Destruction of Weapons.

[kato13]

In another thread Eddie brought up the concept of "meat" (human) causalities being larger than "metal" (weapon) causalities. I have always considered that this would lead to (at least at in appearances) an increase of firepower at every level.

Those who might have been carrying pistols or SMGs would upgrade to Assault rifles from their fallen comrades or the enemy. Civilians would gather up (or trade for) weapons they would never have been able to have pre war. Ammunition would be a different matter, but in a t2k world I might want a M4 with 4 rounds over a pistol with 30.

IMO there would be three factors reducing weapons availability.

1) Combat Damage
Even though "metal" is tougher than "meat" there will still be many situations where armaments are destroyed by combat. This is due to the fact that pressures that would kill a man a dozen times over are common in combat.

2) Lack of maintenance
The west really takes a hit here when compared to Soviet armaments, but with a minimum effort I expect that most weapons would maintain some degree of reliability.

3) Purposeful destruction of weapons.
This was the one variable I cannot really wrap my head around what the combatants would do.

My first thought is that during the early stages of the war, destruction of a majority of captured small arms would be the norm. As supply lines get a little more shaky it would be reduced, and by the end everything would be hoarded unless it could not be carried.

Countering this is the Soviet theory of never throwing anything away and the West's need to reequip elements of the East German army. Both of these might lead to hoarding earlier than I expected.

I am wondering what people would think would happen at a macro level in regards to captured weapons.

[Abbott Shaull]

One thing to remember that during the Operation Iraqi Freedom, some of the AKMs and AK-74s that were captured were turned around and used by the troop. Sometimes this was due to the fact that many Armor personnel really felt naked when they were out of their vehicles, to add to the personal weapons they were issued. Other times a unit was on the move, and the need/want to keep moving forward, rather than wait for proper resupply to catch up with them.

No with that said there were still plenty of arms to go around, so some where destroyed, but also more importantly some were kept so when it came time to re-establish the Iraqi Army they would have something to initially re-armed them with. With that said, this is one of the subjects that the creators over looked at times. For once either side gained ground they would have to leave significant force to control what they had gained.

Once you take an area over, you want to re-establish local control as soon as possible. Which in cases of fighting in Europe and Korea if you playing US or one of it allies this isn't much to worry. Now if you playing in Iran you would want to do so, or if you happen to pact forces in southern Germany or Austria. Or you could play Soviet forces in Alaska/Canada or China.

Those would of been a couple of came that I would love to played in.

Just some thoughts.

[copeab]

1) Combat Damage


Would this include weapon exposed to radiation?

[fightingflamingo]

I can not see NATO willingly destroy captured WP weapons. The main reason for this is that the NVA(DDR) is equipt with WP arms, and because of NATO's need to field the NVA formations, I do not think that NATO could afford to destroy captured arms. The thought of reequiping the NVA along Bundeswehr lines , while attractive, is not possible in the time frame available, given the capacity of West German industry. Battlefield recovery of captured weapons & vehicles could serve to provide a pool of replacement parts and replacements for the NVA's own losses. Secondly, retaining WP small arms (and heavy weapons such as RPG's), provides a further pool of weapons which can be used to equipt partisan or resistance movements in Eastern Europe (or other theatres of war) without drawing on NATO's industrial capacity to provide arms for these movements (should they exist in your campaigns) and allow for them to rely on local sources of ammunition resupply (e.g. captured stockpiles). IMT2KU, I also assume that Web's "Tchaikovsky" raids destroyed substantial amounts of the PRC's industrial capacity prior to the onset of nuclear warfare, so another use would be to ship serviceable captured equipment (surplus to the needs of the NVA) to the PRC to help supplement their war material requirements.

Basically, I'm of the opinion that nothing would be intentionally destroyed once captured. All weapons and systems could be put to use, even if not serviceable, by either providing spare parts for serviceable equipment (from unserviceable equipment) or where captured equipment is serviceable for providing replacement arms for allies equipt with the other sides weapons.

However, I do see both sides taking action to destroy their own equipment to prevent capture by the other side (e.g. thermite grenades in the breaches of howitzers about to be overrun and captured by the enemy). Mainly, I see these efforts focused on destruction of battledamaged, but otherwise recoverable vehicles, and those vehicles which would be captured outright (no damage). This will have varing levels of success. Most equipment will be captured by whichever side is currently on the offensive, and will largely consist of recovery of battlefield losses, with a range of damage, which may or may not be returnable to service after some level of maintenance (depot, or theatre).

[headquarters]

when the allies freed Norway in 1945 , we were ordered to dump airplanes,guns,tanks and small arms as well as other top notch German gear at sea or to melt it down .Even though we had enough stash left over from them to arm ourselves to a high standard.we had planes,ships,subs,forts,guns,tanks all sort of arms etc enough to arm 300-400 000 German soldiers and stockpiles had been amassed to hold Norway for a long time should it be cut of by allied invasion attempts.

Luckily they went quietly.

Shortly after ,orders were put in for British and American gear on all levels.

But we had so much German equipment that it took years to destroy , and by that time the mood changed and we started hoarding .I still have a nice Kar98 re chambered to Nato 30-06 by the Norwegian arsenal.
Lugers p08 and Walther p38s were main sidearms here up until 1985 or longer .

Economics and civillian considerations factor in -the interests that control the armaments industry might not see the value of keeping 200 000 captured AKMs and 500 T-72s and T-55s.
A contract for 500 MBT and 200 000 small arms to equip a newly liberated nations with STANAG gear is more interesting.

with confusion and disarray in a T2K situation a destroy order regarding captured gear might be carried out by some up to the last moments before "you are on your own " crackles through the aether.

Soldiers take orders from civilians once they reach a certain rank.

just putting it out there as a possibility

[pmulcahy11b]

Would this include weapon exposed to radiation?

That's a good point. How much stuff of any sort are PCs going to find that's radioactively hot? This could be a real problem with food, drink, and medicine!

[Legbreaker]

I tend to think any weapons and munitions captured will be destroyed. It may not be right away, but after a few hundred rifles are sent back to Battalion HQ, they're going to be piled up with other captured equipment and blown up.

Vehicles are the same. Fuel will of course be drained and anything else of immediate or intelligence use stripped out, but then they too are going to be destroyed.

It just makes sense in any warzone. Leaving enemy material laying about is a problem. Guarding captured enemy equipment drains manpower. Moving enemy equipment takes manpower AND resources.

It's not going to be just your own equipment that's spiked in a withdrawal either. Why would you want to leave anything, no matter what it's origin, where an enemy may aquire it?

Of course complete destruction isn't always going to occur either. for example an APC only needs certain components to be damaged or removed to make it virtually useless. Most items can be rendered effectively useless with just minimal effort.

[Raellus]

I think both sides would keep nearly everything that wasn't damaged, especially given the need to keep the former GDR units equipped and supplied. Precedent is there. In WWII, both the Germans and the Soviets used significant quantities of their respective opponents' weapons, from tanks and artillery to small arms. The Germans even manufactured a few types of Soviet small arms ammo for use in their captured Red Army weapons.

IIRC, there were so many captured Panzer IVs still around by the end of the war, that the Syrian army was still fielding large numbers of them (via the USSR) during the '67 war with Israel. On a strange note, IIRC the early Israeli air force fielded a number of BF-109 fighters.

After the TDM, captured weaponry and ammo would be an even more important source of resupply.

HQ, on a side note, my grandfather, who spoke fluent Norwegian, was a USN captain assigned to help study/deal with German U-boats captured in Norwegian ports. We still have a medal that was presented to him by the king of Norway for his services and a sheef of primary source documents about the U-boats.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

During the Arab-Israeli war you mentioned, the Syrians also fielded StugIII assault guns with their PzIVs but I think many of them were actually supplied by France and not the USSR (not surprisingly, France had a healthy supply of German vehicles and spares). The Israelis at that time were using Shermans.
The Israeli air force did indeed fly Bf109s that I think were supplied through Czechoslovakia (they also received a number of Kar98K and Vz24 rifles through the same source if I remember right). They faced Egyptian pilots flying Spitfires.

[jester]

Here is the question though.

