RPG Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 09-13-2018, 09:05 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,321
Default

And there I was thinking the LAV-75 was 1st ed and the M8 2nd ed and essentially the replacement/successor to the cancelled LAV-75.
__________________
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
  #32  
Old 09-13-2018, 09:23 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
And there I was thinking the LAV-75 was 1st ed and the M8 2nd ed and essentially the replacement/successor to the cancelled LAV-75.
From what I remember the M8 showed up in Challenge Magazine between the two versions of the timeline - so thats a real question - is the LAV-75 V1 only and the M8 V2 only

Given the real timeline (i.e. not the game) the most likely answer would be that the M8 is the reality for both timelines (with the LAV-75 a rejected prototype) and should be used in place of the LAV-75 everywhere it is mentioned in the original game and modules

After all the M8 was greenlighted for production in reality - only cost cutting kept it from going into serial production - it had passed all testing and was approved by the Army - versus the LAV-75 which wasnt

Thus you would have the three different tank plants - the one making the M1, the one (or two) making the Stingray and the one making the M8

I know this has been discussed before but dont remember if there was ever a general agreement on this issue? (i.e. LAV-75 versus M8 for both timelines)

Last edited by Olefin; 09-13-2018 at 10:18 AM. Reason: added question at end
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-13-2018, 10:28 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,337
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Given the real timeline (i.e. not the game) the most likely answer would be that the M8 is the reality for both timelines (with the LAV-75 a rejected prototype) and should be used in place of the LAV-75 everywhere it is mentioned in the original game and modules
I did close to this for my V1 game. I had a small production run of Lav-75s (40) to allow for the 101st to have a lt tank capable of being airlifted by CH-47s. I only had 13 deployed with the 101st in A company - 1/705 Armored (Tank destroyer)
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-13-2018, 10:55 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kato13 View Post
I did close to this for my V1 game. I had a small production run of Lav-75s (40) to allow for the 101st to have a lt tank capable of being airlifted by CH-47s. I only had 13 deployed with the 101st in A company - 1/705 Armored (Tank destroyer)
I could see also possibly another run of them after the TDM if you allowed for both - i.e. Lima has been nuked and further production at the M1 plant is out of the question given the damage to the electrical grid in the area - with the nukes at Kennedy and in New Orleans probably doing the same for the the Stingray plants - so the Army needs tanks and the only place they can get them is either York PA (which couldnt expand production much given they are also making M109's, Bradley's and M88's) or the plant making the LAV-75 - and thus (at least as long as the power stays on and there are parts coming in) a new order is placed for the LAV-75 and whatever is made gets shipped overseas and nationwide in 1998-1999 - so you have a mix of Bufords and LAV-75 possibly
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-13-2018, 11:50 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,191
Default

fyi from https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm as to how many M8's the Army was looking to produce when the order was placed in 1996 in our timeline

The FMC XM8 was designed to combine a tank's firepower with a highly mobile, air-droppable vehicle. AGS was intended to be the Army's new combat vehicle, but in the form of a highly deployable, light-weight vehicle, with high fire-power and reconfigurable armor protection. The AGS was intended to replace the M551A1 Sheridan in the 82nd Airborne Division, and was expected to replace TOW-equipped HMMWVs in the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light). A total of 237 systems were planned for procurement. The cancellation of the M8 Armored Gun System left the US Army airborne forces dangerously low on firepower.

The total program cost, including development, was estimated to be $1.3 billion. The Army had planned to procure 26 low-rate initial production vehicles with 1996 funding of $142.8 million
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-13-2018, 08:20 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 860
Default

