RPG Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-27-2008, 12:24 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default New Russian BMPs

I knew already for some times about the BTR-T derived from the T-54/T-55 (much like the israelian Achzarit) but I only found today about the BMP-T that would derive from the T-72/T-90. I found that interesting and post a website on both. Of course, numbers are subject to doubts but they are interesting, nevertheless.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/bmpt.htm
http://www.enemyforces.net/apc/btrt.htm
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-27-2008, 05:40 PM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

Lets see,

I like the BMP-T, it has a reduced capacity for Dismounts, It also looks pretty cramped with an internal height of less than my waist, lovely. I do not see the firing ports along the sides either which means the dismounts can no longer add fire. And they can't observe as easily either.

And it looks like their infrered monitor is not all that protected.

As an American Infantryman, I give it my thumbs up for the Russians!

I just hope they still have the fuel cell on the rear hatch like they had before


As the BTR, it is not wheeled. It is heavy, it is a tank, it has the same issues as the above BMP-T, so I also give it my thumbs up.

And, further, I have to ask, since they are tank what kind of maintenance will they require? Especialy as I am assuming they would simply convert the legions of T-55s and 65s to this platform. Are they restricted to the same terrain as tanks? Remember light armored vehicles and armored personel carriers usualy have the advantage of being lighter so they can go on softer ground, lighter bridges and more importantly be airlifted or even air deployed.

So, if the above have not been addressed then it makes me wonder, did they just down grade a tank so they can carry a fireteam? Although I do like the idea of modifying an obsolete system to be of some use. But also, how useful is a large costly vehicle that only carries one fireteam? How many vehicles would be needed to sieze and hold a positon?

Oh, and unless it is uparmored they are in essance T-55/65s, thus they can be dealt with with a AT-4 easy enough. And again, do they have the fuel cell in the rear door that makes taking them out much easier?
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-27-2008, 07:08 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Jest

I haven't said anything on how good these are and actually I have no clue.

However, as you ask, the last reports from Israel have stated the various Achzarit, Nemerah, and other Nakpadon (fairly similar) to be quite efficient in some type of combat, especially those involving light infantry. It seems that Israel doesn't see them as useless. It also seems that they met with some success during the last operations in Lebanon (2006), despite no victory for Israel. Of course, these reports being from Israel and the US army, they are highly unreliable.

By the way it seems that you are right, the idea behind them is to modify obsolete designs. Therefore, I find the vehicles to be interesting and they might be quite fun in T2K. I wouldn't be surprised to find similar conversions and such vehicles would pack some firepower with a pretty good protection. Not that bad on a theater where most surviving weapons will be assault rifle and heavy machinegun.

I don't thing they intend them to replace regular APC. They are intended to fill in a gap.

Last edited by Mohoender; 10-27-2008 at 07:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-27-2008, 07:33 PM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

One must also remember that the actions in Isreal are not operations where the tanks or troop carriers are traveling over large distances to sieze and hold or reinforce positions in hostile territory where the enemy has similair or heavier forces who are expected to counter attack.

I was pointing out some basic things is all, I do not see those vehicles having an overly tall compartment, which means a cramped and overly fatiguing ride for the dismounts, as well as the possibility of having confusion getting in or out.

The older PACT personel carriers had firing ports in the sides and the rear so the passengers can add to the fire capability. I did not see these.

Further, I did not see vison ports in them for the dismounts. Agaiin reducing the ability by the dismounts to observe.

Those two aspects that are also missing on most American vehicles as well.

One thing that is often forgotten about armored personel carriers is the comfort of the troops riding inside. If they are bounced around and battered from ridding over rough roads, freezing or have been pouring out swet and near dehydration or cramped for sometime their effectiveness is diminished.

And again I still want to know if they have their common fuel cell in the rear hatch/door because that is a major achillies heel of most Russian APCs.


And also as they are built on a tank frame, they have alot of issues concerning maintenance because tanks need ALOT of maintenance. So the support needs will most likely be greater than a standard APC as well as working on a 30 or 40 year old system.

As for weapons remaining being assault weapons and machineguns. Not really. Because of their high rate of fire, coupled with green gunners I would bet that alot of machineguns would be worn out, the high use causes lots of heat, the barrels will burn out first, and the oher moving parts will just wear and burn up. I would imagine after four years of war few units would have their any of their original machineguns and I am guessing they would be in short supply.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-27-2008, 07:49 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

I think you are right. Moreover, I would expect your observations to be very true and these vehicles might be intended for the same type of uses than the one you describe for the israeli vehicles.