How many weapons are you going to hump? Okay, you are a member of a rifle squad. You set an ambush and it goes as planned. You end up with a dozen AKs. You have another four or five days on patrol. Are you going to hump that spare weapon and ammo and other gear? And then you encounter more enemy forces and capture more equipment. So, by the end you end up with four AKs plus your own weapons. It isn't practical at the small unit level.

Now, if you are dealing with a mass surrender then it is possible, as the enemy stacks their arms and either marches out back to their own lines per an agreement, or they march off to captivity. Then you have a large supply of weapons in a central location where your logistic network can take them into the supply system. But, again, how many are you going to actualy use?

Someone also asked about the wear if I am not mistaken, that was the original question.

We should also figure into the calculation that ALOT of personel will be killed and wounded which will also free up alot of weapons and personal equipment. Yes, some weapons will wear out, some will break, some will be lost. But, will these numbers outstrip the casualties?

[Legbreaker]

The Germans in WWII did not have enough vehicles, especially armour throughout the entire war. During the invasion of Poland in 1939, machinegun armed training tanks had to be used on the front lines. Fortunately for the Germans, the Poles didn't have much in the way of effective anti-armour weapons and their tanks were little more than toys spread thinly across the country.

The German reputation for good, powerful and well armoured heavy tanks was not justified until the later part of the war when the Tiger, and later the Panther came into being. Until then, they were using whatever they could scrounge to suplement their relatively meagre production of Pzf III's and IV's of various models. Even so, their heavy tanks were never available in great numbers and suffered from overly complex mechanicals and less than ideal production values (hard to keep quality high while your factories are being bombed).

It also has to be remembered that Germany had been prohibited armour following WWI, a prohibition they secretly (to begin with) flouted, and the declaration in 1932 that they would no long abide by the Treaty of Versailles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tanks_in_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles

Beginning from a standing start, Germany had no choice but to use whatever weapons, vehicles and equipment they captured. (They could of course have chosen a less warlike course, but with the Nazi's in charge that was never going to happen.)

There were some examples in WWII of Allied units using German equipment, but these are VERY few and far between.

After the war many countries, especially those directly occupied by the Axis had to rebuild using whatever came to hand. This was a very different situation than we see in the first few years of WWIII.

[Webstral]

I can't remember who said, "Leave a soldier and an anvil alone in the desert for three days. When you come back, the anvil will be broken." We used to add, "And Joe won't know how it happened."

Soldiers are the worst enemies of their own gear. Neglect and abuse will be awfully hard on everything soldiers use. The Western powers will be affected more seriously than the Pact, but everyone is going to be affected by creeping decay.

Webstral

[jester]

There is a similiar saying in the Marines.

"Leave a Pvt./Lt in a room with two metal balls. When you come back one will be broken and the other lost and the Pvt./Lt won't know how it happened."

[Targan]

How many weapons are you going to hump? Okay, you are a member of a rifle squad. You set an ambush and it goes as planned. You end up with a dozen AKs. You have another four or five days on patrol. Are you going to hump that spare weapon and ammo and other gear? And then you encounter more enemy forces and capture more equipment. So, by the end you end up with four AKs plus your own weapons. It isn't practical at the small unit level.

True. I suspect that T2K PCs always have a tendancy to hoard far more than soldiers would IRL. I bet that in many cases captured weapons and equipment would be cached in the vain hope that it might be useful and able to be retrieved at a later date. All through the battle zones of T2K Europe there are probably stashes of captured weapons slowly rusting into uselessness because the people who stashed them are either dead or far away.

[headquarters]

I can't remember who said, "Leave a soldier and an anvil alone in the desert for three days. When you come back, the anvil will be broken." We used to add, "And Joe won't know how it happened."

Soldiers are the worst enemies of their own gear. Neglect and abuse will be awfully hard on everything soldiers use. The Western powers will be affected more seriously than the Pact, but everyone is going to be affected by creeping decay.

Webstral

I agree whole heartedly .
Soldiers on all levels mismanage or slack on maintenance and gear gets worn out faster . Here is a thought - how many rounds is a certain gun barrel projected to take before its worn out / scatters like a shotgun ? Both arty and small arms have this problem - a problem compounded by poor maintenance and lack of parts and or lubricants.

I remember the instructors at our Academy saying that our (A)G3 rifles were good for app 7500 rounds before initial accuracy was reduced.After app double /triple that the gun would be deemed ready for the melting ovens.

Now bear in mind that firing on the practice range is included- a rifle will not be able to take more than a few years before worn out .

[Ironside]

So would rolling for wear value on weapons as well as vehicles make sense? What penalties should be imposed for wear?

[headquarters]

So would rolling for wear value on weapons as well as vehicles make sense? What penalties should be imposed for wear?

as a GM you could take a realistic and sadistic approach and drastically reduce range stat OR increase jam/misfeed occurence to portray this.

To alter the range by 5 or 10 meters on teh stats for an assault rifle kind of hurts for the PC .

[General Pain]

Would this include weapon exposed to radiation?

Depending on the situation, but if your out of arms and fin yourself in a radiation-zone - the damage is probably allready done so I would probably pick up the weapon anyway. It's like the old question how would you like to die...by gun or knife....or in this case slow and horrible or quick...IMHO.

[copeab]

True. I suspect that T2K PCs always have a tendancy to hoard far more than soldiers would IRL.

To be fair, though, soldiers in most T2K campaigns face a far worse resupply problem than soldiers in RL.

[copeab]

Depending on the situation, but if your out of arms and fin yourself in a radiation-zone - the damage is probably allready done so I would probably pick up the weapon anyway.

I was thinking more along the lines of a weapon carried out of a radiation zone by a scavenger and the PC either killing the scavenger or coming across his body.

[Legbreaker]

To be fair, though, soldiers in most T2K campaigns face a far worse resupply problem than soldiers in RL.

This is true, however it's really only since around mid 98 that mentality would have begun to change significantly. Even during, and for a period after the nukes, collection and storage of enemy weapons, vehicles and other materials would be far from the norm.

With most major military operations occuring before this, it is highly likely that normal operational proceedures would have been followed resulting in the distruction of the vast majority of captured equipment.

[copeab]

With most major military operations occuring before this, it is highly likely that normal operational proceedures would have been followed resulting in the distruction of the vast majority of captured equipment.

Before the nukes, probably yes. After the nukes, I see destruction of enemy equipment as much less likely. Given that the nukes killed about 80-90% of troops, there will a lot of equipment left (even after accounting for battle damage).

[Legbreaker]

A lot of allied material....
Enemy material, in the first few months anyway, will have little to no worth unless supply lines from the rear have been cut/decimated, and then only until "normal" (for want of a better word) supply operations can be reorganised.

Once those supply lines run dry, then will enemy material other than food, fuel, etc become important. Weapons, clothing and vehicles will be amongst the last things saved and used on a wide scale.

[Abbott Shaull]

With modern mobile warfare, it is very easy to get ahead of your supply chain. Even with the most secure supply lines, one well place raid can throw you in the world of hurt, especially if you are active in fighting.

[kato13]

I am glad there are such varying opinions, as it validates my original inability to come to a conclusion.

My original post was about small arms, but I dont mind the drift. I guess images of tanks crushing Ak-47s and Rpgs during the Iraq conflict is what started me thinking about this. Thought total warfare and anti insurgency operations might be apples and oranges.

Since we have drifted onto vehicles two things about trucks. Ones that arrive at the front full will generally be returning to the rear areas empty. Perhaps captured small arms and munitions would go along on that return trip, for use is support of the NVA or even China or Allied forces in the middle east.

Secondly, I don't think captured trucks would be destroyed. While larger more complicated weapons systems might not be worth the hassle, captured trucks would be relatively easy to maintain and use.

[fightingflamingo]

originally intended to respond to a post I misread the context off... just for further clarification of my POV since I bothered to type it up

for the WP, I agree that captured equipment will be of little value beyond technical intel until such time as the rear area supply chain breaks down. However, NATO's situation in V1 would be a different situation (this does not apply to a V2 or V2.2 as the NVA has been disbanded). The NVA makes exclusive use of WP equipment. Given battlefield recovery rates of vehicles in World War 2, as well as from the Arab-Israel conflict through the 1973 war, it is plausible that NATO would be very interested in recovery of captured WP equipment which could provide salvage parts for NVA equipment from vehicles otherwise deemed to be a total loss, and possibly a pool of battle damaged vehicles some of which may be returned to service through canabalization of others.

