Canon Germany to RDF tank transfer

[Olefin]

Just posted this on another thread but figured this deserves its own thread

If you look at the US vehicle guide versus the RDF guide you can see that tanks and helos must have been transferred from Germany to the RDF during the Omega evac - and since Omega said no tanks or heavy vehicles were loaded it proves a seperate evac

Here are the numbers

24th Mech
July 1, 2000 - 2000 men, 9 M1A2
Jan 1, 2001 - 4000 men, 18 AFV

101st

July 1, 2000 - 4000 men 4 AH-64
Jan 1, 2001 - 4000 men, 4 AH-64, 12 UH-60

9th ID

July 1, 2000 - 1500 men, 12 LAV-75
Jan 1, 2001 - 3000 men, 16 AFV

82nd
July 1, 2000 -3000 men, 7 AFV
Jan 1, 2001 - 3000 men 12 AFV

6th ACCB
July 1, 2000 - 600 men 12 AH-64
Jan 1, 2001 - 1100 men, 6 OH-58, 12 AH-64

1st Marine
July 1, 2000 - 3000 men, 6 M1
Jan 1, 2001 - 3000 men 16 AFV
3rd Marine
July 1, 2000 - 4000 men 5 M1
Jan 1, 2001 - 4000 men, 12 AFV

Add up the difference and what do you get

4000 men
35 AFV's
12 UH-60 helos
6 OH-58 helos

meaning 2000 men havent been accounted for yet in the formations or they took losses in men and AFV's between June and Jan and they were made up

So that makes a possible 3rd Armored Division transfer even more likely along with possibly the other 1000 men being assigned with the 18 helos

they had 5000 men and 54 AFV after all and that definitely would give the RDF the reinforcements seen above

and the remaining 2000 men and AFV's may not have arrived yet - its says the first of 6000 reinforcements arrived in Dec of 2000 - it doesnt say that they had all arrived

And dont say it was repaired tanks - they only had 39 in the whole theater in June and suddenly another 35 show up from repairs with no spare parts and no shipments from the US?

The only convoy that arrived in the time period per canon was from Europe per canon

So that proves that there was a canon evac of tanks and helos from Europe (and most likely artillery and other heavy weapons) that had nothing to do with the Omega evac

[Webstral]

Interesting! I haven't done anything with CENTCOM, so I never crunched any of the relevant numbers. Which source gives the Jan 1, 2001 numbers? (Sorry, I don't have any of my materials in front of me.)

[Webstral]

The fact is that some of the accounting has gaps. I’ve never really sweated it. The GDW guys had a big job, and this was before the Internet. I have always seen my job in regards to the Twilight: 2000 universe as deputy to the guys who created it. When the sheriff misses something, I do my best to catch it, smooth it over, or act in keeping with his philosophy to put things right.

Okay, so I said elsewhere that I was going to try to demonstrate how we used to do things here. Here goes:

The most important point I want to make is that I appreciate that you’re looking into the numbers, Olefin. I like the idea of some allowances being made for shipment of materiel from Europe to the Middle East in the wake of the failure of the Summer 2000 offensive. I’m not sure the argument in favor of an alternative Operation Omega is ironclad, though. There are some items that deserve consideration.

I’ve always wondered about the AFV v Tanks notation. I don’t agree that AFV numbers automatically means tanks. Not all AFV are tanks. I have wondered if GDW switched to giving AFV numbers because players weren’t assigning APC and IFV to the divisions listed in US Army Vehicle Guide because the notation didn’t strongly enough suggest their presence. I know that in at least one location in the v1 rules the authors state that numbers of tanks are given so that the referee will have some idea of how many lighter fighting vehicles should be assigned. Nonetheless, the creative team made the switch from listing strength in tanks to listing strength in AFV. I have operated under the assumption that giving a unit’s strength in AFV gives the referee more latitude to decide what kind of AFV are still in operation. The apparent increase in numbers of fighting vehicles in CENTCOM could simply be the inclusion of M2, M3, and M113 in the totals for the division.

… repaired tanks - they only had 39 in the whole theater in June and suddenly another 35 show up from repairs with no spare parts and no shipments from the US?

I have always believed that the US Army and the USMC would make every effort to recover damaged tanks. 24th ID likely has a depot with disabled vehicles that are cannibalized for parts. Every division probably has their own arrangement for storing nonoperational vehicles for salvage and for putting back into operation if parts become available. We should remember that most tank losses are the results of breakdowns. Under ideal conditions, almost all of these tanks are repaired and put back into action, though not always in the battle towards which they were moving when they broke down. After the Exchange, however, some types of breakdowns will permanently sideline the track. I’m no tanker, so I don’t know which types of breakdowns are the most common among the M1. I do know that even (or especially) a well-maintained tank unit experiences certain types of breakdowns more commonly than others. Some parts wear out more quickly than others. Lack of those parts can deadline otherwise mission capable tracks.

We know that Operation Omega didn’t allow room for much in the way of heavy equipment. I do remember from either RDF Sourcebook or King’s Ransom that 6,000 troops find their way from Europe to the Gulf. It’s possible that operational tracks in Germany were cannibalized for parts most needed in the Gulf. Even if we assume that AFV translates into MBT or LAV-75, we’re only talking about a battalion of tanks. The power plants for 35 tanks would be much easier to transport than the tanks themselves. If the problem parts were even smaller, they’d be even easier to transport.

Of course, what I’m suggesting might be interpreted to really annoy the Germans. We know they aren’t keen on having all those AFV moving off the front lines. If the Americans pull vital parts out and leave the tanks in a park at Bremerhaven, the Germans might take that pretty poorly. On the other hand, their ability to keep M1s in good repair isn’t promising. If the parts the Americans want to take are all mobility related, the M1s can be redistributed and dug in, just as the defense force of Krakow does with its immobile tanks. Whether they are running or not, the M1s almost certainly are going to go back to the front on tank carriers, not under their own power. So the Germans might not have an issue (to whatever degree the opinion of the Germans matters) with the Americans yanking the power plants, tracks, or other mobility assemblies for shipment to the Gulf.

An even simpler explanation is that the Americans set up in Germany an assembly line for making some of the parts most commonly needed by M1. The Germans have the right labor force and the right equipment base for this sort of thing. Production probably would not be at all impressive. However, the Americans might insist on having all of the stocks go with them before turning the facility over to the Germans. In this case, the Germans might be able to provide some maintenance for the M1s they inherit.

The helicopter discrepancies are harder to explain, although again the arrival of parts from Europe for grounded birds offers an option.

None of the foregoing is meant to imply that there can’t be a major shipment of machines to the Gulf. I am, however, saying that there are ways to explain the apparent discrepancies in the numbers between mid-2000 and the beginning of 2001 that don’t involve shipping large numbers of MBT from Germany to the Gulf.

[Panther Al]

Web, I would lean to the V2 vs. V1 as far as tanks/AFV's go to still mean tanks. I looked at the V2 USVG, and they break out only MBT's in the listings, so saying that its still a yard stick to measure how well equipped a unit is (1 tank usually means, say, 3 IFV's for example).

At least thats how I read it. :)

[kato13]

I’ve always wondered about the AFV v Tanks notation. I don’t agree that AFV numbers automatically means tanks.

A quick comparison between The V1 Sov Vehicle Guide and the V1 Rdf SourceBook shows the same counts for AFVs and Tanks. I would think the terms are interchangeable from that observation (as the manpower counts remain exactly the same for the 10 units I checked).

This is odd given they are 6 months apart, but is does show that US units grew while Soviet Units were static in terms of Heavy Vehicles.

[Legbreaker]

Thanks for the initial numbers Olefin, however there's some MASSIVE holes in your argument.