Of course, they will need some maintenance but being built from older models they might not need that much. I agree also about maintenance and that's why I keep wandering about maintaining tanks in T2K. Moreover, if the BRT-T is an APC, the BMP-T looks more like a gunship (a mix between a tank chaser and an anti-infantry platform). According to what I have read, they were developped from experience in Grozny. As I know, Russian APC's and tanks proved fairly vulnerable in these fightings much like the israeli mechanized troops in Gaza. Also according to what I know, US troops are experiencing the same kind of problem in Irak: Abrams proved more vulnerable than expected. I expect it to be true as I remember an Abrams destroyed (or put out of order) by a WWII gun in Baghdad. Not always easy to point out a cannon in a narrow street.

Actually, these vehicles (from Israel and Russia) reminds me of some german experience made during WWII with specific tanks used in the Warsaw Getho and among various garrison units.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-27-2008, 10:16 PM
copeab's Avatar
copeab copeab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jester
The older PACT personel carriers had firing ports in the sides and the rear so the passengers can add to the fire capability. I did not see these.
From what I've read and heard. APC firing ports are extremely ineffective.
__________________
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope

http://copeab.tripod.com
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-27-2008, 11:13 PM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copeab
From what I've read and heard. APC firing ports are extremely ineffective.

Ineffective if being used for regular fire, but scarey if you are trying to close in with a LAW or the idea of tossing a thermite or manuvering around is what you are trying to do. Then they come into their own as providing a short range defense to repulse infantry trying to attack or defend against the vehicle.

As I said, it may be a good for short operations to say seize a bridgehead until follow on forces arrive but, 5 men, inside, how many vehicles would it take to put a platoon on scene?

And one thing about older vehicles that are still used, they need ALOT more maintenance, even though they are simplier age does take its tool.

I am still thinking of the five men in the vehicle. Granted the LAV only holds 4 men but it is mainly used as a scout and light armor role or a support weapon.

These new vehicles, they give enough men to basicaly provide a light infantry screen for the vehicle, but not enough to really exploit the asset that a vehicle brings.

Anyone know how they are to be used, issued to units and quantities?

And are these vehicles incorporated into the TW2013? That would be pretty cool!
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-28-2008, 02:25 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

The BTR-T is a true APC providing more efficient protection to a reduced number of troops. 2 vehicles will be needed per platoon. It can resist hand made anti tank weapons, heavy machine gun fire and probably the simplest RPGs.

From what I have read, the BMP-T would really be a type of gunship providing extra firepower to troops progressing in urban areas. It would use the gun to take out snipers, covered position and eventual helicopters. It will use the missiles to take out pillboxes or tanks. It will use the 2 grenade launchers to break infantry attacks or to provide close fire support. Remind me of the early WWI tanks. I was also surprised by the 5 men inside but the vehicle can be operated by 3 I think, as 2 crewmembers are manning the grenade launchers. With 3 it will be less efficient but still operative.

I would expect such vehicle to be used in front with troops progressing under cover behind it. An old efficient tactic used by the Russians since WWII. Of course, these are wild guess and I'm not sure at all.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-28-2008, 02:45 AM
headquarters's Avatar
headquarters headquarters is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Norways weather beaten coasts
Posts: 1,825
Default firing ports /combat form the hatches

My opinion -be they humble ,they are still my own

1) firing ports are only useful in a few very special situations ,if you are in a tracked vehicle you could possibly drop frags out if they are really close -other than that if anyone gets close enough to actually be engaged from the port you might as well run them over -shooting from one is worse than shooting from the hip with youir face turned away ,and sprays the whole crew compartment with brass

2) fighting from an open hatch is pretty much the only way if you are not going to deploy the squad or use onboard armament-but risky due to enemy fire and not very effective as you bounce around like a popcorn in the pan if the terrain isnt smooth tarmac.I would say you have about 1% chance of hitting something with an assault rifle from the hatch if traversing bumpy terrain in speed .From the firing port it is even less.But a 200 belt will yield at least 1 or 2 hits I guess.Rule wise I would say :" these shots are taken on a rangebanner that is 24 times the actual distance"

3)enough space inside is essential to maintain operative status over time and to be able to travel any substantial distance .Traveling prolonged in a BTR or maybe even a M113 equals fatiguepoints as I see it .