In the context of V1 or IMT2KU, I think it is unlikely that the industrial productivity of the FRG will be able to adequately reequip those units of the Unified German Army to Bundeswehr standards which had origins in the former NVA. The FRG will be hard pressed to replace it's own battlefield losses (through both new production vehicles and battlefield recovery), let alone reequip former NVA divisions wholesale (let alone make an provision for training the former NVA units to operate and maintain said equipment).

Small Arms would also be retained when captured through the TDM, and for similar reasons. The DDR had a large reserve structure which the new unified Germany would continue to draw upon for combat replacements, and possibly (depending on your particular view of canon) the mobilization of the NVA's reserve structure.

After the breakdown of the logistical supply chain (when in my view the war transitions from what is primarily a full on high intensity mechanized battlespace, to an intermediate level of intensity infantry(e.g. patrolling/infilitration) battlespace that the destruction of capture weapons and equipment will be undertaken to a large extent. At that point in the war, such demolition will be more because the capturing units will not be able to bear the burden for dealing with such equipment (vehicles still will be retained to make up combat losses, likely by the capturing unit if the vehicle in question is immediately serviceable). That is not to say that individual soldiers on either side wouldn't choose to equip themselves with a variety of warprizes.

IMHO...

If you don't have a WP equipt NVA then all this is irrelevant, and there is ample reason to destory captured enemy equipment not retained for technical intel purposes.

[Abbott Shaull]

I am glad there are such varying opinions, as it validates my original inability to come to a conclusion.

My original post was about small arms, but I dont mind the drift. I guess images of tanks crushing Ak-47s and Rpgs during the Iraq conflict is what started me thinking about this. Thought total warfare and anti insurgency operations might be apples and oranges.

Since we have drifted onto vehicles two things about trucks. Ones that arrive at the front full will generally be returning to the rear areas empty. Perhaps captured small arms and munitions would go along on that return trip, for use is support of the NVA or even China or Allied forces in the middle east.

Secondly, I don't think captured trucks would be destroyed. While larger more complicated weapons systems might not be worth the hassle, captured trucks would be relatively easy to maintain and use.

If a shooting war started in Europe. An truck that isn't destroyed would be pressed into service by whomever had current 'Ownership' due to the fact, that what most Logistical people would predict would get the job done. Well let's us say they daydream quite a bit.

Honestly I don't see much of anything leaving Europe except maybe larger capture vehicles.

1. The obvious is the Germans would like the stuff to help re-supply certain ex NVA units.

2. Green Beanies, SAS, and SEALs along with any other forces going behind Pact lines to train partisans need to get hardware. Let's see they are operating behind Pact lines so it make only sense so they should be able to acquire more supplies locally.

[Raellus]

I just thought of another reason why NATO would hang on to captured PACT gear prior to the TDM.

I think we've established that captured gear would be kept to resupply former GDR units, ship to China, equip E. European guerrilla units, etc. I think that NATO would also keep it in order to equip the post war Polish military. With things going slowly but well during early to mid '97, planning for a NATO-aligned Poland must have been on the drawing board. It would have been nearly impossible to reequip whatever remained of the Polish military with NATO-manufactured weapons, especially since NATO would probably be hard pressed to make up its own material losses. It would be easier to equip the post-war Polish military with stockpiles of captured PACT weaponry. It would be faster and cheaper and Polish troops would already be familiar with the operation of Soviet bloc weapons, from rifles to MBTs.

Trucks are a no brainer. Knowledgeable folks here have previously stated that the Soviets would, even at the outset of the war, be short on trucks. Any captured NATO or Chinese trucks would immediately be pressed into service. The WWII Wermacht was always short of trucks and used whatever they could get their hands on. It made maintainance a real pain in the a** sine a single unit could have French, Belgian, Czech, British, Russian, and American military (and civilian) trucks in the their supply and baggage trains.

After the TDM, I think any unit with a vehicle or two would be wise to keep a set of PACT weapons. With resupply sporadic at best, a lot of units would probably have to resort, at times at least, to using captured ammo which should be fairly plentiful or at least readily available during combat. Some PACT gear, like the RPG-7/16, would probably be standard issue in NATO units by 2000.

And the AK series is legendary for its simplicity and durability. The M-16 has a reputation of being rather finicky. I once saw video of a South African special police unit in the early '00s called to remove an old weapons cache from the '80s somewhere in the bush in Namibia. They found an old AK literally orange with rust. They poured motor oil over it, wiped it down with a rag, and fired a whole magazine on full auto without a stoppage.

[Legbreaker]

Softskins, particularly cargo vehicles are almost certainly going to be retained for use by the logistical networks of all sides. Combat vehicles, besides a few units retained for intel, SF units, etc, are almost sure to be destroyed as there is no guarenteed logistical support for them and the risk of them being recaptured by their original owners (with intact and hopefully effective supply train) tends to outweigh the benefits.

In V1, there will be stronger emphasis on transporting Pact equipment to the East German units, but without dedicated production supporting this material, these units are destined to weaken as the war goes on, no matter how much capture gear is given to them. It is more likely in my opinion that these units will not receive reinforcements - these would be directed to the Western units first as there is a supply chain in position to support them. The East German units would gradually be downsized from Divisions to Brigades and perhaps even Battalions (with the supporting units split off and maybe requipped). Of course Canon appears to tell a different story with these units remaining as strong and effective as any other on the western side.

Trucks moving back from the front are likely to be carrying less than those moving forward, however they will by no means be empty. Casualty evacuation, movement of damaged equipment and vehicles rearward for repair, some enemy equipment (minimal in my opinion), and so on are all vital to continued military operations.

Around mid 1998 everything changes with greater value placed on supplies of all types. With the limited movement of units and the more defensive nature of the war, the risk of losing vehicles and munitions decreased - only the occasional raid would result in the enemy gaining anything significant.

[kato13]

Trucks moving back from the front are likely to be carrying less than those moving forward, however they will by no means be empty. Casualty evacuation, movement of damaged equipment and vehicles rearward for repair, some enemy equipment (minimal in my opinion), and so on are all vital to continued military operations.
.

Given it take something like a half a ton of consumables per US soldier per week, I really do think most trucks will be returning empty. I cannot fathom the above mentioned reaching anywhere near those levels.

[Legbreaker]

Ah, there's your problem! You're talking US soldiers!

In the rest of the world we have to make do with about a tenth that much.

[kato13]

Well there still will be empty trucks.

Dunnigan's "How to make war" has US and Soviet Division needing similar tonnage (about a maximum 40% variance) of material. It is not 10 to one. For both it ends up being in the range of 2000 tons per day.

(OT Does anyone have the Third Edition of the above mentioned book. I think the US and Soviet divisions are flip flopped as it has the Sovs using more fuel and the US units using more ammo.
Figure 23-1 page 472.)

[Raellus]

Combat vehicles, besides a few units retained for intel, SF units, etc, are almost sure to be destroyed as there is no guarenteed logistical support for them and the risk of them being recaptured by their original owners (with intact and hopefully effective supply train) tends to outweigh the benefits.

Yes, there is support. East Germany had its own modest arms industry and could undoubtedly keep former GDR units supplied with PACT ammo and probably spare parts. They manufactured their own AKM clone for Pete's sake!

There's way more historical precedents for keeping captured heavy gear than destroying it. If you're using the two Iraq wars as evidence for the assertion that captured enemy gear would be "almost sure to be destroyed", those are exceptions that prove the rule. Most of the Iraqi captured Iraqi stuff that was destroyed in place was either...

a.) Already damaged
b.) A piece of crap (i.e. Chinese APCs and copies of T-54/55s)
c.) Feared to be re-manned by Fedayeen fighters
d.) Shot up by coalition gunners keen to try out their big guns in action

A lot of Iraqi stuff was kept for intel purposes or to be used as OPFOR vehicles at the NTC or given over to the reconstructed Iraqi army. I've seen Soviet AFVs that I presume were nicked from the Iraqi army (in desert cammo) on flatbed truck trailers on the highway here in Tucson, AZ! Aside from those that were captured and exported to and used by Syria, there are hundreds of WWII German AFVs in Museums all over the U.S., UK, Russia, and elsewhere. And this from an army that was chronically understrength in armor.

