand alone published works, one of which is official canon for the game and two others that should be frankly (and by that I mean the excellent works by Raellus) and I brought the fanzine back from the dead.

So frankly do us a favor and take our attitude somewhere else. There was nothing and I repeat nothing in what I posted to you last night that deserved that response. I simply pointed out that now there is canon material that has the LAV-25 deployed to Africa and I cited the unit that had them - i.e. it was a Marine unit.

and FYI insulting someone is a total violation of the board rules - maybe you should read them - i.e. this one

Keep It Civil

We can all agree to disagree but let's make sure to do so respectfully. No name-calling, sarcasm, or other childishness is appropriate or welcome here. If you are upset with someone and want them to know about it, send them a PM and try to work it out privately. If another member is really getting on your nerves, you can use the forum tools to place that person on your ignore list. We don't tolerate flame wars here.

Please don't attempt to incite internecine forum conflict with deliberately provocative and/or inflamatory posts. In interweb parlance, please don't be a troll.

[pmulcahy11b]

@SSC - In no way did I take it poorly. I was just amused. I hadn't considered the area in which the original photo was taken to be a major selection factor. When I was doing my image search for this piece, I was mainly trying to avoid photos with Marines in anachronistic MARPAT or with vehicles clearly from a non-T2k timeline (e.g., KFOR markings or counter-IED electronics masts).


- C.

You know, this is where I wish I had some skill with the pencil and paintbrush (or better yet, more skill with Photoshop Elements). Just not in my skill set.

[Raellus]

Friendly Reminder

OK, gentlemen. Before this gets out of hand, I'd like to remind everyone to follow the forum guidelines by...

A.) Keep It Constructive

Folks post a lot of original T2K material here, most of it of the highest quality. Many contributors invite and welcome constructive criticism. If, however, they do not solicit feedback, then it's poor form to pipe in give it anyway. And please, don't post just to tear down the hard work of others. If you really don't like something that someone else has posted, and can't express this respectfully and with the intention of creating a constructive dialogue with the poster, then you should probably just keep it to yourself.

B.) Keep It Civil

We can all agree to disagree but let's make sure to do so respectfully. No name-calling, sarcasm, or other childishness is appropriate or welcome here. If you are upset with someone and want them to know about it, send them a PM and try to work it out privately. If another member is really getting on your nerves, you can use the forum tools to place that person on your ignore list. We don't tolerate flame wars here.

Thanks.

-

[Tegyrius]

When I first got to the 82nd (this was about May 91) they were in the process of trying to foist off the LAV-25 on 3/73. The tankers were not happy, and most importantly, the CG and the ADC(M) were not happy. The LAV-25 did not last long at 3-73 (and I do think they were the wrong vehicle for the 3/73). The 3/73 ended up going to Desert Storm with up-armored HMMWVs with TOWs in the back. Embarrassing.

I was fortunate in that the T2k TO&Es didn't change between 1st and 2nd editions. GDW didn't write up the LAV-25 as assigned to the 82nd, so I didn't have to address that particular shoehorn-driven mismatch in this piece.

You know, this is where I wish I had some skill with the pencil and paintbrush (or better yet, more skill with Photoshop Elements). Just not in my skill set.

I'm right there with you. I was able to get the fonts to what I think is a pretty good approximation of the old 1e sourcebooks' appearance, but there was no way I was going to generate original illustrations for this that looked worth a damn. I did install GIMP and a couple of different photo-to-pencil filters to try for the original sourcebooks' sketch appearance, but I don't have the skill set to clean up the resulting "noise" (or the spare time to acquire it). My test readers preferred the simple greyscale photos and I have to agree with them.

- C.

[Olefin]

OK, gentlemen. Before this gets out of hand, I'd like to remind everyone to follow the forum guidelines by...

A.) Keep It Constructive

Folks post a lot of original T2K material here, most of it of the highest quality. Many contributors invite and welcome constructive criticism. If, however, they do not solicit feedback, then it's poor form to pipe in give it anyway. And please, don't post just to tear down the hard work of others. If you really don't like something that someone else has posted, and can't express this respectfully and with the intention of creating a constructive dialogue with the poster, then you should probably just keep it to yourself.

B.) Keep It Civil

We can all agree to disagree but let's make sure to do so respectfully. No name-calling, sarcasm, or other childishness is appropriate or welcome here. If you are upset with someone and want them to know about it, send them a PM and try to work it out privately. If another member is really getting on your nerves, you can use the forum tools to place that person on your ignore list. We don't tolerate flame wars here.

Thanks.