4) If you have moved your apc in to an area where you are attacked in a manner that requires you to fight back from your firing ports you have fucked up in the first place-one of the rules of armoured combat vehicle managment - be able to efficiently cover the terrain in your immideate surroundings -otherwise the APC is more of a deathtrap than a weapon with all its blind spots and limited escape options for the crew and squad.

Now as I said - all in my humble opinion based on what I know of APCs.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-28-2008, 08:02 AM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

And alot of your points are why I have said what they said.

A vehicle like that will only have the organic troops carried inside and would most likely out distance other troops in other vehicles. So, in the end they would have five men to guard the vehicle, or clear buildings or roads or what ever the task maybe, and if the vehicle is dealing with urban terrain 5 men is not enough.

As for the firing ports, as I said in my view they are a good means to keep infantry from getting atop the vehicle or near enough to toss handgrenades either on the vehicle or inside. Another negative aspect of working in urban areas <which the vehicle is allegedly supposed to be made for> or fog, woods and other areas with low visibility.

As for firing from the ports as a rule, for suppressive fire purposes sure it could work, since supressive fire is not intended be on target or accurate, it is just to keep the enemys heads down. And we must remember, the Russians don't have a long history of well aimed accurate fire by their troops, mostly especialy with the adoptation of he Kalashnikov design its been mostly full auto bursts, so, saturation of the target area with volumes of lead and hope the law of probability works.

And yes firing from an open turret can be decently accurate.

Which I will need to seee the pictures again, I do not recall top hatches those vehicles. Which would prove useful in hot open climates, or mine infested areas.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-28-2008, 09:10 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jester
And we must remember, the Russians don't have a long history of well aimed accurate fire by their troops, mostly especialy with the adoptation of he Kalashnikov design its been mostly full auto bursts, so, saturation of the target area with volumes of lead and hope the law of probability works.
I might be wrong but who does outside of a small number of highly trained troops in every army? B-52's dropping bombs over the wider possible area don't make me dream of accuracy. Moreover, each time we are aiming at a target we end up blowing the entire area, often including our own forces.

A common joke has been that if you want to survive an American attack, you must remain at the target center. Don't take it bad, I'll say the same about everyone, Russian and French included. Of course, I won't be honest and I'll argue that the French are the best soldiers in the world . In fact, reality is that we don't have what it needs to shell the entire area so we are often forced to use more precise tactics, much to the dismay of our generals.

In my opinion (again only an opinion) what you describe has been the general worldwide strategy since the American Civil War.

Last edited by Mohoender; 10-28-2008 at 09:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-28-2008, 10:31 AM
copeab's Avatar
copeab copeab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jester
As for the firing ports, as I said in my view they are a good means to keep infantry from getting atop the vehicle or near enough to toss handgrenades either on the vehicle or inside. Another negative aspect of working in urban areas <which the vehicle is allegedly supposed to be made for> or fog, woods and other areas with low visibility.
The best defense against infantry attacking your vehicles is your own infantry, but they can't perform that job well if they aren't dismounted. Sure, you can suppress enemy infantry from the vehicle, but you are going to have to send in your infantry on foot to clear out the enemy.
__________________
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope

http://copeab.tripod.com
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-28-2008, 11:29 AM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jester
And alot of your points are why I have said what they said.

A vehicle like that will only have the organic troops carried inside and would most likely out distance other troops in other vehicles. So, in the end they would have five men to guard the vehicle, or clear buildings or roads or what ever the task maybe, and if the vehicle is dealing with urban terrain 5 men is not enough.

As for the firing ports, as I said in my view they are a good means to keep infantry from getting atop the vehicle or near enough to toss handgrenades either on the vehicle or inside. Another negative aspect of working in urban areas <which the vehicle is allegedly supposed to be made for> or fog, woods and other areas with low visibility.

As for firing from the ports as a rule, for suppressive fire purposes sure it could work, since supressive fire is not intended be on target or accurate, it is just to keep the enemys heads down. And we must remember, the Russians don't have a long history of well aimed accurate fire by their troops, mostly especialy with the adoptation of he Kalashnikov design its been mostly full auto bursts, so, saturation of the target area with volumes of lead and hope the law of probability works.