In all of my reading, the only evidence of any kind of order to systematically destroy captured material, especially big-ticket items like AFVs, is when it was feared that an enemy counterattack could retake it.

If you can find evidence of a policy of destroying captured vehicles (aside from the standing order in the afore mentioned case of the Fedayeen scare), then I'll accept your assertion. On many levels, it makes no sense to destroy perfectly good PACT gear given the arguments already presented here by myself and others. Honestly, in the absense of hard evidence, it seems like you're arguing this point just to be contrarian.

[Legbreaker]

10 to 1 might be a little extreme in some cases, but it's certainly believable for the units I was in.
Most of the time we were foot mobile with only one 4 tonne truck, two 110 landrovers and two trailers assigned to a company of about 110 men. The Battalion motorpool had more vehicles, but only enough to transport one company at a time with a handful of vehicles left over. Fuel requirements therefore weren't anywhere near as high as in a mechanised or armoured unit.

Ammunition and food are the two main supply items for any infantry unit and I just can't see any one soldier needing more than about a hundred kilos total even in heavy combat. Rockets, mortars and other miscellaneous equipment might push requirements up to about 200kg, but this would leave the soliders in relative luxury.

1000kg of supplies per soldier is just plain excessive and wasteful. It would have to include pizza's helicoptered in, prefab buildings in the basecamps, entertainment, and about a million other things not actually contributing to combat capability. In a T2K environment all of these things could, and would be stripped away to allow the available support units to concentrate on maintaining combat effectiveness.

All that is truely needed to keep fighting is bullets and food. Everything else is secondary.

[fightingflamingo]

there will definately be some empty trucks or at least space on some partially loaded trucks with space moving to the rear. IMO a key item being moved to the rear by both sides will be EPW, and at different stages the volume of EPW could be very heavy.
Damaged vehicles and large equipment being moved to the rear won't be moved by to the rear by supply vehicles so much as by wreckers or flatbed/tank transporters used to move replacement vehicles to assemble area's behind the main battle area.

in 1996 through 1997, these truck crews will be worked very hard, especially during periods of active nonattritional campaigning. The rate of consumable expenditure in heavy formations (Armor & Mechanized) will be particularly high, somewhat lower but still very high in motorized formations. In Europe there aren't that many true light infantry formations present (meaning those without organic wheeled transportation), but those present will still have high ammunition expenditure, even if their fuel expenditure is lower (they still have some organic vehicles).

I know the WP planned to put a substantial number of trucks from the civilian economy into military service during wartime to support their logistical needs. I do not know if NATO had similar plans, but it seems reasonable that they might use trucking drawn from the civilian economy under contract to move containerized supplies from the ports in Holland & Denmark, to Logistics Supply Bases in Germany where the supplies would be sorted, then picked up by tactical vehicles for transport to units in the battle area. These Logistics Supply Bases would move forward from Germany into the DDR, and possibly Western Poland as the Battle Area moves East in summer of 1997, then back as the WP regains lost ground in Poland. They should be early deep targets in the tactical nuclear exchange. The LSB's would service differenent classes of supply primarily, but will also be cross loaded with all classes of supply in various degree's. Once the tactical exchange begins, they break down and disperse as they inviting targets for tactical nukes, which will add ineffeciency to the logistics system even if the dispersed sites escape destruction. A further consideration would be the quality of the road networks in the DDR & Poland and their ability to sustain high volumes of heavy truck traffic. I've been to Poland a few times and I see the road network there impairing both the attacker and defender...

[Legbreaker]

Yes, there is support. East Germany had its own modest arms industry and could undoubtedly keep former GDR units supplied with PACT ammo and probably spare parts.
This I was unaware of. However, I would think that these factories would only be usable in the initial stages of the war. They may also have been subject to sabotage by Pact forces once the East German betrayal became known.

Why would they only be operation in the intial stages? Because to begin with they were on the front line, then later the front line was pushed back to these industrial areas during the 1997 counter offensive. From late 1997 onwards much of eastern Germany (and western Poland) was a warzone and if not on the front lines, very close to them and subject to raiding, etc.

What was or was not destroyed is something that is sure to vary from situaiton to situation. If a value was perceived then the items would be preserved. If they posed a potential hazard, then as in Iraq (example C), they'd be destroyed. In V1 there's a much highly likelyhood of salvage than in V2. It's up to the individual GM to decide how much, where, and when in my opinion.

All any of us can do is guess and hypothesize based on previous examples which don't really compare to a theorectical WWIII.

As far as saving equipment for the purpose of rebuilding a Polish army, I find that to be very low on the list of priorities. Poland may now be a part of Nato, but in T2K they were very much part of the WP. A large percentage of Poles living in western Poland speak German as a native language so I would think that volunteers from these regions would be intergrated into the German army rather than a whole new national force set up. Those from the eastern regions would more likely find themselves shipped of into internment camps than given a weapon and sent in to fight.

Yes, there would possibly be political considerations such as the West wanting to set up what would be effectively a puppet government with a small military force, but once the nukes flew, this idea would be as dead as the dodo - politics have no place on a nuclear battlefield. The propaganda value of such a move would be extremely limited once communications networks failed - little point in trying such a thing if those it's targeted at aren't able to receive the message.

[Legbreaker]

There will definately be some empty trucks or at least space on some partially loaded trucks with space moving to the rear. IMO a key item being moved to the rear by both sides will be EPW, and at different stages the volume of EPW could be very heavy.
Damaged vehicles and large equipment being moved to the rear won't be moved by to the rear by supply vehicles so much as by wreckers or flatbed/tank transporters used to move replacement vehicles to assemble area's behind the main battle area.

This is a VERY good point and ties in to the tank transporter thread http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=1390
The average supply truck might be empty, but the vehicles capable of shifting the heavy loads aren't going to be all that available...

[copeab]

(OT Does anyone have the Third Edition of the above mentioned book. I think the US and Soviet divisions are flip flopped as it has the Sovs using more fuel and the US units using more ammo.
Figure 23-1 page 472.)

I have the 3e. It indeed lists the Soviets as using more fuel and the US using more ammo. On p.473 it notes that Other Western armies tend to use even more ammo than the US.

[fightingflamingo]

Regarding an alternative NATO aligned Polish government, we should all keep in mind that the Polish Government in Exile, continued to hold cabinet meetings and was located in London throughout the Cold War, until their turned over their instruments of power (a copy of the original constitiution of the 2nd Polish Republic, among other things). That government could bee seen as a legitimate government by some people in Poland and garnish some support there since it maintained continuity with the pre WWII Polish government.

another thing to consider is that IMHO nuclear weapons (even tactical ones) are more political weapons than true military weapons considering all the implications of their use. An example of this is the political not neccisarily military need to respond warhead for warhead during the early part of the tactical exchange (although military needs should have played into the targeting).

[kato13]

I have the 3e. It indeed lists the Soviets as using more fuel and the US using more ammo. On p.473 it notes that Other Western armies tend to use even more ammo than the US.

I do think they must be flipped as IMO the Sovs would need more artillery munitions and the US would need more fuel.

[fightingflamingo]

One thing to keep in mind is that US divisions at peactime strength are larger than Soviet divisions of the same type, so that plays into the consumption rates. Soviet divisions have more tubes, but the US divisions (at least the mechanized ones) have the Artillery support vehicles and throw more rounds down range faster per mission, so that may balance out... US division have more support vehicles, in addition to the combat vehicles, plus an aviation brigade in every division so it's a no brainer that the fuel consumption would be higher...

[Abbott Shaull]

Well there still will be empty trucks.

Dunnigan's "How to make war" has US and Soviet Division needing similar tonnage (about a maximum 40% variance) of material. It is not 10 to one. For both it ends up being in the range of 2000 tons per day.

(OT Does anyone have the Third Edition of the above mentioned book. I think the US and Soviet divisions are flip flopped as it has the Sovs using more fuel and the US units using more ammo.
Figure 23-1 page 472.)
You have to remember this is no trucking company where they make more money to keep cargo hold loaded as they move. So yeah some will return to the rear supply dump empty, no big deal. Besides they use less fuel while empty too.

[Abbott Shaull]

10 to 1 might be a little extreme in some cases, but it's certainly believable for the units I was in.
Most of the time we were foot mobile with only one 4 tonne truck, two 110 landrovers and two trailers assigned to a company of about 110 men. The Battalion motorpool had more vehicles, but only enough to transport one company at a time with a handful of vehicles left over. Fuel requirements therefore weren't anywhere near as high as in a mechanised or armoured unit.

