Originally posted to the Juhlin.com Twilight: 2000 fan forum.

Having recently discussed the MBT issue in Twilight: 2000’s 4th edition, I thought it might be interesting to tinker with everyone’s favorite apocryphal light tank, the LAV-75. Back in 2009, Kato’s forum had a rather long and productive thread on it, which yielded a few different variants and development histories. I’m too lazy to use that entire thread, but I did cherry-pick the bits dealing with the hypothetical upgrade to a 90mm low-pressure gun system (presumably the same one for which we already have second edition canon stats courtesy of the MPGS-90).

So what does the LAV-75 look like in 4e? Using the conversion rules in the back of the Referee’s Manual, we get a stat line that looks a little something like this (apologies to those on mobile):

(I deviated from canon by providing both pintle and coaxial MGs. Rebellion is a heady drug.)

So, not really awful. It suffers in the tactical mobility department, most notably being slower off-road than the tanks it was intended to slow down in its original RDF conceptualization. However, it’s actually faster on a road march than any of the T-series. But life and AFV design are about compromises.

The big objections to the LAV-75 have always centered around the gun, though. Does it fare any better in 4e rules than it did in previous editions (much less real-world acceptance testing)? Well, let’s take a look at how the 75mm Ares cannon, as well as the 90mm low-pressure gun of the forum’s LAV-75A1, convert to 4e:

(I stuck the 75mm with Reliability 4 because I am cruel. Forgiving referees may feel free to ignore that.)

Okay, so the design objective of both of these guns was to kill Soviet tanks of the types likely to be encountered in Southwest Asia – so anything up to and including a T-72. How do they stack up?

As it turns out, slightly better than in real life. Looking at frontal armor, the T-55 comes in with 6 (actually worse than the LAV-75, by Free League’s own conversion rules), the T-62 has 7, the T-64 goes to 8, and the T-72 goes to 9, while the T-80 (unlikely in the originally-intended AO) goes to 10. For cracking armor, both guns get roughly equal performance (save for range) out of their HEAT and APFSDS rounds. For the 75mm, we’re looking at Damage 6, Armor -1; for the 90mm, it’s Damage 7, Armor -1.

With that Armor -1 modifier, the 75mm will consistently penetrate the frontal armor on a T-55. It won’t automatically crack a T-62 or T-64, but a good hit or luck with ammo dice, because it’s burst-capable may boost the damage enough to go internal. The Penetration Limit rule on p. 82 of the Player’s Manual keeps it from being able to get frontal penetration on a T-72 or T-80. To the sides and rear, of course, good hits are much more feasible, though they still rely on extra successes or ammo dice to pop a T-64 or higher.

How about the 90mm? Much the same story, but up one level: reliable frontal penetration on a T-55 or T-62, but dependent on superior marksmanship to find a weak spot in the face of a T-64 or T-72. However, marksmanship is actually more critical here because the low ROF of a conventional cannon restricts the use of ammo dice.