And yes firing from an open turret can be decently accurate.

Which I will need to seee the pictures again, I do not recall top hatches those vehicles. Which would prove useful in hot open climates, or mine infested areas.

Nope, the US and the British practice and taught their men to aim and pick their targets. The Germans in WWI commented when the Americans came on the scene, "We haven't faced such fire since the old contemptables." which was a reference to the prewar BEF who were well trained and proffessional.

US forces or at least back in the day, did not generaly set their weapons on the full auto/burst mode, leaving that role to the automatic weapon or SAW of the squad/team.

You are refering to B-52s and such, I am refering to the infantryman, you are comparing Stratiegic to Tactical to different realms.

Further, old style and most certainly RUSSIAN was the massed artillery barages where the guns would be wheel to wheel and saturate and area. American style, a few guns, a few Forward Observers and picking and firing on pinpoint targets rather than saturating the area.

It has been said, that the massive Barrage on the Somme was one of the things that detracted from its success because the torn up ground made it an obstacle and slowed down the advance.

But also, a problem with a massed shelling of an area is:

Destroys ground you need to advance over, as mentioned.
Destroys targets, if you shell the hell out of an area and the bridge is your target to cross a river, well you just destroyed your mission.

LOGISTICS: moving guns and enough shells into the area takes time and ties up roads, takes alot of transportation assets to build up the stockpiles.

Time: takes time to set up guns, and displace them.

Telegraphs to the enemy the location of the attack. A Massive build up of artillery and supplies in the area is not hard to detect, and tells the enemy something is up.

RISK: putting large amounts of artillery at risk in the advent of an enemy counter attack. It takes time to load up a gun get it on the road and they are no the fastest things on the road, so, they can also tie up your transportation network delaying a withdraw, resupply or reinforcement.

Those are just some of the problems with massed artillery off the top of my head, then we also have comand and control of such assets as well.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-28-2008, 11:39 AM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copeab
The best defense against infantry attacking your vehicles is your own infantry, but they can't perform that job well if they aren't dismounted. Sure, you can suppress enemy infantry from the vehicle, but you are going to have to send in your infantry on foot to clear out the enemy.

That is part of the point I am trying to make.

5 dismounts in the vehicle is not enough to clear or secure an area or provide protection for the vehicle.

And as for firing from inside the vehicle. if the vehicle is moving going from point A to point B, or it is moving to target X at a rapid pace so that the infantry can't walk, they need to be buttoned up. Then as they come around a corner a SAW opens up, but from the oposite side a ballsy Cpl comes out of a bush with a WP or Thermite grenade to toss on the engine grill or fuel tank?

That is the benefit I saw in the firing ports. To defend the vehicle against troops who got close and are trying to climb atop or toss on a grenade to take the vehicle out.

It is similiar to how tanks "scratch" each others backs when that happens. Another tank will machinegun a freindly tank to eliminate enemy infantry crawling on it.

But, yeah, infantry is the best defence for infantry attacking a tank. It makes the tank a true force multiplier. However, I would put my money on one or two rifle squads if they had a couple of AT-4s going up against one of those BMP-Ts with a full compliment of infantry dismounts, the exceptions of course being in wide open places which the best course would be to withdraw or attack in darkness, but in wooded, mountainous or urban forget it. Or even trenches and bunkers the tank with its compliment is at a disadvantage.

And I would even go far as to say if they went against infantry in a field with tall grass or crops in them the tank would have issues.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-28-2008, 11:40 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Jest you got confused, you quoted yourself.

Of course but I was not being serious or not entirely. Your view of the Russian, however, is pretty simple and I would say false. During WWII Russian were using more snipers than anyone else (they still do). They used 14.5 rifle as soon as 1942. At Kursk they used a multi-layer defense that destroyed massive attacks by the Germans.

They use mass fire when employing low level soldier but that is true to everyone. Things might be changing as most armies are now professional troops, highly trained. That would not remain as such in case of global conflict as you would have to rely on less trained troopers (in my opinion).

At a tactical level what you say is true for everyone, at a strategic level everyone use as much power as it can to the soldier dismay usually. You gave the Somme as an exemple but there are several more recent ones: Stalingrad, Monte Cassino, Berlin, Beyruth (1982), Falloudja...
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-28-2008, 11:44 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jester
That is part of the point I am trying to make.