Ammunition and food are the two main supply items for any infantry unit and I just can't see any one soldier needing more than about a hundred kilos total even in heavy combat. Rockets, mortars and other miscellaneous equipment might push requirements up to about 200kg, but this would leave the soliders in relative luxury.

1000kg of supplies per soldier is just plain excessive and wasteful. It would have to include pizza's helicoptered in, prefab buildings in the basecamps, entertainment, and about a million other things not actually contributing to combat capability. In a T2K environment all of these things could, and would be stripped away to allow the available support units to concentrate on maintaining combat effectiveness.

All that is truely needed to keep fighting is bullets and food. Everything else is secondary.

Well the Battalion of the 82nd Airborne Division were similar equipped. There were enough to motorized on company in a pinch, but we largely still foot mobile. Not all US combat units were Mechanized and Armor equip. Up until the conversion of what was left of the Light Infantry that were from the remains of the 6th ID and the 25th ID that were merged into the 25th Division which now has 3 Stryker Brigades and 1 Airborne Brigade were similar equipped.

Honestly the logistical units during both Iraqi wars were overtaxed and they were using numbers that were near what was quoted. The fighting that was speculated to have happen in Europe and even in Korea would push the limit. It is why so much equipment was pre-positioned throughout Europe. While after the initial invasion in 2003, the logistical had eased up a bit too. Lot of the rules and thinking is geared to Heavy Mechanized/Armor warfare.

I think we have case where people are trying to compare apples to oranges...

[kato13]

1000kg of supplies per soldier is just plain excessive and wasteful. It would have to include pizza's helicoptered in, prefab buildings in the basecamps, entertainment, and about a million other things not actually contributing to combat capability. In a T2K environment all of these things could, and would be stripped away to allow the available support units to concentrate on maintaining combat effectiveness.

That 1000kg includes fuel, ammo, food and spares for a mechanized unit. For the US 60% is fuel 37% is ammo 1% is food and 2% are spares. Soviet Units flip flop fuel and ammo but are similar.

[Abbott Shaull]

This I was unaware of. However, I would think that these factories would only be usable in the initial stages of the war. They may also have been subject to sabotage by Pact forces once the East German betrayal became known.

Why would they only be operation in the intial stages? Because to begin with they were on the front line, then later the front line was pushed back to these industrial areas during the 1997 counter offensive. From late 1997 onwards much of eastern Germany (and western Poland) was a warzone and if not on the front lines, very close to them and subject to raiding, etc.

What was or was not destroyed is something that is sure to vary from situaiton to situation. If a value was perceived then the items would be preserved. If they posed a potential hazard, then as in Iraq (example C), they'd be destroyed. In V1 there's a much highly likelyhood of salvage than in V2. It's up to the individual GM to decide how much, where, and when in my opinion.

All any of us can do is guess and hypothesize based on previous examples which don't really compare to a theorectical WWIII.

As far as saving equipment for the purpose of rebuilding a Polish army, I find that to be very low on the list of priorities. Poland may now be a part of Nato, but in T2K they were very much part of the WP. A large percentage of Poles living in western Poland speak German as a native language so I would think that volunteers from these regions would be intergrated into the German army rather than a whole new national force set up. Those from the eastern regions would more likely find themselves shipped of into internment camps than given a weapon and sent in to fight.

Yes, there would possibly be political considerations such as the West wanting to set up what would be effectively a puppet government with a small military force, but once the nukes flew, this idea would be as dead as the dodo - politics have no place on a nuclear battlefield. The propaganda value of such a move would be extremely limited once communications networks failed - little point in trying such a thing if those it's targeted at aren't able to receive the message.

Many Poles from western Poland one could point out they are ethnically Germans to begin with, since most of western Poland use to be part of Germany before the end of WWII.

As for the former NVA units. I suspect after a while, you will find West and East German Division exchanging Brigades. There would be two reasons for this.

1st off to help bring the new combined unified army command.

2nd off there are times when the wrong equipment is sent to the wrong unit. If you had units in the Division with a good mix of equipment, even if only certain units of the Division could use what they had in the division supply depot, at least the entire unit wouldn't be put out of the action. Next member of those who knew how to use the equipment could be sent to help bring members in other units that didn't know how to use it, to teach them how it works, even if the new unit were exactly sure how they worked entirely....

[fightingflamingo]

after WWII most of the ethnic Germans were deported from Pomerania & Silesia into the DDR and FRG by the Polish Peoples Republic, that is not to say all of them but the vast majority of them are gone. There was considerable support for the Polish Government in Exile however throughout the Cold War in Poland, although it maintained little relevancy.

On mixing brigades among NVA and Bundeswehr divisions, IMO this would not be done because of the strain it would place on logistics and maintenance units, since they start out as two seperate armies they have seperate logistical tails. IMHO they would continue to be fed by their prewar support formations, instead of mixing it up. At least for as long as that remains practical...

[Abbott Shaull]

One thing to keep in mind is that US divisions at peactime strength are larger than Soviet divisions of the same type, so that plays into the consumption rates. Soviet divisions have more tubes, but the US divisions (at least the mechanized ones) have the Artillery support vehicles and throw more rounds down range faster per mission, so that may balance out... US division have more support vehicles, in addition to the combat vehicles, plus an aviation brigade in every division so it's a no brainer that the fuel consumption would be higher...

The Soviet Division was about two-thirds the size of their US counterpart. In the version one, the Soviet Divisions that had 8000 men would be almost staffed to prewar Cat B levels.

One of the many things the Soviets had planned on was to strip it population all vehicles. This was to make all Motorized Rifle Division indeed Motorized, as well as to help bring supplies to the front. Many of the Cat C and almost all Mobilized Only Motorized Rifle Division had only one Regiment worth of equipment that the TO&Es called for. The other two Regiments would get what ever they could liberate. These Regiments would be basically glorified motorized light infantry. Many of these units would be used for occupational duty if things went correctly.

Just some thoughts.

[Abbott Shaull]

after WWII most of the ethnic Germans were deported from Pomerania & Silesia into the DDR and FRG by the Polish Peoples Republic, that is not to say all of them but the vast majority of them are gone. There was considerable support for the Polish Government in Exile however throughout the Cold War in Poland, although it maintained little relevancy.

On mixing brigades among NVA and Bundeswehr divisions, IMO this would not be done because of the strain it would place on logistics and maintenance units, since they start out as two seperate armies they have seperate logistical tails. IMHO they would continue to be fed by their prewar support formations, instead of mixing it up. At least for as long as that remains practical...

You quite correct that many Germans were moved willingly or by force, but like there are parts east of Poland that would traditionally be Polish, and there are location are some still living in those regions that would consider their family Polish.

As for the mixing, you are right. For the first year this would not happen, but after 1997 it would be done as thing started to break down. One has to remember when the East and West Germany were reunited in real life, any one above the rank of Major was let go from the who served in the East German Army as soon as possible. I am sure the same think would happen after 1997 in the original time line. Lot of these people would of be been killed during the first couple weeks/months due to close quarters with their former Soviet Allies. I am sure West German High Command would be installed as replacements. As for swaps this would be done after sometime in 1998 and beyond. By then there divisions from both sides were integrated into each German Corps. With the way supply lines were becoming a trickle at best it would be a way for each Division to be somewhat self sufficient in using capture supplies. By this time too logistical speaking it would be nightmare, since you find units with equipment from all major allies intermix by the very nature of the way the war was conducted, and how units seem to be able to 'find' needed equipment laying around when no one is looking....

It is also another way with unit conducting marauder raids. I can see some old East German raiding old rival West German unit and vise versa. With how the Germany was united in the canon of version 1 it leaves so many issue that the creator weren't able to resolve on what would actually happen, they left it as both sides were at shotgun wedding and the West German Command was the groom, and everyone lived happily ever after. Just looking at it realistically.

[Abbott Shaull]

Another advantage of intermixing the German units after 1998 would be also that for the former East German units they are fighting for their Homeland.

Another reason for integrating the units too is to show each side that they were now working as one Army.

Just some thought.