Don't forget that there could be a real-world LAV 75... actually the LAV 76. The 76mm OTO Melara Naval Cannon has a turret that can be fitted to an AFV. The US could have copied the idea with surplus 76mm OTO Melara's. This may have been initially deployed as a heavy AA self-propelled Gun and then pressed into service as a "bunker buster" when AFVs become scarce.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-13-2018, 09:24 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swaghauler View Post
Don't forget that there could be a real-world LAV 75... actually the LAV 76. The 76mm OTO Melara Naval Cannon has a turret that can be fitted to an AFV. The US could have copied the idea with surplus 76mm OTO Melara's. This may have been initially deployed as a heavy AA self-propelled Gun and then pressed into service as a "bunker buster" when AFVs become scarce.
Sounds like a great idea to me
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-13-2018, 09:41 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 860
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
Sounds like a great idea to me
OTO Melara actually has a pretty cool video about it. It looks like it's mounted on a Mowag Pirahnna to me.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-13-2018, 11:19 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,186
Default

American Armoured Vehicle Production

1) Lima Army Tank Plant, Ohio. Main General Dynamics production centre for M1 tank.
2) Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant, Michigan. General Dynamics closed the Detroit Tank Plant in 1996 due to the end of the Cold War, but in T2K the Cold War never ended and it is likely to still exist.
3) Anniston Army Depot, Alabama. Not a true tank factory but it is the General Dynamic's final assembly site for the Stryker vehicle, and it is also a depot for the repair and overhaul of the M1, M60 and other armoured vehicles. Engine maker Honeywell also has a significant presence at Anniston.
4) BAE York, Pennsylvania. British defence contractor BAE took over United Defence Industries and builds, reconditions and repairs the Bradley, M109, M113 and AAV-P7 at York.
5) Slidell, Louisiana. Textron builds the M117, US Navy LCAC and Cadillac Gage turret systems at Slidell.
6) London, Ontario (Canada). General Dynamics took over the GM factory in Ontario and builds the LAV-25 and variants.
7) Ladson, South Carolina: General Dynamics assembles MRAPS and customises the Stryker vehicle at Ladson.
8) San Clara, California. FMC built the M2 Bradley at San Clara in the 1980's. The factory still exists and is now owned by BAE.

Stratford Army Engine Plant: Stratford, Connecticut. Original design and production site for the Lycoming AGT1500 engine that is fitted to M1 tank. Stratford closed in 1995 but due to the different T2K timeline it could still be open. Honeywell acquired Lycoming Turbine Engine Division in 1999 and has consolidated all engine production at Anniston.

MRAP's are built by General Dynamics (Buffalo, Cougar), BAE (Caiman, RG-33), Oshkosh (M-ATV) Navistar (MaxxPro). MRAP's are built at the armoured vehicle assembly plants or at heavy vehicle assembly plants. Other companies also build MRAP's and police armoured vehicles such as Textron, Lenco, Texas Armoring, MCT and INKAS in Canada, but excluding Textron they are custom builders and not manufacturers. MRAP engines are supplied by Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Mack and Navistar.

The major suppliers of large trucks and engineer vehicles to U.S. forces are Caterpillar (CAT D9, CAT 277), BAE (M9 ACE, M88), John Deere (John Deere 850J, TRAM 624K), Oshkosh (FMTV series, HEMTT series, HET) and Terex (TX51-19M). The M939 series was built by AM General in the 1980's, but AM now only make lighter vehicles. Large trucks and engineer vehicles are built at commercial plant/agricultural and heavy vehicle assembly plants across the U.S. and Canada. Many of the assembly plants listed below don't make any vehicles for the military, but most of them would be capable of making them.

Farm & Plant Vehicle Assembly Plants
Augusta, Georgia (John Deere)
Davenport, Iowa (John Deere)
East Moline, Illinois (John Deere)
Fargo, North Dakota (Case IH)
Fort Wayne, Indiana (Terex)
Grand Island, Nebraska (Case IH)
Hesston, Kansas (AGCO-Massey Ferguson)
Hutchinson, Kansas (Kuhn-Krauss)
Jackson, Minnesota (AGCO-Massey Ferguson)
Peoria, Illinois (Caterpillar)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Terex)
Ottawa, Kansas (Kalmar Ottawa)
Racine, Wisconsin (Case IH)
Waterloo, Iowa (John Deere)
Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada (Versatile)