5 dismounts in the vehicle is not enough to clear or secure an area or provide protection for the vehicle.
I understood your point but recent experience by israel prove you wrong. Don't forget that this might not be intended to fight regular infantry.

Moreover, I found them interesting as, in T2K, regular infantries are increasingly rare. Espeically the one with the proper gear to stop such vehicles.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-28-2008, 12:52 PM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
Jest you got confused, you quoted yourself.

Of course but I was not being serious or not entirely. Your view of the Russian, however, is pretty simple and I would say false. During WWII Russian were using more snipers than anyone else (they still do). They used 14.5 rifle as soon as 1942. At Kursk they used a multi-layer defense that destroyed massive attacks by the Germans.

They use mass fire when employing low level soldier but that is true to everyone. Things might be changing as most armies are now professional troops, highly trained. That would not remain as such in case of global conflict as you would have to rely on less trained troopers (in my opinion).

At a tactical level what you say is true for everyone, at a strategic level everyone use as much power as it can to the soldier dismay usually. You gave the Somme as an exemple but there are several more recent ones: Stalingrad, Monte Cassino, Berlin, Beyruth (1982), Falloudja...
I realised I quoted myself after I had typed everything.

Falloudja as an example of massive barage? Explain that one? Beruit? Not really, those are different as well. The only similiarity was the attempt to control the city. But brining as much force one can muster on a city, no, not really the US has not done that since WWII, the other wars we didn't use as much force as we could have/should have to flatten a city before we sent in ground troops in order to save the city or spare the civilians.

As for training troops in a hurry, again the US does place emphasis on marksmanship, we always have.

You are talking about "snipers" snipers are not regular soldiers. I am talking about the regular rifleman in the ranks.


Also, keep in mind the doctrine of the armies. In some, the rifle team is there to support the macinegun, in others the machinegun is there to support the rifleteam. Which determines the use and effectiveness of your suppressive fire.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-28-2008, 12:54 PM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
I understood your point but recent experience by israel prove you wrong. Don't forget that this might not be intended to fight regular infantry.

Moreover, I found them interesting as, in T2K, regular infantries are increasingly rare. Espeically the one with the proper gear to stop such vehicles.

And thus I was wondering what its purpose was for? As I said, how many vehicles would you need to get an adaquate amount of infantry to support not just the vehicle but also the position?
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-28-2008, 05:25 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Ok I didn't got it about the regular infantry man. Both Falloudja and Beyruth saw more destruction than needed but that is a personnal opinion from what info I got (I might be wrong then). On both, I was not clear enough, then, I didn't mean to compare them with the amount of destruction found in WWII, but both had to face air and artillery attacks that might have helped the defenders more than the attackers (more like Monte Cassino). I could have sited Vietnam as another exemple or Okinawa (then you right again: WWII).

I agree about U.S. emphasizing on marksmanship as much as it can. But that's valid only when you control the ground and more or less the war. Nevertheless, I was talking about T2K not about IRL and in T2K, I don't expect U.S. to field only well trained troops. Casualties are too high and you need to replace the losses in a hury. I understand that many among you are playing very experienced soldiers; I usually have less experienced groups that get better from "field training" if they survive of course .

If you look closely at the Russians, the russian army never numbered much more than 400.000 troops. These are the well equipped core and they are reinforced by less trained and effective troops that would come in much larger numbers. Usually, the less trained one are entering the field first, when the ennemy get to the core, it has exhausted its best forces. Standard Russian procedure from way before the soviets.

About Marksmanship, I would think that U.S. entered the war in Iraq baddly prepared with inadequate equipments and command. Things certainly have changed today. For my campaign, I'm now over with Russia and got on U.S. and Britain. As a result, I get more info on new equipments fielded by both armies. Things have changed a lot. It just goes to an old idea: an army is always well prepared for the previous war and unprepared for the next.

About these vehicles I think they are developped for the same purpose than similar vehicles made by Israel.

Last edited by Mohoender; 10-28-2008 at 05:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-28-2008, 06:41 PM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

[QUOTE=Mohoender]Ok I didn't got it about the regular infantry man. Both Falloudja and Beyruth saw more destruction than needed but that is a personnal opinion from what info I got (I might be wrong then). On both, I was not clear enough, then, I didn't mean to compare them with the amount of destruction found in WWII, but both had to face air and artillery attacks that might have helped the defenders more than the attackers (more like Monte Cassino). I could have sited Vietnam as another exemple or Okinawa (then you right again: WWII).