[fightingflamingo]

V1 suggests or states that the reunification of German was planned by the higher level staff's of both the East & West German Armies. We have to remember the historical anomosity between Germans and the Slavic people isn't something that the Nazi's invented for WWII, and we have to remember that it went both ways. IMHO, the treatment of WP troops(and more specifically the NVA) by the SU as canon fodder in China, may have had a racial/ethnic tone at the command level which pushed the NVA command into the arms of the west.

other than that, I think that there is largely agreement...

[Legbreaker]

I tend to agree that there will be friction between East and West German units, especially in the early stages. Up until the unification occured, only a small number of officers knew something was even happening, so it'd be no suprise if many of the lower ranks, and a few in the higher, took exception and caused a bit of trouble. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine whole units defecting back to the Soviets (certainly make for an interesting story).

These defections might not have been widespread, but after several generations of propaganda on the part of their soviet "masters", ancient enmity might play less of a role than modern influences.

After a year or so of the war, these "defectors" might number less and less as they realise the west wasn't as evil as they were originally told.

[Abbott Shaull]

I agree whole heartedly .
Soldiers on all levels mismanage or slack on maintenance and gear gets worn out faster . Here is a thought - how many rounds is a certain gun barrel projected to take before its worn out / scatters like a shotgun ? Both arty and small arms have this problem - a problem compounded by poor maintenance and lack of parts and or lubricants.

I remember the instructors at our Academy saying that our (A)G3 rifles were good for app 7500 rounds before initial accuracy was reduced.After app double /triple that the gun would be deemed ready for the melting ovens.

Now bear in mind that firing on the practice range is included- a rifle will not be able to take more than a few years before worn out .

You know it amazing that the M16A1 we used in Basic training were even worthy of sighting...

[Abbott Shaull]

I tend to agree that there will be friction between East and West German units, especially in the early stages. Up until the unification occured, only a small number of officers knew something was even happening, so it'd be no suprise if many of the lower ranks, and a few in the higher, took exception and caused a bit of trouble. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine whole units defecting back to the Soviets (certainly make for an interesting story).

These defections might not have been widespread, but after several generations of propaganda on the part of their soviet "masters", ancient enmity might play less of a role than modern influences.

After a year or so of the war, these "defectors" might number less and less as they realise the west wasn't as evil as they were originally told.

Yes, I do believe at the out set one would see certain units staying with the Pact. The thing is once the initial fighting happens, much like the US and UK Brigades that were based in Berlin, many of the East German units will be in the worse of the fighting. Even those units that didn't want to defect to the West, could be attacked out of hand by the Soviets just because other units of the East German had already acted hostile to Pact forces. I see any East German command and control assets that weren't destroyed before the US, UK, Canada and other allied unit came to the aid of the Germans, needing to be refit badly. Many of the East German Division would basically have to be rebuilt up and reorganized as well many West German Division.

At which time the NATO goes on the offensive in 1997, the Germans will be re-tasking Divisions with Brigades that were capable of taking on offensive abilities. I remember the 5th US Mechanized Division in the back story for the Black Madona module being attached to German Corps. The East German Divisions were at the start the war for all practical purposes organized similar to Soviet Division. I would think that the German High Command would of took time to re-organize the former East German Division more into line of those West regardless of the difference of equipment. Also the East German units would have to learn new tactics too.

One of the things that I always found lacking by GDW was the lack of back story of units of allies on both sides. I mean they did decent job with the Czeckaslavokia sort of, German sort of, Polish more so than the previous two, as well the US and Soviet Union. With the total lack of local Air Force(s) as well as the many security forces that may be encountered, and didn't mention much about Naval or River patrols much either. I know by 2000 many of these units were out of the picture, but they never fully explained how personnel was used.

Which is one of the reason why, some people go with the flow with canon while other work with what they believe would happen and throw everything else out.

Just some thoughts.

[Abbott Shaull]

As a matter of fact, I do remember reading somewhere in version 1. That not all East German units had defected to the West German. Some units were more active at the start, while other commanders simply choose to stay in their barracks, making their force sitting ducks, until the Soviet forced them to take action. I don't remember if this was in the Going Home module or in the original game set where I had read this.

Also I don't many of the Border Guard units would of defected to the West. These probably would of been the units the Soviet built up their German forces around. These forces were probably grounded out of existence as punishment for the bulk of the East German military defection to the West Germany.

One thing one has to remember the Soviets, didn't hold their Pact allies in high regard in how they would be re-equipped or brought up to strength. These units would get supplies, but as an after thought. They were to help pave the way so their units would have easier time. One just has to look at the Polish 7th(?) Marine Division and Polish 6th Airborne Division. Both of these units were very capable by all accounts in training. The Marine Division I believe was to be assigned to the Front that was to take Denmark, and as such was kept at near full strength. While the 6th due to action in the early 1980 where they didn't perform as they should during riots in and near Krakow where they reduced to little more than Brigade by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think it's worth stating that GDW didn't design Twilight to be about the units that survived WW3, it was about a small group of people (the player characters) surviving in the ruins of WW3. As such, there was no need for them to overly detail all the military units that survived because those units would have been either friendly, neutral or hostile to the PCs - they were part of the backdrop and not the main focus until the referee needed them to interact with the PCs. The PCs were always meant to be the main focus and the game was deliberately designed to give the players a fun world to game in.

[Legbreaker]

Well said Stainless.

But there is something fun about arguing back and forth on the bigger picture. :P

[jester]

I actualy wish there was more information on such units in the campaign. Why do you ask?

More detail on East German or Polish Paras and other ELITE units so we can throw some bad a$$ enemies at the PCS! I am a firm beleiver in keeping the PCs afraid and even developing some lasting enemies that make them afraid, but also seeking revenge when they encounter them.

[Webstral]

I do think they must be flipped as IMO the Sovs would need more artillery munitions and the US would need more fuel.

Dunnigan's assumptions may be based on Soviet forces being on the attack and US forces being on the defensive. A Soviet tank division has more tanks, and while on a per-tank basis the Abrams is more of a fuel hog, the defender can sit with his engines off for longer (in a grossly overgeneralized sense). I'm not quite sure why US formations would be less consumptive of ammuntion, though. The Soviets planned massive bombardments. It could be that it was assumed that US guns would stay in action more continuously than their Soviet counterparts, given the superior ability of the US logistical system to keep ammunition moving to the big guns. On the other hand, all that movement of large-caliber ammunition would burn fuel, wouldn't it?

Webstral

[copeab]

Dunnigan's assumptions may be based on Soviet forces being on the attack and US forces being on the defensive.


No, he breaks down fuel and ammo required for various situations (attack, defense, pursuit, etc) and I think in all cases the Soviets required more fuel and less ammo. A few pages before the table he notes that Soviet divisions tend to carry more fuel and ammo than NATO divisions since they expected more of a resupply problem.

[Targan]

I am a firm beleiver in keeping the PCs afraid and even developing some lasting enemies that make them afraid, but also seeking revenge when they encounter them.
My all time favourite two sessions in my last T2K campaign were when Major Po and his original small band of hard core killers snuck into Lublin, planted their tac nuke and, as they withdrew, were pursued by a Spetznaz group which had been hunting them for several months. The level of suspense was awesome, not least due to the knowledge by both sides that had they engaged in a final, pitched battle it would be brutal and absolutely no quarter would be given.

In the end the deciding factor was about 2.5 kilometers. That was how much closer to the nuke blast the Spetznaz were when it went off. Also the Spetznaz were in the open while Po's group were hiding in a ditch.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Well said Stainless.

But there is something fun about arguing back and forth on the bigger picture. :P

Well yes, I tend to not think of that aspect, I suppose I'm a bit stale in the brain at times.


As for getting more information on particular units to use them as enemies for the pc group, any good book could supply that information, it isn't necessary for the game company to supply that information

[copeab]

As for getting more information on particular units to use them as enemies for the pc group, any good book could supply that information, it isn't necessary for the game company to supply that information

Admittedly, though, certain information from Merc 2000 would have been useful in T2K (such as squad and platoon TO&E of selected nations),

[jester]

My all time favourite two sessions in my last T2K campaign were when Major Po and his original small band of hard core killers snuck into Lublin, planted their tac nuke and, as they withdrew, were pursued by a Spetznaz group which had been hunting them for several months. The level of suspense was awesome, not least due to the knowledge by both sides that had they engaged in a final, pitched battle it would be brutal and absolutely no quarter would be given.