Firstly, both editions of the US Vehicle Guide only state number of tanks. The RDF Sourcebook lists numbers of AFVs.
The definition of an AFV, or as they are properly known, Armoured Fighting Vehicle is basically any vehicle with a weapon and armour of some kind. Technically, an armoured Humvee is considered an AFV - a far cry from being a tank...
Note also that OPORD OMEGA specifically states in the "mission" section that "Vehicles and heavy equipment will be transferred to FRG prior to departure."
Therefore, there is absolutely no inconsistency between the two books to justify transfer of tanks from Europe to the Middle East, and canon clearly states this was not to happen.

Secondly, the US Vehicle Guide only shows combat aircraft - those specifically tasked with direct combat roles such as the AH-64 Apache.
The RDF Sourcebook includes transport aircraft such as the UH-60 Blackhawk and also shows the OH-58 Kiowa, which is nothing more than a scout and observation helicopter. Both of these latter two can be armed, but they cannot possibly be described as an attack helicopter.
We can therefore apply the same tank/AFV logic.

The next point is even more obvious.
According to page 17 of the RDF Sourcebook, General MacLean "made it known to all the troops of CENTCOM that if they wished to return to America, arrangements would be made to get them there". Now admittedly only "a few hundred wanted to go home," but that is just the start of accounting for the allocation of the 6,000 bodies from Europe.

The US Vehicle Guide lists manpower as of the 01JUL00, six months before the RDF Sourcebook. According to the RDF Sourcebook, US units (specifically the 24th ID) were engaged in offensive operations after this date and could be expected to suffer losses from the 2,000 of 01JUL00. These losses could be just a handful, but since the smaller Iranian 44th Infantry Brigade replaced them after only a few months, and the 44th isn't included in the OOB of 01JAN01 (potentially destroyed with survivors reallocated), it's very possible the 24th ID suffered badly. The 24th is therefore a probable recipient for a large portion of Army replacements (more than the 2,000 difference between July and January).

Furthermore, there has been no attention given to anything besides the US Army.
What about reinforcements for the Navy, or the Air Force? Ignoring shore based personnel and looking only at the the ships in TF76, they require crews totalling 3,828 officers and men. Are we to believe that years of combat have left those crew numbers unchanged? Shouldn't we also apply a similar ratio of losses as faced by ground forces which is roughly 70-80%? Doesn't the Last Sub trilogy bear out the belief that replacements have been few and far between, even though Omega arrived approximately five weeks earlier? (only a skeleton crew could be found from all the Milgov controlled areas to crew the Corpus Christi).
Applying a modest 66% loss to the Naval forces (which is much lower than I'd honestly believe) that means they need 2,500 warm bodies (which may explain why there were few suitable naval specialists to be found in the US in January 2001).

And what about the Air Force? According to the RDF Sourcebook, Aviation units have a manpower on 01JAN01 of 3,050 - note some of the listed units in the books did not have a manpower number attached. How many of them are replacements from Europe?

Given the last major fleet in being was destroyed off the coast of Norway way back in 1997, it's very possible that a significant proportion of the 6,000 are survivors of those actions. With the lack of aviation fuel, parts and ammo in Europe, it's also likely a sizeable number of pilots and ground crew volunteered to go to the Middle East just for the chance to fly or work on aircraft again.

It is my belief that roughly one third of the 6,000 probably came from navy or air force origins.

Where the RDF Sourcebook shows an increase in AFVs which cannot be explained by any of the above, there is another solutions - captured vehicles. We already know enemy vehicles were used by both sides, and we know the US 2nd Marines actually increased their numbers in both manpower and tanks - what's to say a small (company sized) Pact mechanised unit wasn't wiped out/routed and their vehicles captured? We are after all only talking about a handful of AFVs (which as mentioned earlier could be nothing more than scout cars).

[95th Rifleman]

I have to agree with legbreaker

All tanks are AFVs, however not all AFVs are tanks.

[simonmark6]

Olefin, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to do, but if your intention is to cause acrimony and dissent amongst this forum, well done you have achieved this.

I have enjoyed the majority of the game based inputs of everyone on this forum and I thank them for enhancing a game I love. Your belligerent tone however and the obvious combativeness of tour posts has soured it for me.

This will be my last post on this forum. Goodbye and thank you everyone.

[Fusilier]

Ah hell...

Please don't go Mark.

[Rainbow Six]

Ah hell...

Please don't go Mark.

What Fuse said...

[Legbreaker]

What Fuse said...

And what they said...

[B.T.]

And what they said...

Yes, exactly what I think about that!

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Olefin that was way over the line.

Yes, I think everyone should play a T2k they're happy with.

Yes, I think there are big holes in the canon continuity.

But driving people off of a niche community by your need to be right is just...well, wrong.

Mark please don't go.

[Legbreaker]

Sorry guys - thanks for playing but you need to look at all three guides and you havent.
You poor deluded fool. Do you really think I and others don't THOROUGHLY research ALL the materials before posting? Of course the Soviet numbers haven't changed - the game focus is squarely on the US troops and GDW simply didn't have the time available to update every little insignificant detail the PCs were unlikely to encounter before their deadline! They were publishing something like 3 titles a week at the time which isn't bad for a small company like they were! Of course they had to focus on what the players were most likely to encounter!

The Soviet Vehicle Guide that has the strengths of the Soviet Units in Iran as of July 1, 2000 show the same numbers of men and tanks that are in the RDF guide for Jan 1, 2001

if it says a unit has 18 tanks in the Soviet Guide for July 1, 2000 it shows that same unit with 18 AFV in the Jan 1, 2001 entry for the same unit in the RDF
We know from the RDF Sourcebook that the US I Amphibious Corps, supported by elements of the Iranian Army (specifically their 44th IB) carried out an offensive operation from June 2000. There is no date when this was concluded besides the US 24th ID being relieved in October 2000. Are you trying to tell us the Soviets facing them didn't loose a single man or machine!?
Have you even once considered that if the US can get reinforced, the Soviets will too? That they've had six months to repair vehicles, for men to heal, or new recruits drafted, trained and sent to the front?
Also, looking at a map shows that many of the Soviet units are quite a distance from the front - are they supposed to suffer battle damage?

Thus an AFV, as defined by Frank, is a tank, not an armored car, not a Bradley, a tank.[/B]
As you seem so keen to point out when it suits you, the designers make the occasional mistake. The world wide accepted definition of AFV is anything with armour and a weapon and is not ONLY tanks.

Thus we have CONCLUSIVE CANON PROOF OF A SHIPMENT OF TANKS AND HELOS TO THE RDF FROM GERMANY.
Only in your mind. As I have proven in my last post, there is NO evidence of such an occurence and OPORD OMEGA clearly states this was NOT to happen. Or is this a piece of evidence you'd like to ignore also?
I have also shown that OH-58's and UH-60's were not included in the earlier OOB. Exclude them and the numbers work perfectly. Now tell me there's irrefutable evidence helicopters were taken...

Thus there was a second convoy, that took men, heavy equipment and aircraft from the Germany to the RDF.
There is NO evidence of a second convoy. There was no fuel for them AND the US had to borrow German ships for Omega in the first place. Is it reasonable to assume the Germans are going to allow the US to go back on their word and send tanks and aircraft they'd paid for using yet more ships and fuel which belonged to the Germans?

Oh and the ships may have gone thru the Med and docked in Israel if the canal is closed. Those ships woudl thus not be in the RDF area of operations. The men and equipment then could have gone to a Jordanian or Israeli Red Sea port and gone around the peninsula or come overland - and used a lot less oil for the ships.
Yes, that is possible, but it's easier to sail the whole way, and since your proposal that anything beyond personal equipment has been blown out of the water, it's also a LOT quicker and more likely everyone will survive. Walking across deserts isn't my idea of fun.
Catching more ships from the Red Sea is also very unlikely. Remember that even the Tarawa class can only carry about 1,900 men - where are the ships coming from? Does Israel really want 6,000 foreign troops marching through, eating their food and using up their limited supplies (even if they are allies)? I think not. Imagine the massive logistical challenges an overland route would face. Imagine the challenges of organising a second fleet of transports and the fuel for them!
Simple logic dictates that as extremely improbable - possible sure, but very, very improbable and certainly very impractical.