-

FYI to show information that he most likely didnt have is constructive dialogue with the poster. Thats why I didnt link to my sourcebook, thats why I didnt in any way try to advertise its location, etc.. I posted the relevant material as a constructive dialogue - and notice how I started the post - " Loved your article"

Since when is "Loved your article" not clear to people that I loved the article

And FYI - there was no PM to me at all from him - if he had the decency to PM me and expressed his dislike of what I said I would have immediately removed the offending post end of story. Instead he decided to act like a spoiled child and pick a fight that didnt need to be picked. If he doesnt like that I ignored his advice - along with Raellus - and got published officially then I am not sorry - not in any way shape or form.

[Tegyrius]

As is often the case, I found something of interest after kicking the manuscript out the door. As it turns out, the Air Force actually was interested in a LAV-25-based ADA platform!

https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/bpcahb/usaf_mobile_weapons_system_prototype_lav25_hull/

https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/bpj21q/lavad_10_years_early_the_usaf_mobile_weapons/

https://twitter.com/tankmuseum/status/979026327952068608

Accordingly, I've integrated this into the document's ADA and prototypes sections. I've also updated the Marine LAV Battalion TO&E to reflect the originally-intended deployment of LAV-ADs in those formations (rather than the much more parsimonious procurement that resulted in the real world).

Download link is the same as in the first post.

- C.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Nice find!
A good bit of LAV-25 history that seems largely forgotten these days.

[Tegyrius]

It's an odd duck, but what I really found interesting while digging up info on it was a throwaway line in a USMC procurement/deployment proposal regarding the LAV-AD's original design. Thanks to Osprey, we already knew that the second four-tube Stinger box was originally a 70mm Hydra launcher. But the mount for that rocket pod was intended to be a modular mount that would also accept RBS-70 or Starstreak SAMs (not sure why they would have mixed those with Stingers)... or a TOW or Hellfire launcher.

The combination of 25mm Gatling, Stingers, and ATGMs (and the commander's M240) would have made the LAV-AD the Y-Wing of the Marine LAI/LAR battalions. A weapon for every occasion. I didn't explicitly say this in the file, but if the Twilight LAV-AD kept that capability, it's ideal for PCs to make a field modification... which makes for a very appealing weapon package. If you can keep it in ammo, you get better-than-Bradley firepower with LAV fuel economy. Of course, the downside is that you also get LAV armor, but you can't have everything...

- C.

[cawest]

how about an up gunned LAV with 40mm based on the chain gun or maybe a field refit. you could go with twin 23mm or single. maybe a 30mm from a bmp or opened topped turret with 57mm.

[Tegyrius]

Well, yeah... theoretically, anything is possible with cutting and welding gear and enough desperation. My point was that that particular modification was feasible because the launcher mounting point was designed for it.

- C.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Well, yeah... theoretically, anything is possible with cutting and welding gear and enough desperation. My point was that that particular modification was feasible because the launcher mounting point was designed for it.

- C.

This is the salient point I think, the launcher mount allowed for a variety of configurations "straight out of the box". That's a level of flexibility not typically available on most vehicles.
Changing the main gun is an entirely different situation which would be extensive work, requiring the services of people with specific skills and specific equipment.
This is the sort of thing that makes a good side adventure - getting the equipment to make the modifications, getting the people with the skills to not only do the modification but to see if it's actually feasible in the first place, collecting the resources to allow the party to hold up for a while as the modification work is conducted etc. etc.

[Tegyrius]

This is the salient point I think, the launcher mount allowed for a variety of configurations "straight out of the box". That's a level of flexibility not typically available on most vehicles.
Changing the main gun is an entirely different situation which would be extensive work, requiring the services of people with specific skills and specific equipment.
This is the sort of thing that makes a good side adventure - getting the equipment to make the modifications, getting the people with the skills to not only do the modification but to see if it's actually feasible in the first place, collecting the resources to allow the party to hold up for a while as the modification work is conducted etc. etc.

"Tonight on Top Gear: I bodge a tank... Richard learns about recoilless rifle backblast... and James clears a minefield!"

Hmm. This may be deserving of its own thread...

- C.

[Tegyrius]

I've updated the document to mimic the classic T2k v1 cover art and interior layout. The only content changes are a couple of typo corrections and one new photo.

http://www.de-fenestra.com/t2k/downloads/T2k_LAV-25.pdf

- C.

[Vespers War]

Starstreak SAMs (not sure why they would have mixed those with Stingers)

While both are MANPADS, they have different capabilities. Starstreak is laser-guided, longer-ranged, and can also be used as a surface-to-surface missile (apparently it penetrates about as well as a 40mm Bofors round). The downsides are it's hit-to-kill rather than having a large enough warhead for proximity kills and it's not as useful against fast-moving targets, but it's better against pop-up attack helicopters, which the Stinger's seeker has trouble seeing. There was a Starstreak Avenger that had 1 pod each of Starstreak and Stinger.