Heavy Vehicles Assembly Plants
Appleton, Wisconsin (Oshkosh)
Chillicothe, Ohio (Kenworth)
Cleveland, North Carolina (Freightliner)
Cleveland, North Carolina (MAN)
Denton, Texas (Peterbilt) )
Dodge Centre, Minnesota (Oshkosh)
High Point, North Carolina (Thomas Built Buses)
Ladson, South Carolina (Daimler-Benz)
Macungie, Pennsylvania (Mack)
Mount Holy, North Carolina (Freightliner)
Oshkosh, Wisconsin (Oshkosh)
Portland, Oregon (Western Star)
Renton, Washington (Kenworth)
Springfield, Ohio (Navistar)
St. Therese, Quebec Canada (Peterbilt)
West Point, Mississippi (Navistar)
Williamstown, West Virginia (Hino)

Engine Plants
Anniston, Alabama (Honeywell)
Columbus, Indiana (Cummins)
Hagerstown, Maryland (Mack)
Huntsville, Alabama (Navistar)
Melrose Park, Illinois (Navistar)
Mobile, Alabama (Continental)
Mossville, Illinois (Caterpillar)
Peoria, Illinois (Caterpillar)
Redford, Michigan (Detroit Diesel)
Rocky Mount, North Carolina (Cummins)
Seymour, Indiana (Cummins)
Waterloo, Iowa (John Deere)
Waukesha, Wisconsin (Navistar)
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-14-2018, 01:04 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,191
Default

Some additional info

BAE York would also be the production center for the M8 Buford light tank

5) Slidell, Louisiana.
Would also be the production center for the Stingray and (if built) the Stingray II light tank.

6) Cocoa Beach, FL tank production center for the Cadillac Gage Stingray tank until 1994

MRAP’s were also built by JLG Industries (part of Oshkosh) as well at McConnellsburg, PA

Heavy Vehicle Assembly Plant - Need to add:

Dublin, VA (Volvo originally, now Volvo/Mack)

Fort Valley, GA (Bluebird Bus)

Winnsboro, SC (Mack Trucks 1987-2002)

Other facilities that can be used for military production

McConnellsburg, PA, Bedford PA (JLG) – scissor lift, telehandlers, booms – produced MRAP’s and ATLAS material handlers for US military

Orrville, Ohio – (Gradall till 1999, JLG after that) – hydraulic excavators, rough-terrain material handlers – tracked vehicles that could be used for military needs
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 09-17-2018, 11:39 AM
rcaf_777's Avatar
rcaf_777 rcaf_777 is offline
Staff Headquarter Weinie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Petawawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 938
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
If I remember right the Air Force finally used the stockpile of 500lb bombs they had left over from WWII sometime during the Afghanistan War
I don't think that happened or that storing bombs for that long is possible or if they would see work

Give this a read

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-tha...o-World-War-II
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:42 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,665
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcaf_777 View Post
I don't think that happened or that storing bombs for that long is possible or if they would see work

Give this a read

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-tha...o-World-War-II
Not only the issue with fusings, but different explosives were used in WW2, stuff has a much lower flash point then modern bombs, something the order of as much as 100 degrees lower, RE the USS Forrestal fire in July 1967, this involved 1,000-pound bombs left over from the Korean War, these had been improperly stored and in some cases were leaking chemical residue.

Considering that this was ordnance that had laid around since 1953, one has to wonder the conditions ordnance left over from 1945 would have been in!
__________________
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
  #43  
Old 09-17-2018, 04:56 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,191
Default

Most likely it would be just the casings for the bombs that were made and never used - which given how much production there was for the war could have been considerable - remember they were stocking up for an extended campaign against Japan when they suddenly surrendered
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-21-2018, 10:54 AM
ChalkLine's Avatar
ChalkLine ChalkLine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 280
Default

Another thought is that the Picatinny Rail was standardised in 1995.

It could be assumed that every weapon was modified for this attachment by the general engagement in the Twilight War
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-21-2018, 11:30 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChalkLine View Post
Another thought is that the Picatinny Rail was standardised in 1995.