Sorry - but its canon guys.
So you say, yet, once again, you've got holes in your argument large enough to drive a truck through. Every point you've made has been disproved, or at least been proved as unlikely.

So either you change canon and reduced those units or acknowledge we were right - the second convoy wasnt part of Omega, in fact it may have even left earlier (i.e. the V Corps units that were already in Bremerhaven when Omega started)

WHAT SECOND CONVOY!? Where are you getting that idea from? It simply does not exist in the books!

You have to wonder - if the order had just been issued what was the V Corps doing already in Bremerhaven -

Answer: They were being shipped to the RDF.
Better answer - they were held in reserve for the Spring Offensive. You should read the various threads on it, it's been exhaustively written about and discussed.
Also, if the US had to borrow ships from the Germans, AND didn't have the fuel in the first place, why, how could they plan to send an entire Division to what throughout the war was considered a third grade backwater of a front (see how little importance was given to deploying units there in the first place - unit histories). Additionally, why would they send a strong Division out of the area when the Spring offensive was aimed at taking control of virtually all of northern Poland (at least the coastal area anyway)? Wouldn't they be needed as a follow on force to shore up the line for the expected Pact counter attacks?

Now nobody is saying you can't do what you like in your own game with your own group, but to come here and try to convince this global community that you are "RIGHT" with such obvious drivel and combative attitude...

[95th Rifleman]

Olefin, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to do, but if your intention is to cause acrimony and dissent amongst this forum, well done you have achieved this.

I have enjoyed the majority of the game based inputs of everyone on this forum and I thank them for enhancing a game I love. Your belligerent tone however and the obvious combativeness of tour posts has soured it for me.

This will be my last post on this forum. Goodbye and thank you everyone.

Leave the forum and, and, I'll kidnap all the sheep in wales!

Think of your countrymen, stay and don't subject them to lonely nights!

Seriously mate, don't let one bloke drive you away.

[Fusilier]

No I am not trying to drive anyone off by a need to prove I am right...

But you are. And that's the point. It doesn't matter what you think you are trying to do, or whether you have a stronger or weaker argument than anyone else... the product of your actions speaks differently.

And that is in black and white.

[James1978]

This will be my last post on this forum. Goodbye and thank you everyone.
Please reconsider.

[Webstral]

Sorry guys - thanks for playing but you need to look at all three guides and you havent.

The Soviet Vehicle Guide that has the strengths of the Soviet Units in Iran as of July 1, 2000 show the same numbers of men and tanks that are in the RDF guide for Jan 1, 2001

if it says a unit has 18 tanks in the Soviet Guide for July 1, 2000 it shows that same unit with 18 AFV in the Jan 1, 2001 entry for the same unit in the RDF

Thus an AFV, as defined by Frank, is a tank, not an armored car, not a Bradley, a tank.

The Soviet numbers in the July 2000 guide match man for man, AFV for tank to the Jan 1, 2001 numbers in the RDF

That is conclusive proof that what Frank Frey is saying is an AFV is what the author of the Soviet Vehicle Guide and the US Vehicle Guide is saying is a tank.

And there is no reduction of Soviet tank numbers to match the 35 tanks as to captured tanks.


Thus we have CONCLUSIVE CANON PROOF OF A SHIPMENT OF TANKS AND HELOS TO THE RDF FROM GERMANY.

You can spin it all you want but its right there, clear as crystal, black and white in the three guides

If you put them together you have 35 tanks and 18 helos show up with the 6000 men from Germany.

Thus there was a second convoy, that took men, heavy equipment and aircraft from the Germany to the RDF.

Oh and the ships may have gone thru the Med and docked in Israel if the canal is closed. Those ships woudl thus not be in the RDF area of operations. The men and equipment then could have gone to a Jordanian or Israeli Red Sea port and gone around the peninsula or come overland - and used a lot less oil for the ships.

Sorry - but its canon guys.

So either you change canon and reduced those units or acknowledge we were right - the second convoy wasnt part of Omega, in fact it may have even left earlier (i.e. the V Corps units that were already in Bremerhaven when Omega started)

You have to wonder - if the order had just been issued what was the V Corps doing already in Bremerhaven -

Answer: They were being shipped to the RDF.

Now you can argue if you want - but the fact is that such a shipment or men and equipment occurred and its canon

So Leg - are you saying that we should ignore or change canon because it doesnt fit your view of the timeline?

This is exactly the opposite of what I was talking about, Olefin. "Thanks for playing..." I understand that Internet land encourages us to develop bad habits in terms of our communication with fellow posters. We don't do that here, with the exception of one or two in whom we're still trying to encourage development.

Everyone appreciates a newcomer with new information, a new outlook, and new work to share. Very few appreciate a newcomer with attitude, which is why you may have read others remarking about breaking into a tight-knit group. Try soft-shoeing a bit more, Olefin. Presentation really does matter. Your ideas will be just as good and just as salable presented under the banner of "I have a counterargument" as "Thanks for playing."

If you want another example, look at Kato's reply: brief, factual, and neutral.

You did good work by identifying some room for playing with the numbers in the RDF and cross-referencing other sources. That is commendable, and that is why I accepted your friend request. The flipness and the representation of raised voices, etc. are offputting.

You have a good point about the way some posters cling to canon. Again, your use of the reference materials is praiseworthy. I strongly recommend that you not use few posters who rigidly cling to canon or who prefer a rougher and more confrontational style of interaction act as your role models. Kato and Raellus are good models for how the majority of us prefer to do business. People listen to them. People don't listen so much to those posters who prefer a style of interaction resembling barstool philosophy. That latter group may post frequently, but their arguments are given short shrift compared to the arguments put forth by guys like Kato and Raellus, or Targan.

Give it some thought. I'm not discussing the merit of your argument here. I'm discussing how ideas are presented--particularly rebuttals to the rebuttals of others. There's a reason why folks wear suits when they appear in court or give a dissertation.

[95th Rifleman]

well then this isnt a forum to present any new ideas at all - its just a place to regurgitate acceptable pablum and mush

the way I read it from the new members guide and from posts I read when I lurked for several weeks, it was to expand the Twilight 2000 world and offer information and ideas on how to support the game and keep it going for its fans

so which forum is this?

is it one where any new ideas that dont fit a few members rigid guidelines are seen as divisive and must be squashed at all costs?

or is it where everyone can be free to share what they have come up with for the betterment and enjoyment of all concerned and if you dont like it, then read it and move on to another thread and leave your negative comments to yourself?

is this a free exchange of ideas or is it the equivalent of Pravda?

love to know one way or another

oh and choose wisely - because the last I heard creativity and repression dont work together very well

It's one thing to share ideas, discuss alternatives.

However it's quite another to demand a certain interpretation of events is canon and to denigrate those who disagree in an insulting fashion.

The most negative comments have come from Olefin on this forum in responce to calm and construcive criticism. An irrational, almost fanatical, interpretation of words and abbreviations that goes contrary to how such things are supposed to be used.

A prime example is AFV, when the whole world knows that AFV is used to describe any and all military vehicles with a combat role. All tanks are classed as AFVs but also all APCs, IFVs, SPGs and mobile AAA/SAM units are also classed a AFVs.

Hell i have my issues with legbreaker sometimes but while he can come across badly, in this forum Olefin had behaed in a fashion I have never seen legbreaker sink to.

[Medic]

Olefin, in the beginning I was considering about coming to your defense because I believe, everyone has the right to present their ideas for discussion and receive honest, constructive criticism on them. However, your way of putting things, you are not even looking for that constructive criticism - you are putting others down and telling them, you are the new encyclopedia Twilight on this matter.

Had you stopped to listen to the others in this matter, had you listened to their thoughts instead of trying to prove you have the biggest virtual dick in the whole lot, then and only then would I have supported you. You try to make it sound like Legbreaker was an evil tyrant, who doesn't listen to the others, but in fact, it is you and thus, for the good of everyone and especially the few fans of Twilight-universe left, I ask you kindly to stop this useless bickering. It doesn't do anything else than piss people off and diminish our ranks even further.