In the end the deciding factor was about 2.5 kilometers. That was how much closer to the nuke blast the Spetznaz were when it went off. Also the Spetznaz were in the open while Po's group were hiding in a ditch.

Thats brutal! I love it!

I have a team of Naval Spetzies chase the PC's throughout their campaign even when they slipped into France with the local Mil Gov contact and safe house. LOL!!! The PCs had accepted a woman into their ranks who turned out to be a Spetzie officer, they "rescued" her and then she became the girlfreind of one of the units leaders. In the end she let loose with the diplomate with a HK CAW and then ran out the back door of the not so safe house to a waiting car. From that point, the PCs were a bit more paranoid of ALL people including those they rescued.

LOL, I had the chick kill her 2nd in command and act like she was in the process of being violated when the PCs stormed their house. And they bought it :)

[Legbreaker]

Absolutely true. Not all enemy a PC group encounters are going to be disorganised rabble, and it's a bit more work than most of us want to do in the middle of a game to research the proper composition.

Still, we all struggled through this far. ;)

Of course by 2000, even regular professional units may no longer even superficially resemble their prewar makeup. A section/squad of 9-12 men which used to include one, maybe two light machineguns plus a grenade launcher or two is likely to number about half a dozen with a heavier emphasis on firepower. Some of those members might also be non-combat troops, or at least were in their last assignment, and sent into infantry units as replacements once their role as cook, clerk, band member, etc becomes irrelevant.

Regardless of nationality, I would expect a commander would want approximately half his infantry with automatic weapons capable of sustained fire (ie belt fed or extended mags) and the other half armed with grenade launchers or similar explosive type weapons. This would go some way towards countering the lack of personell, but the loss of even a simgle soldier would significantly downgrade the units effectiveness. Unfortunately smaller units also mean less flexability - less able to split into teams and attack a position for several angles, etc...

[Targan]

LOL, I had the chick kill her 2nd in command and act like she was in the process of being violated when the PCs stormed their house. And they bought it :)

Wow, she sounds like a truly cold, hard bitch. I love it!

[copeab]

Wow, she sounds like a truly cold, hard bitch. I love it!

The worst I've done was inflict Lilith on a party.

Yes, that Lilith.

:)

[Raellus]

Of course by 2000, even regular professional units may no longer even superficially resemble their prewar makeup. A section/squad of 9-12 men which used to include one, maybe two light machineguns plus a grenade launcher or two is likely to number about half a dozen with a heavier emphasis on firepower. Some of those members might also be non-combat troops, or at least were in their last assignment, and sent into infantry units as replacements once their role as cook, clerk, band member, etc becomes irrelevant.

Very good assessment.


Regardless of nationality, I would expect a commander would want approximately half his infantry with automatic weapons capable of sustained fire (ie belt fed or extended mags) and the other half armed with grenade launchers or similar explosive type weapons. This would go some way towards countering the lack of personell, but the loss of even a simgle soldier would significantly downgrade the units effectiveness. Unfortunately smaller units also mean less flexability - less able to split into teams and attack a position for several angles, etc...

Although I agree in principle, I'm not sure this would work since ammo would be a lot harder to come by in later years (at least good ammo*). I think there would be a greater emphasis on fire discipline and marksmanship than on high volume of fire. Having three SAWs, two M203s, and two GMPGs in a 9-man squad wouldn't be very practical with ammo limited. No longer could a unit expend a few thousand rounds of ammo to kill a single enemy soldier (I've read in a couple of places that in the Vietnam War, the Americans expended something like 10,0000 rounds per enemy KIA).

This is where picking up enemy weapons and ammo might become SOP. I'd think that the RPK and PKM series would become very popular with NATO units.

*In quite a few T2K games I've seen or been involved with, ammo produced after '97 is sub par- causing more frequent misfires, jams, fouling, etc. This seems realistic to me.

[chico20854]

Regardless of nationality, I would expect a commander would want approximately half his infantry with automatic weapons capable of sustained fire (ie belt fed or extended mags) and the other half armed with grenade launchers or similar explosive type weapons. This would go some way towards countering the lack of personell, but the loss of even a single soldier would significantly downgrade the units effectiveness.

As long as you didn't have to clear a building... if I had a squad with RPKs, GPMGs/M-60s and M-203s I'd be real reluctant to have them trying to pop around corners real quick! (And much of the battlefield late in the war would be in urban/ruins). Add in the burden of pulling endless guard mounts with a GPMG. While there are firepower arguments for going real heavy, there are "soldiering" concerns for doing otherwise. Of course, there might be enough excess weapons to go both ways... when I was in Bosnia I carried a M-9 around the base, a M-4 or M-16 on most trips outside the wire, unless we were "hunting for bear" and went out with 3 SAWs, 3 M-9s and a M-16/203 per HMMWV.

[Webstral]

There's a reason the M16A2 and later models have a BURST function instead of an AUTO function.

Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

There's a reason the M16A2 and later models have a BURST function instead of an AUTO function.

Webstral

I agree. The Mad Minute philosophy died a proper death (at least when I was in; I don't know if it's come back today). And I would think that as ammo supplies dwindle, there would be an even bigger accent on marksmanship over volume of fire.

[Legbreaker]

All vaild points.

Note however that I doubt 9+ man sections/squads would be possible in most cases with a more likely number of 5-6 being the norm. This means 2 maybe 3 LSW's (M249, RPK, perhaps an M60 or MAG, etc) and the rest with an M16/M203, AK/BG-15, etc type weapons.

Yes, there may be a shortage of grenades, but small arms ammo should, at least in larger units, be in relatively plentiful supply. It might not be top quality, but I've personally had no problems with reloaded ammo over the years, even brass that's been reused half a dozen or more times.

I also agree that "buckets of bullets" is NOT the way to go - anything that is not equiped with at least a bippod should be firing single, well aimed (hopefully) shots and any burst or full auto feature should only be used in very close quarters (buildings, etc) or in the intial moments of a contact by the scout/pointman.

These lighter weapons (excluding SMGs obviously) simply aren't designed for high volumes of accurate fire, something I think the V2 rules show rather well for a very simplified system.

[Targan]

I also agree that "buckets of bullets" is NOT the way to go - anything that is not equiped with at least a bippod should be firing single, well aimed (hopefully) shots and any burst or full auto feature should only be used in very close quarters (buildings, etc) or in the intial moments of a contact by the scout/pointman.

From my personal POV I couldn't agree more. Of course, most of my trigger time was with the SLR so for me aiming was everything. And you only need one hit with 7.62mmN to send your target off to the Big Sleep.

[Abbott Shaull]

I think by 2000, while troop were at their base many of them would carry Assault Rifle/Carbine/SMG/Pistol for personal protection. The Machine gun and heavier equipment would be secured for safety reason, even though there would be location in the area where heavy weapons would be emplace and staff for security reasons.

Remember before the war, when units went to to the rifle range, everyone had assault rifle of their own to use. I am sure it will not be much different after the fighting start. One thing that both Persian Gulf conflicts, operations in Afghanistan, and other conflicts of the last 60 years have shown. There is no Front line. It more of region where enemy troops can show up at any time, much like the famous SAS raids they pulled off in Africa in WWII.

By 2000 for Squad/Platoon element I don't see maybe 1 Automatic Rifle per squad and 1 Machine Gun per platoon due to the reduction of size of many Squads/Platoon. Even I can see some Automatic Rifle being pressed into service as the Platoon Machine Gun role. While some Company would consolidate the Machine Guns into MG platoons. Especially light units that are in static situations. As for when in firefights I wouldn't think many troops would be using full auto option, and those on Machine guns and Sub Machine guns would use burst. Only time they would do rock and roll auto would be if a unit was in position where they would be overrun.

As for units with the means to being mobile they seemed to always have a lot more toys than the standard Light Infantry unit. If IIRC the Mechanized Platoons had access to M-60 later M240s and other weapons that were stored on their vehicles. It one of the advantages when you don't have to carry all your equipment.

Even Motorized units will be able to carry more weapons with to use if they were needed. I seem to remember reading something about MP units operating in HMMWV. How a six man unit was expected to operate out one. Also US Special Forces and SAS have mobile units that use HMMWV/Land Rovers that are used to transport other units to the field.