It could be assumed that every weapon was modified for this attachment by the general engagement in the Twilight War
Generally takes time for something to be introduced on a wider scale, even if standardised.
I'd be interested in knowing when IRL the number of rifles with the rails outnumbered those without. Perhaps Paul can shed some light?
__________________
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
  #46  
Old 09-21-2018, 01:31 PM
CDAT CDAT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 280
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Generally takes time for something to be introduced on a wider scale, even if standardised.
I'd be interested in knowing when IRL the number of rifles with the rails outnumbered those without. Perhaps Paul can shed some light?
I can not say when there were more with than without, but first unit I got them in was in late 2002 (got them in preparation for Iraq deployment but we did not know that at the time), and every unit after that had them when I was transferred to them.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-21-2018, 03:37 PM
Adm.Lee Adm.Lee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChalkLine View Post
Another thought is that the Picatinny Rail was standardised in 1995.

It could be assumed that every weapon was modified for this attachment by the general engagement in the Twilight War
Heh. I was explaining the game to my teen son and his pals, and had to explain that the timeline took place before the Picatinny rail. That just blew their little videogaming minds.

A GM could assume that the rail /was/ adopted in the buildup to war, maybe some units got them by the US intervention in late '96, maybe most of them by the '97 offensive, but there could still be lots of weapons floating around without them.

You could also assume that they never got standardized in the rush to get more weapons out to the field NOW. I was just reading (again) about the Union Army's opting against breechloaders in 1862, so there's precedent for that kind of decision.
__________________
My Twilight claim to fame: I ran "Allegheny Uprising" at Allegheny College, spring of 1988.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-21-2018, 04:46 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adm.Lee View Post
A GM could assume that the rail /was/ adopted in the buildup to war, maybe some units got them by the US intervention in late '96, maybe most of them by the '97 offensive, but there could still be lots of weapons floating around without them.

You could also assume that they never got standardized in the rush to get more weapons out to the field NOW. I was just reading (again) about the Union Army's opting against breechloaders in 1862, so there's precedent for that kind of decision.
I totally agree. Here's another real-world example supporting said conclusion. Mass production of the M1 Garand began in 1937, first deliveries to the U.S. military in 1938. That's three years before the U.S.A. officially entered the war, yet many Marine and quite a few regular Army units were still carrying the old M1903 Springfield bolt-action rifle into battle well into 1942.

That's a five-year spread between the beginning of mass production and near universal service. Apply that to the T2K timelines: between new-production and retrofitting, I reckon 60-75% of American M16s and M4 carbines would be sporting Picatinny rails. Yes it would be standard by 1997, but it takes time to replace and/or retrofit every service rifle/carbine, especially when a nation is in the midst of total war.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-21-2018, 06:18 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 860
Default

Prior to Picatinny rails being adopted there were at least four major systems introduced by different manufacturers. H&K had the most common rail after the Picatinny and the Mark23 SOCOM Pistol carries a proprietary example of that rail.

I remember when the 10th adopted a "rail" for designated marksmen. At this time (1996), the Marines were using M14 Conversions but the Army used M16A2 rifles fitted with the then-new ACOGs as DMRs. The "rail" in question was inserted over the A2's carrying handle (forming a "tube" to allow the use of the iron sights) and secured by a bolt through a hole in the carrying handle (through a hole originally put into all A1s/A2s carrying handles to secure scope bases). There were MAJOR issues with this piece of rail/scope base for the ACOG. The first was the ACOG's short 1.5" eye relief. This required you to smash your nose against the charging handle to use the ACOG. The second issue was the security of the mount. With a single bolt holding it, it could allow the scopes to fall out of adjustment. The bolt also BLOCKED the shooter's view of the front sight from the rear sight, rendering the iron sights USELESS. It was also interesting to see the "field-expedient" methods of putting some form of cheek/stock riser on the A2's stock to raise the shooter's eye high enough to use the ACOG. A lot of duct tape and foam was employed here. All of these issues eventually resulted in "Flat Top" AR15/M16 platforms.