You complain about how the forum isn't apparently a place for new ideas. I sincerily still believe it is, but it is more about how you present those ideas to the public. And when you talk about Pravda (The Truth translated, by the way), you fail to realize, you succumb to that same line of thinking yourself.

Thank you, sorry and please, for the good of everyone, let it rest.
well then this isnt a forum to present any new ideas at all - its just a place to regurgitate acceptable pablum and mush

the way I read it from the new members guide and from posts I read when I lurked for several weeks, it was to expand the Twilight 2000 world and offer information and ideas on how to support the game and keep it going for its fans

so which forum is this?

is it one where any new ideas that dont fit a few members rigid guidelines are seen as divisive and must be squashed at all costs?

or is it where everyone can be free to share what they have come up with for the betterment and enjoyment of all concerned and if you dont like it, then read it and move on to another thread and leave your negative comments to yourself?

is this a free exchange of ideas or is it the equivalent of Pravda?

love to know one way or another

oh and choose wisely - because the last I heard creativity and repression dont work together very well

[Fusilier]

You are completely missing the point.

This isn't about new ideas at all. James1978, myself, and a few others have repeatedly made this very clear. The fact that you are still acting oblivious to the real issue suggests to me that you're either aware of this and are just being argumentative for spite - or you aren't reading anyone's replies unless it contains the words 'canon' or 'convoy' in it.

Simonmark said he was leaving and I am absolutely certain it isn't because you suggested there was a second convoy or any other of your fresh ideas. He's one of the nicest guys on this forum and he isn't one to participate in arguments over who's interpretation of the game is canon or not.

Your comments are loaded with value words, are spiteful, argumentative, blunt, and condescending. The problem isn't your ideas... frankly I don't give a shit about a second convoy or not. The problem is how you showed up and immediately started creating friction and conflict, by how you continue to present your ideas and engage with anyone who disagrees.

[Olefin]

frankly after a few days here I wish I had never found those modules at a collectors store a few weeks ago and gotten back into the game after that long absence -

and after all the personal attacks here in the past few hours I can see why Chico and a bunch of others have left

its just not worth the aggravation

frankly I am 20 pages into a Kenyan module and could care less about it or anything else to do with the game right now and as for getting up a new campaign that is the last thing on my mind after today

goodbye

[Webstral]

Web, I would lean to the V2 vs. V1 as far as tanks/AFV's go to still mean tanks. I looked at the V2 USVG, and they break out only MBT's in the listings, so saying that its still a yard stick to measure how well equipped a unit is (1 tank usually means, say, 3 IFV's for example).

At least thats how I read it. :)

Fair enough. I don’t have any of the v2 materials, so I am willing to take your word on the content. I should be in the habit of qualifying my observations by letting readers know that I’m referring to v1.

A quick comparison between The V1 Sov Vehicle Guide and the V1 Rdf SourceBook shows the same counts for AFVs and Tanks. I would think the terms are interchangeable from that observation (as the manpower counts remain exactly the same for the 10 units I checked).

This is odd given they are 6 months apart, but is does show that US units grew while Soviet Units were static in terms of Heavy Vehicles.

Thanks for doing some independent legwork, Kato.

It seems that the heart of the conflict is the accounting system used in US Army Vehicle Guide, Soviet Vehicle Guide, and RDF Sourcebook. Some of the figures change, and others do not. The unit listings switch from Tanks to AFV. The increase in manpower and the arguable increase in track counts are presented as evidence of a shipment of tanks to the Middle East above and beyond the 6,000 troops mentioned at the end of the chronology given in RDF Sourcebook. Let’s be systematic and give all of these factors some study. If Olefin is right, then he deserves credit and support. Whether he’s right or not, we need to model the behavior we want from our newcomers.

I want to make it clear that this is not an effort to debunk the idea of a CENTCOM reinforcing mission involving tanks and choppers. This is an effort to debunk the idea that the reference materials available to us offer incontrovertible evidence that such a mission took place. I invite creative ventures. I discourage my comrades from writing as though they possess special and invulnerable insight into the world of Twilight: 2000 based on materials that often (and possibly deliberately) have a degree of ambiguity.

I will list the measures of strength by unit and group them by command, just as they are given in the RDF Sourcebook. I’ll post two figures: the strength in the Soviet Vehicle Guide, then the strength in the RDF Sourcebook. I’ve underlined the formations for which one or more figures have changed. I haven’t included the aviation units because the Tank v AFV issue doesn’t apply to them.

Soviet Transcaucasus Front HQ
212th Air Assault Bde (800 men)
212th Guards Air Assault Bde (800 men)

104th Guards Air Assault Division (1800 men, 16 tanks)
104th Guards Air Assault Division (1200 men, 16 AFV)

Seventh Soviet Guards Army
24th Guards Motorized Rifle Division (400 men)
24th GMRD(C) (400 cav)

75th Motorized Rifle Division (2000 men, 18 AFV)
75th MRD (2000 men, AFV)

164th Motorized Rifle Division (2000 men, 12 tanks)
164th MRD (2000 men, 12 AFV)

261st Motorized Rifle Division (400 men, 3 tanks)
261st MRD (400 men, 3 AFV)

Fourth Soviet Army
26th Motorized Rifle Division (200 men)
26th MRD (2000 men)

31st Guards Motorized Rifle Division (1000 men, 9 tanks)
31st GMRD (1000 men, 9 AFV)

146th Motorized Rifle Division (2000 men, 16 tanks)
146th MRD (2000 men, 16 AFV)

Forty-Fifth Soviet Army
10th Motorized Rifle Division (4000 men, 4 tanks)
10th MRD (4000 men, 4 AFV)

19th Motorized Rifle Division (4000 men, 32 tanks)
19th MRD (4000 men, 32 AFV)

147th Guards Motorized Rifle Division (100 men)
147th MRD (100 men)

First Soviet Army
8th Motorized Rifle Division (4000 men, 36 tanks)
8th MRD (4000 men, 36 AFV)

150th Motorized Rifle Division (1000 men, 2 tanks)
150th MRD (1000 men)

346th Motorized Rifle Division (200 men)
346th MRD (200 men)

Fortieth Soviet Army
15th Tank Division (4000 men, 8 tanks)
15th TD (4000 men, 8 AFV)

66th Motorized Rifle Division (1000 men, 4 tanks)
66th MRD (1000 men, 4 AFV)

84th Motorized Rifle Division (2000 men)
84th MRD (2000 men)

360th Motorized Rifle Division (3000 men, 15 tanks)
360th MRD (3000 men, 15 AFV)

My first question is why the GDW writers make the transition from a more precise term, tanks, to a less precise term—AFV—if the intent was to talk about tanks? These guys knew the difference between the terms as well as any of us. These guys knew that a reader with any knowledge of things Army would also recognize that AFV is a less precise term than tanks. I must confess that I’m flummoxed by the change if it’s supposed to mean the same thing as the original and more precise term.

There are nineteen Soviet Army formations of brigade size or greater (excepting aviation brigades) listed as belonging to Transcaucasus Front that also have entries in Soviet Vehicle Guide. Soviet Vehicle Guide gives strength as of 7/1/00. RDF Sourcebook gives strength as of 1/1/01, or thereabouts. Of these 19 formations, only 3 show any change in strength during the last six months of 2000. Before trying to look at the bigger pattern, I’ll look at the three formations that see a change in their strength.

104th Guards Air Assault Division goes from 1800 men and 16 tanks to 1200 men and 16 AFV. The losses in manpower are easily explained, although why there are no corresponding tank losses (if AFV is supposed to equal tanks) is tougher to explain. Still, anything can happen when we’re talking about a single division. 26th Motorized Rifle Division goes from 200 men in July 2000 to 2000 men in January 2001. Taken in isolation, we might see this as an example of a cadre being used as the basis for building a fresh regiment. However, we are obliged to take the division in context with the rest of the front. 150th Motorized Rifle Division has 1000 men and 2 tanks on 7/1/00 and 1000 men on 1/1/01. The two tanks are gone. It’s odd that the tanks have been lost, but the manpower is the same.