Yes, most of what I was talking about was regular well trained infantry, usualy light, which could be applied to Marine infantry, Heliborne or Paratroopers. As for Falujah, to my knowledge the city was not blown to pieced with artillery, and air assets were used in a very limited manner, the city for the most part is rebuilt and has just been turned back to its people. If artillery had been used along with airstrikes it would still be rubble. As for Beruit, that was multiple factions who did not care and used everything they had. And that fighting lasted for how many years, pitty too as it was the Paris of the Med and just when you think its getting normal something happens. I'd truly like to go there one day.

As for artillery and air aiding defenders like Monte Casino, Beruit, probably, Faluja, not really. What was used was precision and used with great restriction, much like the Battle of Hue durring TET.

As for Vietnam, air assets and urban/civilian targets where? I am interested. I mentioned Hue, it was 105s and 75mm rockets and a few runs that were restricted to the old citidel.

As for Okinawa, there was some reguard for the civilians, but yes, Naha, and the ancient Suri Castle and others were blasted. However, the defenses were also formidable as well. So that is an argument that is not likely to be won, its like the chicken or the egg arugment of which came first? Was Okinawa a harder fight because we used heavy artillery and air or did it help since the Japanese had such massive defenses. However, you also see a progression of actualy taking the civilians in consideration before resorting to such things.



I agree about U.S. emphasizing on marksmanship as much as it can. But that's valid only when you control the ground and more or less the war. Nevertheless, I was talking about T2K not about IRL and in T2K, I don't expect U.S. to field only well trained troops. Casualties are too high and you need to replace the losses in a hury. I understand that many among you are playing very experienced soldiers; I usually have less experienced groups that get better from "field training" if they survive of course .


How does marksmanship not remain a factor weather you control the ground or not? I do not follow you.

As for conscripts. Being poorly trained, which is what I am understanding your point to be in a T2K conflict. Maybe in a T2K setting, but some factors to consider. Who would be called up first to replace the losses of the regulars? Early war volunteers who would be well trained, reservists and natuional guardsmen called to active duty, indaviduals who had been in the military who would be recalled, and men like me who had no reserve obligation but could be called back or woulsd come back on their own who were already trained. Those are who would replace the casualties. The new recruits would take about a year to train. Using WWII as a example older expeirenced troops from the theaters and those who had service and were recalled would be used to form new units being raised, with new recruits going to replacement units who would then be delivered to the units to replace losses, however, the replacements usualy came in 1s, 2s and 3s and would be assimilated into the unit and even trained to gain some level of knowlege.

However, I would suggest this! By the time it was down to ill trained recruits the situation at home would have deteriorated so they would be needed at home, and the resources to send these men overseas to Eruope would not be there. It would not be a major priority at that point, coupled with the fact that the lines would probably have stagnated by that time as well.



If you look closely at the Russians, the russian army never numbered much more than 400.000 troops. These are the well equipped core and they are reinforced by less trained and effective troops that would come in much larger numbers. Usually, the less trained one are entering the field first, when the ennemy get to the core, it has exhausted its best forces. Standard Russian procedure from way before the soviets.

Ah but universal conscription was the key! Their regular army numbered that much, but their reserves were how many? And yes they were not the top of the line forces but still they were trained personel.

And then we come to the idea of the Elite units being saved, much asd Napoleon used his Imperial Guards to administer the Coups De Grace, got it! Its an old tactic used by the Old World.


About Marksmanship, I would think that U.S. entered the war in Iraq baddly prepared with inadequate equipments and command. Things certainly have changed today. For my campaign, I'm now over with Russia and got on U.S. and Britain. As a result, I get more info on new equipments fielded by both armies. Things have changed a lot. It just goes to an old idea: an army is always well prepared for the previous war and unprepared for the next.