I think that rails would flow into the war zone until the Exchange. A person being equipped with a rail would require a Scarce Scrounging roll in my game.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-21-2018, 06:56 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 860
Default

I think you will see "off the self" procurements just like you did in the War on Terror. When it became CLEAR that there weren't enough helos in the country to supply the units in Afghanistan and several of those lacked the Altitude Ceiling to reach some OPs, the Army began weighing its options. The more "redneck" soldiers gave the Army that solution. ATVs (4-wheelers in American slang) were employed to navigate the narrow mountain trails and move BOTH troops and ammo. Those 4-wheelers became critically important for resupplying troops, recon, and the removal of casualties to LZs. Now the Army has PURPOSE-BUILT CanAm quads and side-by-sides for Special Forces and Calvery Units operating in mountainous terrain. All of this due to a few off the self Polaris ATVs being deployed in Afghanistan.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-21-2018, 10:37 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swaghauler View Post
I think that rails would flow into the war zone until the Exchange. A person being equipped with a rail would require a Scarce Scrounging roll in my game.
Agreed. Scarce would seem to be a reasonable rate of availability, with a rail equipped rifle perhaps only available during character generation to elite units and perhaps a few light fingered supply types.
Alternatively a rail equipped rifle might only be issued to those characters with a minimum rifle skill of say 70/7 (1st/2nd ed).
__________________
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
  #52  
Old 09-23-2018, 07:01 PM
Adm.Lee Adm.Lee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swaghauler View Post
...
I think that rails would flow into the war zone until the Exchange. A person being equipped with a rail would require a Scarce Scrounging roll in my game.
OR maybe a Difficult Gunsmithing roll? Someone who's invested time & learning in weapons work would probably be likely to have gear like that at chargen.
__________________
My Twilight claim to fame: I ran "Allegheny Uprising" at Allegheny College, spring of 1988.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-23-2018, 10:05 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adm.Lee View Post
OR maybe a Difficult Gunsmithing roll? Someone who's invested time & learning in weapons work would probably be likely to have gear like that at chargen.
They'd have to have it first. Maybe substitute a decent Rifle skill for Gunsmithing to qualify for the ability to "buy" a rail at chargen?
Of course anyone with a rail on their weapon will be expected to be able to shoot well. This could be a negative modifier later on if they're found to be a poor shot - stolen valour sort of situation.
__________________
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
  #54  
Old 09-24-2018, 12:13 AM
CDAT CDAT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 280
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adm.Lee View Post
OR maybe a Difficult Gunsmithing roll? Someone who's invested time & learning in weapons work would probably be likely to have gear like that at chargen.
The rails that we got were operator installed, so a very easy task.

My guess is that they would in this time line only have been issued to elite units, Delta, Seals, Special Forces, and maybe the Rangers.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-24-2018, 07:43 AM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
I reckon 60-75% of American M16s and M4 carbines would be sporting Picatinny rails. Yes it would be standard by 1997, but it takes time to replace and/or retrofit every service rifle/carbine, especially when a nation is in the midst of total war.
I've always felt as the war ramped up, the US would start buying things like rifles and pistols from other manufacturers of AR-15-type rifles and pistols which could subsitute for .45s and 9mms. Some of these pistols may come from the factory with Pictatinny Rails, Weaver Rails, or other proprietary rails. The Military would also begin to buy ACOGs, lasers, scopes, NVGs, etc, to equip those weapons. As usual, special ops would have first dibs on these items, and the Marines would scramble to get anything new. (Unfair, I know, but that's the way things were in the 1989s and 1990s.)
__________________
All that stuff we know -- what if we're wrong? --Science Channel

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-24-2018, 09:34 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,321
Default

You have to wonder though how many of those things would be available given civilians (ie survivalist types) usually buy up everything in sight whenever there's even a sniff of danger.
__________________
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
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 07:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.