The glaring oddity, though, is that 16 of the 19 formations have exactly the same number of men on 1/1/01 as they do on 7/1/00. A single formation having the same number of men in July 2000 and January 2001 would be a statistical anomaly. Sixteen such formations, representing 84% of the divisions and separate brigades (again, non-aviation) under Transcaucasus Front, would be unable to achieve such a feat under peacetime conditions. For us to accept that such a thing could happen during the second half of 2000, we would have to believe that either the formations in question suffered no losses of any sort and gained no new troops of any sort or that the rate of loss exactly equals the combined rates of recruitment and replacement. I’ll go a fair distance with suspension of disbelief to make ideas work, but even I can’t go that far.

Unfortunately, the most obvious explanation for the statistical improbability is an uncomfortable one. The obvious explanation is that the GDW guys dropped the ball on this part of the RDF Sourcebook. Personally, that doesn’t bother me. They did a great job with just about everything else. I’m willing to live with the idea that whoever was responsible for getting the Soviet Army units listed failed to take into account the changes that would have occurred during the six month gap between July 2000 and January 2001. However, this lack of attention to detail has serious ramifications. As applied to the argument about Tanks v AFV, the numbers given for the Soviet units are at best highly suspect because in every case but one the exact same number of tanks would be available in January 2001 as in July 2000. As applied to canon as a whole, it’s clear that not everything printed by GDW passes the common sense test or is consistent with its internal logic.

In fairness, the list of Soviet units doesn’t support the argument that AFV means tanks, IFV, and APC, either. We might imagine that a given Soviet division has 12 tanks in July 2000, then loses some by January 2001. Hypothetically, when armor strength starts being listed as AFV instead of tanks, that division might have 4 surviving tanks and 8 surviving APC such that the AFV listing for 1/1/01 would match the Tanks listing for 7/1/00. If this happened once, we could accept it as a statistical anomaly. When it happens a dozen times over a mere 19 examples, something is wrong. The only reasonable conclusion is that GDW dropped the ball here.

I have a couple of other nitpicks with the RDF Sourcebook roster of Soviet units:

212th Air Assault Brigade (Soviet Vehicle Guide) becomes 212th Guards Air Assault Brigade (RDF Sourcebook). It’s entirely within the realm of possibility that someone up the chain with the authority to bestow the “Guards” moniker on a formation has done so between 7/1/00 and 12/31/00. Nonetheless, it’s an irregularity.

104th Guards Air Assault Division is listed in Soviet Vehicle Guide as having 16 tanks. This is odd, because tanks aren’t a part of an air assault division’s TO&E. The same formation is listed in RDF Sourcebook as having 16 AFV. This is more credible because BMD count as AFV and are part of the TO&E for Soviet airmobile troops. It’s also entirely possible, though, that the Soviets decided the 104th should change roles and reinforced the division with some tanks along the way.

26th Motorized Rifle Division is listed in Soviet Vehicle Guide as having 200 men. Six months later, the division has 2000 men. The most reasonable explanation for this is a typo.

147th Motorized Division is listed in Soviet Vehicle Guide as being in Alaska. 147th Guards Motorized Division is listed as being in Iran. In RDF Sourcebook, the formation in Iran is given as 147th MRD. Again, an obvious editing error.

15th Tank Division is listed as belonging to 40th Army in Soviet Vehicle Guide, but it’s in Turkmenistan as of 7/1/00. The division was moved there to put down a revolt. As of 1/1/01, the division is in southeastern Iran. Obviously, this is not impossible; however, even if we agree that the rebellion in Turkmenistan no longer was causing 15th Tank Division losses as of July 2000, it seems odd that the division completed a long road march to southeastern Iran without any losses.

In summary, the idea that Tank strength in July 2000 (which covers US Army Vehicle Guide and Soviet Vehicle Guide) automatically translates into AFV in January 2001 receives no support from the fact that Tank and AFV numbers are the same for Soviet units in Iran, since it’s obvious that GDW copied and pasted the information for the overwhelming majority of the maneuver units listed in both Soviet Vehicle Guide and RDF Sourcebook, despite the fact that 6 months have elapsed between the two. In order for the assertion that AFV strength in 1/01 refers to the same fighting vehicles as Tank strength in 7/00 to stand on its own, said assertion will need corroboration aside from the units strengths of Soviet Army formations listed in RDF Sourcebook. Otherwise, common sense tells us that AFV must refer to all armored fighting vehicles, not just tanks.

If someone knows how to reach any of the GDW team, I’d very much be in favor of them settling the matter one way or the other.

Leg, I offer my explanation regarding the transfer of power plants or other parts as a way around the apparent conundrum of leaving all AFV in Germany while supporting CENTCOM. The Germans get stiffed a bit, but the Americans can do so while meeting the terms of the agreement. Also, one or two ships can be diverted from the Omega fleet with power plants and other parts that can be loaded and unloaded without special equipment.

Now I like the idea of having Tarawa do the delivering. We can explain the increase in the number of operational helicopters with a combination of lifts for entire and intact birds and cannibalizing for spare parts. More importantly, using Tarawa to move power plants and other critical parts would not require us to get entire tracks aboard her. She isn’t nuclear powered, so we’ll have to think of a way to get her the fuel. Nonetheless, I think Olefin has a good idea having Tarawa make the trip from Germany to the Gulf. She can carry cargo and troops, so she’s a natural if she can be made to have the fuel.

Getting back to the big picture of canon, we’re faced with the same choice as people of faith. The books obviously make mistakes. If we are to play the faithful, then we have to believe certain things that are nonsensical—like the idea that 16 of 19 Soviet units in Iran could get from 7/1/00 to 1/1/01 with the exact same headcount. On the other hand, if we allow ourselves the luxury of using common sense here, then the floodgates open. We then open everything up to questioning. Each option has its associated problems. I prefer the latter approach, if only because it allows us to use our brains instead of hoping that the GDW crew used theirs perfectly while they were hurriedly producing material for a fickle market against publishing deadlines.

[kato13]

since it’s obvious that GDW copied and pasted the information for the overwhelming majority of the maneuver units listed in both Soviet Vehicle Guide and RDF Sourcebook

But they did not just cut and paste. They cut and pasted and then changed "Tanks" to "AFVs". Someone made that decision of equivalence. Your analysis increases my belief that the words are interchangeable in this situation.


Edit
Kings Ransom refers to the 19th Motorized Rifle Division as having
"119th Tank Regiment 32 AFVs Mostly t-55 with 6 SU-130 assault guns"
If also mentions additional SAU-122s and SAU-152s being in that artillery assets.

Ignoring the question of "are SU-130s tanks". If self Propelled artillery are technically AFVs, then the GDW AFV count does not include them.


second edit
BINGO

KINGS RANSOM page 17
Description of Soviet 74th KGB Motorized Rifle Regiment
"AFVs are T-72 and T-80; APCs are BTR-70s and BMPs"

[Webstral]

But they did not just cut and paste. They cut and pasted and then changed "Tanks" to "AFVs". Someone made that decision of equivalence.

Obviously, someone deliberately made the change from Tanks to AFV; that AFV means tanks and only tanks in defiance of all common sense usage of the term “AFV” is not supported by the evidence of comparing CENTCOM tank counts in the US Army Vehicle Guide to AFV counts in RDF Sourcebook. Olefin points out that the number of AFV given in RDF Sourcebook exceeds the number of tanks listed in US Army Vehicle Guide. Either CENTCOM has more tanks in January 2001 (by whatever means) or AFV is broader category than Tanks, such that operational M2, M3, and M113 (among others) boost the count of AFV in January 2001 above the count of Tanks in July 2000. In order to determine which idea holds true, we need corroboration. I support your looking at the Soviet vehicles 100%, since we can compare Soviet tank counts in July 2000 with Soviet AFV counts in January 2001. The problem is that there is a clear editorial breakdown in the RDF Sourcebook regarding the Soviet formations. Someone doing copyediting—perhaps an intern or other peon—was told to turn all entries of “Tanks” to “AFV”. This was done. For whatever reason, the headcounts and fighting vehicle counts for the Soviet formations were not updated, with the possible exceptions of 104th Guards Air Assault Brigade and 150th Motorized Rifle Division. Therefore, it’s impossible to say whether Tanks and AFV are interchangeable numbers or distinct counts based solely on the evidence at hand.