About these vehicles I think they are developped for the same purpose than similar vehicles made by Israel. QUOTE]

Badly equiped? Eh, not as well equiped as they could or should have been, but badly? Thats a bit rough. Remember, we went into Iraq more or less as the Game says "A come as you are war." We were not preparing for a war. 9/11 was a surprise and we didn't have alot of time between that and Iraq. We were just finishing with a "draw down" and "BRAC" evolution which was the reduction in our military forces, ships bases and similair assets, And I will be political, the military was NEGLECTED and ABUSED durring the Clintoon years, the scum bucket hated the military and he kept it no secret, his wife was worse. And I did hear them say it too. The down side of being staioned in Hawaii and them liking to vacation there. An example, a company rated 25 9mm pistols. 1 was not red taged! Half our M60s were red taged, 1 of our mortars but that was okay as we only had enough men for 1 propper gun team but we managed two guns. SMAWs we had about 2/3s of them servicable, I lived in a building that had been condemed since before Vietnam and was infested with cockroaches, we had no money for fuield operations and even 1 mess hall was closed, so you had to go to the wing side for food, and if they ran out you got hotdogs or nothing at times. The military was improving under Bush and just prior to 9/11 but it had a LONG WAY to go.


Yes, I know the adage, it goes like this, "An army is always trained to fight the last war it fought." Whcih is sad but true because that is how/where its leadership gained their expereince, that is IF that leadership has experience. Quite often peacetime leadership is little more than good administrators and ass kissers.

As for the purpose of the vehicles, what is their purpose other than a cool factor aand for a Party in T2K it would be cool to have. Or maybe Ivan in his utilitarian mind is making good use of something they have tons of rather than just wasting it?


Okay, the next question is, IF you had either or both vehicles with their capacities, what would you use them for? And how could you be successful using them? Lets say you have a platoons worth, 3 Vehicles with a total of 15 dismounts.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-28-2008, 08:01 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Thanks for the facts about fallujah.

When talking about ground I'm facing my english limitations. Lets say that when things go from desperate to worse you go about anything.

In T2K I would not assume the WWII recruiting process to apply after the nuclear exchange. So far, U.S. wasn't hit and that gives it an advantage. In T2K, I would expect to find militias facing the Mexican attack and poorly trained troops being ferried to Europe during and after the exchange. Moreover, don't forget that you already said that you would be dead in such case. US might fall short of national guards.

When I said badly equipped I misused the word somehow. I meant badly equiped for that war. It worked more than fine as long as US troops were facing the regular iraqi army. It was not that good when facing guerilla. However, I have seen that some impressive equipments are entering service.
I would put it in the same way as you could have in 1776 about British: don't fight the US Army in open field and expect to win.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-28-2008, 08:13 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

About vehicles

If I have 3 (1 BMP-T and 2 BTR-T) that will make only 10 infantries. I would use the vehicles to progress through an urban area relying on the heavier and reactive armor to survive anti tanks and heavy MGs that prove deadly for regular APCs.

Near the objective, I would take my infantry out. The BMP-T would provide cover and fire support for them, may be progressing in front. I would use the BTR-T as support vehicles covering my troops from behind.

However, if I can, I'll retain the BMP-T and replace the BTR-T by Achzarit or Nakpadon (I can also hope for the politicians to order an improved BTR-T carrying more troops and fitting a rear door ).
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-28-2008, 08:28 PM
copeab's Avatar
copeab copeab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jester
Okay, the next question is, IF you had either or both vehicles with their capacities, what would you use them for? And how could you be successful using them? Lets say you have a platoons worth, 3 Vehicles with a total of 15 dismounts.
Three Bradleys only have 18 dismounts -- what would you use them for?
__________________
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope

http://copeab.tripod.com
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-28-2008, 11:05 PM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
Thanks for the facts about fallujah.

When talking about ground I'm facing my english limitations. Lets say that when things go from desperate to worse you go about anything.

In T2K I would not assume the WWII recruiting process to apply after the nuclear exchange. So far, U.S. wasn't hit and that gives it an advantage. In T2K, I would expect to find militias facing the Mexican attack and poorly trained troops being ferried to Europe during and after the exchange. Moreover, don't forget that you already said that you would be dead in such case. US might fall short of national guards.

When I said badly equipped I misused the word somehow. I meant badly equiped for that war. It worked more than fine as long as US troops were facing the regular iraqi army. It was not that good when facing guerilla. However, I have seen that some impressive equipments are entering service.
I would put it in the same way as you could have in 1776 about British: don't fight the US Army in open field and expect to win.


No not really;


1.) In a twilight war, there would be a more or less general recall of ALL reserves before the nuclear weapons fell. Remember, the fighting began in the Spring summer but the ICBMs did not fall until our Thanksgiving which is mid November.

