RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 07-22-2009, 11:05 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Although it may make some sense to consolidate all aircraft into one or two units, this may actually reduce their ability to function.

Fuel is really the key here. Aviation fuel is obviously only available in very small amounts, most of which is simply what's left over from the previous few years of operations (very little new stock coming into Europe after 1997-8).
Physically transfering the aircraft from one location/unit to another is going to take resources, namely fuel. This will either be aviation fuel burnt through flying the aircraft, or other fuels burnt by trucks.

Transporting any additional aviation fuel is also going to be costly, perhaps even more than shifting the aircraft themselves as it'd be a case of having to collect a few litres here, a dozen more there, etc.
Ammunition and spare parts (used or the increasingly rare new) are also going to take effort and resources to shift.

It might actually be more economical to simply leave the aircraft where they are and only consolidate when, or even if, missions allow.
__________________
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 07-23-2009, 12:46 AM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Yes, this is technically true, however the book states this aircraft is "luckily" an earlier model armed with the 25mm gun.
There was never such a model of the Apache. It's always had the 30mm autocannon.
__________________
War is the absence of reason. But then, life often demands unreasonable responses. - Lucian Soulban, Warhammer 40000 series, Necromunda Book 6, Fleshworks

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-23-2009, 01:24 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,656
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
I think we had the discussion about the 8th a few months back and it was agreed that the number of M2 Bradley's as listed (42 from memory) had to be a typo.
I am not sure it was a typo. I still think they took the total number of vehicles in a division and divided them by 6-13 (to match the tank ratio).
72 M109 -> 9
408 M2/M3 -> 43
232 Tanks -> 18
24 M691 -> 2
24 MLRS -> 4
132 Helicopters -> 4 (ok it breaks down here but not as much as you think if you double the 13)

If you apply the tank ratio to the M2/M3 you get 31 yet if you add the M920 and M18s assigned to a division (as they are also M2 chassis) and divide by the tank ratio (~13) you get 43. The fact that they say that a battalion had 70 IFVs make me think they did include at least the M920s.

I think their ratios were:
Rear area (ADA, artillery) 1:~6
Front line (M2/M1) 1:~13
Helicopters 1:33.

Last edited by kato13; 05-13-2012 at 02:02 AM. Reason: just noticed a typo
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

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 04:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.