Of course, each of us is free to believe whatever we see fit. My point is that the evidence is inconclusive and therefore not incontrovertible. If incontrovertibility is a requirement for the story of a shipment of MBT to the Gulf during the last quarter of 2000, then story is unsupported. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I like the idea, albeit with some modification. I just don’t believe that the reference materials already mentioned make it inevitable.

[kato13]

Web. Did you see my edit.

[Webstral]

Kato, your edit popped up after I posted. We must be working at the same time. I just went to the shed to get my copy of "King's Ransom". I'll need a few minutes to assemble my reply. Good attention to detail, though--very good!

[kato13]

Kato, your edit popped up after I posted. We must be working at the same time. I just went to the shed to get my copy of "King's Ransom". I'll need a few minutes to assemble my reply. Good attention to detail, though--very good!

As someone who has taken literally hours to craft a response at times, I fully understand.


Look i think it is completely inaccurate, but my reading of the evidence is that for GDW "AFVs" meant "tanks".

[Olefin]

Webstral, the one fact we have here is that what Kato and I have presented shows that AFV's are tanks as far as the author of Kings Ransom, the Soviet Vehicle Guide and the RDF is concerned - ie. Frank Frey

now that might not hold for all the authors - but apparently it was that way for him

as for the cut and paste numbers brought up before keep in mind that the Soviet Vehicle Guide and the RDF are both by Frank Frey so you can see him cutting and pasting - and what he may be saying is that the Soviets kept their tank strength constant while the US increased - and for the US the only place they had to get tanks was either captured Soviet ones - in which case their numbers should have gone down, or the Israelis sold them to them (but I dont see them selling that many tanks) or the French sold them (again why do that) or that the US brought them from Europe along with the men (the most likely reason I can see based on the canon)

and remember he issued the RDF a long time before the Soviet Vehicle Guide and that the US vehicle guide was issued before that

So while the Soviet guide is July 1, 2000 it was released long after the RDF in real life - so the fact that its timeline is earlier in game time is not a significant - obviously Frank had the US vehicle guide and the RDF when he did the Soviet guide

and Kings Ransom puts the nail in the coffin

Frank Frey released that as well - and he referred in there directly that an AFV is a tank, not an APC - at least in his mind

so when its says that AFV's are tanks in Kings Ransom, written by the same man who wrote the RDF covering much of the same material and some of the same units then that answer is plain

To Frank Frey an AFV is a tank, not an APC - and when he said AFV in the RDF he meant tank

And Frank Frey is who wrote all of those canon modules

clearly Frank added the 6000 men, tanks and helos for a reason to the RDF - it appears his intention may have been to have a reinforcement from Europe of tanks and helos (and also APC's and howitzers) to the RDF as part of his story and that explains the increase in numbers of men and tanks

so while to many of us an AFV could be a tank or an APC to to Frank - who wrote those three canon modules that the history of the Twilight War is part of - an AFV is a tank based on the quote from Kings Ransom

The only supposition that can be drawn is that he intended to show an overall increase in US tank strength, most likely from European evacuated material that wasnt part of Omega and may have left earlier than Nov 15 - or that may have been part of Omega but where the tanks could have been bought and paid for with promises of Saudi or other Middle East oil and that is why the Germans were ok with the shipment

does anyone know how to contact Frank and ask him - he wrote the three modules and he is really the only man who can directly answer the questions

as for canon - the tanks (i.e. AFV's that Frank calls tanks) are there in Jan of 2001 after Omega - and that means US tank strength went up - unless we get something from Frank otherwise contradicting Kings Ransom, what he wrote there clearly shows he means tanks when he says AFV's

Hopefully Frank is still around and reads this forum and we can get a hold of him

Oh and I have heard the criticisms and I removed some of the posts that were too insistent by me

And I am not going anywhere - but I also I am not going to take the blame if someone decides to leave the forum over any discussion of one of my posts, nor will I sit there and take another concentrated attack on me by a bunch of guys who are clearly not commenting on what I have posted but how I have posted it - in that case I will bring that up to the moderators as a possible breech of the forum rules and let them handle it

but I also will do my best to change my posting style to avoid what happened earlier today

And if people dont like what I post - then they are free to read something else - from emails I have received asking me to stay at least some people have enjoyed my stuff and have asked me to stay and contribute - and so I will

[Webstral]

Edit
Kings Ransom refers to the 19th Motorized Rifle Division as having
"119th Tank Regiment 32 AFVs Mostly t-55 with 6 SU-130 assault guns"
If also mentions additional SAU-122s and SAU-152s being in that artillery assets.

Ignoring the question of "are SU-130s tanks". If self Propelled artillery are technically AFVs, then the GDW AFV count does not include them.


second edit
BINGO

KINGS RANSOM page 17
Description of Soviet 74th KGB Motorized Rifle Regiment
"AFVs are T-72 and T-80; APCs are BTR-70s and BMPs"

First of all we’ve got a new piece of evidence from a source not mentioned so far. Hopefully, all the newcomers see why we hold Kato in such high regard. The man has splendid attention to detail and a gratifying lack of rubbing-your-nose-in-it.

Looking at the second edit and the original material, I agree that this quote supports the idea that AFV refers to tanks. Looking at some of the other listings under the “Organization” section, we see that GDW’s use of AFV to mean tanks is corroborated on p. 16 under the Tudeh PMA: “AFVs are a mixture of third-line Soviet tanks… with a few captured NATO tanks… APCs are scarce… usually BTR-70s or OT-64s.”

Reluctantly, I’m forced to admit that GDW probably meant for AFV to refer to tanks and assault guns, which is how tank strength was listed in the v1 boxed set. Etymologically, it doesn’t make sense; but “King’s Ransom” sure does seem to show that GDW intends for AFV to mean MBT and assault guns. This doesn’t forgive the obvious editorial error in RDF Sourcebook regarding Soviet strength, but Kato has made his point about GDW intending for “AFV” to mean “Tanks”. Olefin, you should think about sending Kato a thank-you-gram. Well done, Kato.

Getting back to the subject of shipping tanks, some of the original obstacles to shipping 35 MBT from Germany to the Middle East remain. While it now seems clear that GDW intended for CENTCOM to gain in tank strength between 7/1/00 and 1/1/01, the details behind how this happened are at best murky. While I’m not reflexively opposed to an OMEGA-style shipment, alternative explanations for how CENTCOM picks up a battalion of tanks without making significant changes to the established chronology exist.

By the way, I’m not going to feel myself obliged to perpetuate GDW’s misapplication of terminology. I feel the point has been settled regarding how GDW intended for the term to be used from RDF Sourcebook onwards—and again, good job Kato. However, the fact remains that GDW misused the term. I won’t follow in their footsteps. When I refer to AFV in any sense but in a direct quote of the published material, I will be referring to MBT, light tanks, assault guns, IFV, APC, armored cars, maybe gun trucks, and possibly SP artillery. The jury’s still out on SP guns, though.

Also, Olefin I'm not snubbing you by crediting Kato with the clarification. He's the one who brought in quotes from "King's Ransom", and that was the definitive evidence.

[95th Rifleman]

The problem or me, as far as canon goes, is it's just not written.

All these theories about transfers to RDF are just that, theories.

It was NEVER written in any sourcebook that these elements where trasferred, thus it can not be considered canon.