Further, once the bombs fell and the long reaches of the government ceased, or ceased priority how would they conscript? IT would be very poor. Only within the immediate reach of the government and not much beyond.

As for me being dead. IF I remained where I was and the places that were prime targets were still targeted. However, a year ago I underwent a massive bone surgery to remove metal rods and screws used to save my leg in 91. Why? To remove the barrier from my reinlietment. I am still trying to get back in! Do you think that now that the big show has kicked off with Ivan I would stand on the sidelines? Oh no! I would find a way to Europe or SouthWest Asia or Korea, I would be a part. And if needbe I would walk to Washigtinton State or British Columbia. Or even just stay at home and pick off the Mexican Army from the end of my block. That is me. I really really do hate the comies. I really do! I hate them more than fascists.

But, would the poorly trained troops be sent to Europe or kept at home to deal with the rift between Milgov and Civgov? The Mexicans and the Russians in the Pacific Northwest? And the New Americans and of course the legions of marauders and rogue military/police and mayors of the local governments and small towns.

Think about it? How oftenn would troops destined for Europe be diverted to internal issues while they were waiting on transport to Europe?

As for poorly equiped, no, we were. In that time span the Marines ansd Army have transitioned uniforms, primary rifle, vehicles, radios, body armor and all kinds of items I have no idea of what it is. Remember, we had been in a reduction of forces for a decade that was the mindset, new equipment ha! That was one of the furtherst things.

As for the Iraqi Army vs a Guerilla war or insurgency. It is not the equipment, it is the training, mindset and DOCTRINE. We went in with the conventional mindset. What you said about the old adage "We prepare for our next war the way we fought the last" was on target in this case! We fought the Iraqis in 91, it was conventional and so we thought thats what it would be like this time. So, that is how we thought, how we prepared the troops and we were successful in the convetional mode, but after we were caught short. The equipment was not important, the way the troops thought, acted and their mindset and the comands mindset and their failing to expect and prepare for the aftermath.

Keep this in mind alot of units had trained for such operations in the 80s and 90s as a result of Vietnam. But it was thrown out the window after the 91 Gulf War, that was something we covered ALOT as well as jungle and amphib operations, for us Desert and conventional war was the thing we were not overly schooled on.

And really, as it Mosiah Diane said in an interview,

"Well the Vietnamese are not Arabs." When he was asked to comment and compare the lightening victory they had against the arab forces to the Vietnamese after/durring Tet.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-29-2008, 03:45 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Jest

I'm not sure we entirely agree but I see much common ground here.

By the way, about you being dead, you were the one saying it some times ago. That was because of your location as I recall. Welcome back then. I'm glad to hear that you won't end in a bright hot light.

I'll stick to my idea, however, but that is because it fits my game better. For me US troops being brought back home are minimal and most of the one in Europe are turning marauders (exit the trained core). Pretty much as everyone else.

The French army continue to obey orders but it suffered less casualties and destruction. Russians are increasingly individualistic. Germans are obeying orders but they are German after all (that goes for much of the British army also) . Australia has become a powerful military power but that is probably because I consider Australian to be really brave.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-30-2008, 09:55 PM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

Update!!!

They are not using the T-55/65 series for this vehicle. They are using the T-72 chasis! Now, as an infantryman that does scare me! Granted it doesn't have the gun the full tank has, but its got a couple PK type machineguns and some 30mm grenade launchers and the troops to dismount, it did not say how many.

It also has dual tracking/firecontrol systems for the commander and gunner.

Here is the link:

http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=245&linkid=1785

And check out the rest of the site, a multibarreled 40mm grenade launcher and a pump action grenade launcher both awsome to have but I am not thrilled Ivan has it, damnit! I want one too!

Hey, hey guys who did 2013! Did you include this stuff in the weapons section?
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ground vehicles, vehicles


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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT: Russian "Almaz" Space Station CStock88 Twilight 2000 Forum 27 04-25-2016 03:58 PM
Cool russian stuff Rupert Willies Twilight 2000 Forum 0 03-05-2009 05:06 AM
Russian Army OOB Mohoender Twilight 2000 Forum 7 01-11-2009 08:16 AM
Reports on recent russian military maneuvers kato13 Twilight 2000 Forum 0 09-10-2008 05:09 AM
Russian Mig29 splashi kato13 Twilight 2000 Forum 0 09-10-2008 03:51 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.