I also see to some extent Submachine Guns making their way back down to squad level, especially unit operating in urban area/ruins. These would be easier for urban combat. As well as various shotguns which when I was in we never used unless were were on guard duty at the Battalion Motor Pool when the Battalion was DRF-1.

[Webstral]

I also see to some extent Submachine Guns making their way back down to squad level, especially unit operating in urban area/ruins. These would be easier for urban combat. As well as various shotguns which when I was in we never used unless were were on guard duty at the Battalion Motor Pool when the Battalion was DRF-1.

Easily-manufactured and -maintained SMG like the Soviet PPsh-41 would predominate. Overall, I think post-Exchange small arms would tend towards weapons like the PPsh-41 SMG, the Mossberg 500 12-gauge shotgun, the Winchester 1873 rifle, and Springfield 1903 rifle. Obviously, these weapons are examples of the types of weapons that post-Exchange manufacturers might favor over the more complex M16 variety. Perhaps MilGov or someone else opens an SKS or Ak-47 line. Certainly any cantonment with the ability to mass-produce any type of small arms will want to manufacture its own rifles for long-range duty, plus shotguns and SMG for short-range work.

Webstral

[StainlessSteelCynic]

You'd want to find a place like Suhl in eastern Germany, a town with a history of metal processing and firearms manufacture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suhl
Hopefully you could find tools and even people with the right skills there.

[Abbott Shaull]

Many of the Sub-Machine Gun designs that were used in WWII would be making their way back into production on the limited basis since they were machined stamped. Same with civilian weapons will be made more likely than not too.

Don't forget the shotguns can serve a double purpose for use in hunting too.

I am sure by 2000 the service life of many of weapons system would be toward the end of their usefulness. Many would want to have something of to replacement. Remember in WWII there were enough units that had squads and platoon armed almost exclusive with Sub-Machine Guns on the Eastern Front. Done for two reason, one they were easiest to make, and all of the urban fighting that was encounter.

[copeab]

Many of the Sub-Machine Gun designs that were used in WWII would be making their way back into production on the limited basis since they were machined stamped. Same with civilian weapons will be made more likely than not too.


Ammunition may also play a factor in the resurgence of SMGs. Pistol ammo requires much less gunpowder than a rifle round (frex, 9x19mm uses about 1/4 the powder of 5.56x45mm), which might be a factor in the T2K world (pistol bullets are heavier, but I would think lead is easier to acquire than smokeless powder).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Ammunition may also play a factor in the resurgence of SMGs. Pistol ammo requires much less gunpowder than a rifle round (frex, 9x19mm uses about 1/4 the powder of 5.56x45mm), which might be a factor in the T2K world (pistol bullets are heavier, but I would think lead is easier to acquire than smokeless powder).

Speaking of smokeless powder, here's some links to the various types that give some idea of what's required to make it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poudre_B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordite
And wiki also has a page on smokeless powders that mentions some of the additives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeless_powder

So even given the level of damage to a nations infrastructure due to the war, I think it would still be possible to manufacture a smokeless powder just as long as you could get the components. Cases would be available in their thousands and some cottage industry may be set up to scour battle sites to recover the cases, determine their usefulness, clean them and perhaps even resize them. Making primers isn't a major industrial process and casting lead certainly isn't.
The only real obstacle is making the propellant but given that they were able to manufacture it in the 1880s, I think the only hurdle is actually finding the ingredients. Nitric acid is going to be incredibly important but to make nitric acid you're probably going to need to make sulphuric acid.
An entire chemical industry will have to be built up but again, considering these things were all achievable with technology from the mid-1800s, it should be achievalble by a group with sufficient resources.

[Webstral]

An entire chemical industry will have to be built up but again, considering these things were all achievable with technology from the mid-1800s, it should be achievalble by a group with sufficient resources.

This is such an important factor that I want to underline it, despite the fact that everyone on this board knows it already. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think the gentlemen of GDW also understood that once the food situation sorted itself out, the other pieces would begin to fall into place for national recovery. Admittedly, the road to recovery would be long and painful; and a recovered nation would not necessarily look like its predecessor. Nevertheless, recovery loomed so likely that GDW came out with Howling Wilderness to preserve the chaos that they felt bred good gaming.

Webstral

[Targan]

This is such an important factor that I want to underline it, despite the fact that everyone on this board knows it already. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think the gentlemen of GDW also understood that once the food situation sorted itself out, the other pieces would begin to fall into place for national recovery. Admittedly, the road to recovery would be long and painful; and a recovered nation would not necessarily look like its predecessor. Nevertheless, recovery loomed so likely that GDW came out with Howling Wilderness to preserve the chaos that they felt bred good gaming.

Pockets of recovery with reasonably high tech (for a post apocalyptic world) industries, dotted among vast areas of depopulation or chaos, lawlessnes and neo-barbarism.

[Webstral]

I do believe that even in a recovery environment, there's plenty of opportunity for enterprising players to do their thing.

Regarding recovery, players can take part in answering a couple of key questions. Among the top few questions is "To co-opt or not to co-opt?" To a degree, warlords and "legitimate" governments are on the same side against marauders and other forces of chaos. How does one deal with the Sealord of Jacksonville? How does one deal with the United Brotherhood of Fishermen? Both groups have significant armed forces. Defeating them in the field (so to speak) might be the most desirable solution, but open combat might prove too costly for everyone involved. Player characters might have a role to play in determining the susceptibility of warlords to co-option and possible execution of said co-option.

I've been thinking about the above in reference to the Shogun in Nevada. Obviously, the Nevada survivors can't be left to his tender mercies. However, his motorized army does provide security for the majority of the survivors. If, for instance, in 2001 the 111th Brigade were to establish a logistical base at Kingman, then meet and defeat the Shogun's forces in battle, there's still the question of administering the territory. To a degree, the survivors could be counted upon to run their own affairs. Nevertheless, there is a steady stream of marauders attempting to encroach on the Shogun's territory. The Snake River is controlled by New America; they'd love to get their hands on the surviving population, agriculture, and industry of the I-80 corridor in northern Nevada. The 111th doesn't have the manpower to protect Nevada, even if the mobility issues can be solved. Is it better to knock out the Shogun and leave the locals to their own devices or leave the Shogun in place? Co-option, though a bitter pill for everyone to swallow, might be the most practical answer to the problem of reestablishing MilGov control over the Silver State.

Ditto the Mexicans in the Imperial Valley. Destroying Second Mexican Army or driving it out of California would be a stupendous undertaking--well beyond the capabilities of 111th Brigade. Co-option might be the only way of bringing the agricultural potential of the Imperial Valley back under American control. More bitter pills.

On the other hand, co-option could go another way entirely. If conventional warfare isn't likely to yield good results in a given area, given the corrrelation of forces, perhaps the player characters could fall back on the Special Forces role that figures promimently into the US-based modules. Surely Texas offers a rich bounty of possibilities, regardless of what is happening in Colorado. The same might be said of Alaska, large swaths of the South, and so on.

Webstral

[Targan]

Regarding recovery, players can take part in answering a couple of key questions. Among the top few questions is "To co-opt or not to co-opt?" To a degree, warlords and "legitimate" governments are on the same side against marauders and other forces of chaos. How does one deal with the Sealord of Jacksonville? How does one deal with the United Brotherhood of Fishermen? Both groups have significant armed forces. Defeating them in the field (so to speak) might be the most desirable solution, but open combat might prove too costly for everyone involved. Player characters might have a role to play in determining the susceptibility of warlords to co-option and possible execution of said co-option.

Just like back in the days of feudalism, various leaders/armed factions/groups will fall in and out of favour with the "authorities" and will at times be considered to have legitimacy while at other times will not.

[Legbreaker]

I am sure by 2000 the service life of many of weapons system would be toward the end of their usefulness.

I'm not convinced about that. In the hands of a decently trained soldier, a weapon should last thousands of rounds. Admittedly the war has been going on for a number of years, but I rather doubt there'd be many weapons, from pistols right up to the heavy artillery peices, that were involved in every action, let alone enough actions to wear them out.

Those recovered from the battlefield on the other hand may not be in as good a condition, some having possibly laid out in the elements for a substantial period of time.

I would therefore go on to say that a PC's issued weapon is likely to be in good condition (depending on training, etc), however addtional weaponry they've acquired, is more likely to be prone to problems.