As a theory that can be used in games to include that equipment I'm all for it. However it can not be considered canon, because it's not, if it was there would be a source book with pages we could quote from that says X equipment was transferred to Y battlefront on Z date.
Now, for the love of whatevr is considered holy by all participants, can we drop the canon crap and just focus on discuss things rationaly.

Personaly I don't see why the Americans would go to all the trouble to send that kit to a backwater front when the war was for all intents and purposes over with a potential civil war brewing in the USA. However that's just my view.

[Olefin]

The sections that Kate is posting are

SOVIET 74TH KGB MOTORIZED RIFLE REGIMENT

Weapons: Standard Soviet small arms. Artillery support is provided by a battery of 120mm mortars and two self-propelled
122mm howitzers. AFVs are T-72s and T-80s; APCs are
BTR-70s and BMPs. The unit uses the BRDM-3 armored car.

also

SOVIET 19TH MOTORIZED RIFLE DIVISION
Weapons: Standard Soviet small arms. The 119th Tank Regiment
consists of 32 AFVs, mostly T-55s with 6 SU-130 assault
guns for long-range fire support. The divisional artillery assets
are comprised mainly of 120mm mortars, SAU-122s and
SAU-1 52s. There is also a mixed battery of BM21 and BM14
self-propelled multiple rocket launchers.

also notice that the in the below section the armored cars are not referred to as AFVs


US DETACHMENT 14, 619TH COMBAT SECURITY GROUP

The unit also has two Peacekeeper armored cars and two Commando

and also this

THE TUDEH POPULAR MOBILIZATION ARMY (PMA)

Weapons: Soviet-made small arms (mostly AKMRs) with a
few NATO weapons mixed in. AFVs are a mixture of third line
Soviet tanks (mainly T-55s) with a few captured NATO tanks
(M60A4s and Chieftains). APCs are scarce, with the infantry
either walking or riding in trucks. What few exist are usually
BTR-70s or OT-64s. The BRDM-3 is the standard armored car.
Artillery consists of 82mm and 120mm mortarsarmored cars.


Clearly Frank Frey is saying that an AFV is a tank

he makes the designation repeatedly - and he wrote the RDF as well

so that should put to rest that an AFV - for Kings Ransom and the RDF at this point as written which means they are canon as written - is a tank

that means the US Army from June of 2000 to January of 2001 received at least 35 tanks if not more to make up for any losses in that period

you can disagree if you like - but if you do then you need to treat the RDF and Kings Ransom as non-canon for saying that the US got a reinforcement of tanks - he clearly means tank with all the refernces to AFV's as tanks in Kings Ransom

not trying to force this down anyone's throat - either you believe what Frank wrote or you have to say that the module isnt canon

there arent many other choices - its one thing if he said it once - but he said it over and over and over

[95th Rifleman]

By the way, I’m not going to feel myself obliged to perpetuate GDW’s misapplication of terminology. I feel the point has been settled regarding how GDW intended for the term to be used from RDF Sourcebook onwards—and again, good job Kato. However, the fact remains that GDW misused the term. I won’t follow in their footsteps. When I refer to AFV in any sense but in a direct quote of the published material, I will be referring to MBT, light tanks, assault guns, IFV, APC, armored cars, maybe gun trucks, and possibly SP artillery. The jury’s still out on SP guns, though.



SPGs should be classed as AFVs because they can (while it's not recomended) be used in the direct battle role, many nations kept a reserve of anti-tank shells for their SPGs (The American M109 was one such SPG).

However there is allot of debate on the use of mobile artillery and it's classification as an AFV.

[95th Rifleman]

The sections that Kate is posting are

SOVIET 74TH KGB MOTORIZED RIFLE REGIMENT

Weapons: Standard Soviet small arms. Artillery support is provided by a battery of 120mm mortars and two self-propelled
122mm howitzers. AFVs are T-72s and T-80s; APCs are
BTR-70s and BMPs. The unit uses the BRDM-3 armored car.

also

SOVIET 19TH MOTORIZED RIFLE DIVISION
Weapons: Standard Soviet small arms. The 119th Tank Regiment
consists of 32 AFVs, mostly T-55s with 6 SU-130 assault
guns for long-range fire support. The divisional artillery assets
are comprised mainly of 120mm mortars, SAU-122s and
SAU-1 52s. There is also a mixed battery of BM21 and BM14
self-propelled multiple rocket launchers.

also notice that the in the below section the armored cars are not referred to as AFVs


US DETACHMENT 14, 619TH COMBAT SECURITY GROUP

The unit also has two Peacekeeper armored cars and two Commando

and also this

THE TUDEH POPULAR MOBILIZATION ARMY (PMA)

Weapons: Soviet-made small arms (mostly AKMRs) with a
few NATO weapons mixed in. AFVs are a mixture of third line
Soviet tanks (mainly T-55s) with a few captured NATO tanks
(M60A4s and Chieftains). APCs are scarce, with the infantry
either walking or riding in trucks. What few exist are usually
BTR-70s or OT-64s. The BRDM-3 is the standard armored car.
Artillery consists of 82mm and 120mm mortarsarmored cars.


Clearly Frank Frey is saying that an AFV is a tank

he makes the designation repeatedly - and he wrote the RDF as well

so that should put to rest that an AFV - for Kings Ransom and the RDF at this point as written which means they are canon as written - is a tank

that means the US Army from June of 2000 to January of 2001 received at least 35 tanks if not more to make up for any losses in that period

you can disagree if you like - but if you do then you need to treat the RDF and Kings Ransom as non-canon for saying that the US got a reinforcement of tanks - he clearly means tank with all the refernces to AFV's as tanks in Kings Ransom

not trying to force this down anyone's throat - either you believe what Frank wrote or you have to say that the module isnt canon

there arent many other choices - its one thing if he said it once - but he said it over and over and over

Put down the whip and step away from the dead horse.

I think, thanks to kato, we can safely say that GDW misused the term AFV and in this context it means MBT.

That being said, there is still no black and white evidence in canon that the extra tanks came from Germany. They could of come from America or they could of come from the Saudis or UAE (nations that used Chieftens).

I'm nopt saying they didn't come from Germany, it's just not canon.

[Tegyrius]

does anyone know how to contact Frank and ask him - he wrote the three modules and he is really the only man who can directly answer the questions

as for canon - the tanks (i.e. AFV's that Frank calls tanks) are there in Jan of 2001 after Omega - and that means US tank strength went up - unless we get something from Frank otherwise contradicting Kings Ransom, what he wrote there clearly shows he means tanks when he says AFV's

Hopefully Frank is still around and reads this forum and we can get a hold of him

http://forum.juhlin.com/member.php?u=414

- C.

[Olefin]

but it is there Rifleman - not in black and white saying the 3rd AD or took there tanks with them

but where I come from 2+2=4

and when a= b and b=c then a=c - i.e. symbolic logic

the only reinforcment that arrived in the RDF in 2000 was the 6000 men from Europe

the number of tanks in the RDF went up by 35 tanks from June of 2000 to January of 2001

and there was no other reinforcment mentioned at all

a= b

the only reinforcment during that period was from Europe of 6000 men and it is a fact that the units in question who saw combat had a net increase of 4000 men

b= c

the number of AFV's went up by 35 total tanks from June 2000 to Jan 2001 and as established per Frank Frey an AFV is a tank per Kings Ransom which he wrote

thus a=c

the reinforcement of 6000 men also included at least 35 tanks and most likely more since the US most likely lost tanks during that time period

and since the men came from Europe the tanks came from Europe


either way - the men and the tanks are there in the RDF - and not APC's or armored cars, they are tanks (and that we do have written proof of in Frank Frey's own module Kings Ransom)

so a question then- why does it seem so many people are apparently so dead set on such a small reinforcement of vehicles when so many other details of the canon WWIII are also not filled in and are acceptable as such?

not picking a fight at all - to me, its pure logic that is what Frank had in mind - and I dont go on faith or supposition when it comes to logic

thats what symbolic logic is for to fill in the gaps in the record and show what occurred even if not implicitly stated

its the same as saying that you are walking thru a huge crater and you find your rad detector is going off - there is no one to tell you a nuke burst happened there but a nuke leaves a huge crater, a nuke has rad contaminaton - thus a crater plus rad contamination equals a nuke burst there - even if no one is there to tell you when it happened or how the nuke got there

[95th Rifleman]

The more I think about it, the more likely I believe that the extra tanks came from the Saudis.

They had no interest in the soviets winning and, for political reasons, wouldn't want to get dragged too deeply into the mess. Supplying the US army with tanks and equipment would of been a great (and relatively easy) way of providing material support without getting too involved and would explain a few grey areas.

[Olefin]

thanks Tegyrius - do you now if he still actively participates here?

and I agree with you Rifleman - AFV here clearly means MBT

unfortunately what would have solved the issue was if a US unit with tanks had been in Kings Ransom

but lets see if Frank can weigh in on this - and who knows maybe it will help fill in a hole in the canon as to where they came from and what MBT's they are

[Tegyrius]

Last Activity: 06-30-2010 01:01 PM

I thought I'd seen a post from him more recently, but his most recent is here (http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=2325). Still, if he has email notifications of PMs turned on, you might get a response that way.

- C.

[Raellus]

Hi folks.

As a forum moderator, I feel the need to step in here. My cautionary posts have been ignored and what I feared is coming to pass. Although most of you are approaching the current canon debate in a more or less responsible, respectful, and constructive manner, a couple of you are clearly not. As a result, I am seriously considering closing this and all other "canon discussion" threads. I will also be discussing this issue with my fellow moderators.

As a community, I really don't think we can afford the kind of drama and acrimony that chases off members. Please, everyone just chill out.

Please take a look at our forum guidelines. If you can't or won't abide by them, this is probably not the place for you.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=2961

Raellus

[kato13]

The sections that Kate is posting are

I don't generally remark about typos but my Y chromosome is having a little trouble with this one.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The more I think about it, the more likely I believe that the extra tanks came from the Saudis.

They had no interest in the soviets winning and, for political reasons, wouldn't want to get dragged too deeply into the mess. Supplying the US army with tanks and equipment would of been a great (and relatively easy) way of providing material support without getting too involved and would explain a few grey areas.

If GW1 (or 2 depending on your point of view) fits into Canon then if the Saudis did provide those tanks they may well have been M1A2s. Although (unless there's a vehicle-specific breakdown!) M60A3s are far more likely...

as much as I hate to lean on Wackypedia for stuff, this is to my knowledge pretty accurate:

The army’s main equipment consists of a combination of French- and U.S.-made armored vehicles: 315 M–1A2 Abrams, 290 AMX–30, and 450 M60A3 main battle tanks; 300 reconnaissance vehicles; 570+ AMX–10P and 400 M–2 Bradley armored infantry fighting vehicles; 3,000+ M113 and 100 Al-Fahd armored personnel carriers, produced in Saudi Arabia; 200+ towed artillery pieces; 110 self-propelled artillery pieces; 60 multiple rocket launchers; 400 mortars; 10 surface-to-surface missiles; about 2,000 antitank guided weapons; about 200 rocket launchers; 450 recoilless launchers; 12 attack helicopters; 50+ transport helicopters; and 1,000 surface-to-air missiles.[3] In 2011, the Saudi-Arabian army has furthermore ordered 200+ German Leopard 2A7+ main battle tanks to extend their fleet.

The Saudis are, as of 2012 in our reality literally drowning in armor. Even in the T2k setting I'd wager they could shave off some wallowed out M60s and M113s to their US friends.

[Olefin]

And Kato I want to give you a huge credit for findign the applicable sections in Kings Ransom - I never thought of looking there to see if Frank used the same terminology.

Thas was a great find and deserves a very heart felt well done.

Go ahead and take a few boxes of grenades out of petty cash for your character to use on the maruader formation oh his choice.

[95th Rifleman]

The sticking point for me is this.

Yes, the numbers increased by 6000 in one source

Yes, they got 35 extra AFVs in another source

However one does not automaticly lead to the other. It's a grey area in which the gaps are filled with opinion and supposition.

Transporting men is one thing, transporting an MBT is another entirely which requires allot of effort, specialist equipment and the right kind of ship. You can transport infantry on anything (look at Dunkirk for examples).

At the end of the day if you or your group goes with the idea that the tanks came from Germany then fair play and all the best.

That being said the idea tat they came from America in a seperate reinforcement or the tanks came from the Saudis or other Arab states is equaly plausible.

[Olefin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin
The sections that Kate is posting are

I don't generally remark about typos but my Y chromosome is having a little trouble with this one.

Whoops sorry there Kato

ok thats three hits for me on the body location of your choice

[kato13]

The man has splendid attention to detail and a gratifying lack of rubbing-your-nose-in-it.

Thank you for the complement.

I hope my BINGO was not read that way. It was a mix of my own excitement and to attract the attention of anyone who read my original post but might miss the edit.

Honestly I remember being annoyed with the AFV/MBT thing way back when.

[95th Rifleman]

If GW1 (or 2 depending on your point of view) fits into Canon then if the Saudis did provide those tanks they may well have been M60A3s and M1A2s. Although (unless there's a vehicle-specific breakdown!) M60A3s are far more likely...

as much as I hate to lean on Wackypedia for stuff, this is to my knowledge pretty accurate:

The army’s main equipment consists of a combination of French- and U.S.-made armored vehicles: 315 M–1A2 Abrams, 290 AMX–30, and 450 M60A3 main battle tanks; 300 reconnaissance vehicles; 570+ AMX–10P and 400 M–2 Bradley armored infantry fighting vehicles; 3,000+ M113 and 100 Al-Fahd armored personnel carriers, produced in Saudi Arabia; 200+ towed artillery pieces; 110 self-propelled artillery pieces; 60 multiple rocket launchers; 400 mortars; 10 surface-to-surface missiles; about 2,000 antitank guided weapons; about 200 rocket launchers; 450 recoilless launchers; 12 attack helicopters; 50+ transport helicopters; and 1,000 surface-to-air missiles.[3] In 2011, the Saudi-Arabian army has furthermore ordered 200+ German Leopard 2A7+ main battle tanks to extend their fleet.

The Saudis are, as of 2012 in our reality literally drowning in armor. Even in the T2k setting I'd wager they could shave off some wallowed out M60s and M113s to their US friends.

Another thing I'm thinking about is that the Saudis (and most of the southern, pro-west arab states) all relied heavily on the Chieften before some bought the Abrahms as a replacement.

That means allot of mothballed Chieftens just waiting to be sent, under the table, to the RDF.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

You know, I don't know the man personally but Frank Frey is a member of an old gaming club I used to be affiliated with: HMGS-South. You might be able to get ahold of him on www.hmgs-south.com through the forums there.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Another thing I'm thinking about is that the Saudis (and most of the southern, pro-west arab states) all relied heavily on the Chieften before some bought the Abrahms as a replacement.

That means allot of mothballed Chieftens just waiting to be sent, under the table, to the RDF.

Ooooh, I didn't even think about that. Yeah! Yankee-driven Chieftains for everyone! :D

SCENE: US Armor cantonment, outside Basra, Iraq

"Hey welcome to the 24th sir. This is our track, we call her 'Qom-Guzzler', if uh you'll pardon the joke. Anyhow, I hope it doesn't weird you out driving a Brit tank like the Chieftain, but she's a good track and - "

"Son, I left Poland last month where my last three 'tanks' were a Wartburg with an RPK on a sponson where the passenger door used to be, A BMP-1, and a T55 with no main gun and a MILAN launcher tripod tack welded to the turret roof. Trust me when I say this is the least weird vehicle I've commanded since 1998."

[Olefin]

Chieftain is a pretty good tank too especially since a lot of the tanks the Russians and the Tudeh have are T-55's. And the Saudis werent stingy with their ammo purchases either - so there should be plenty to go around.

[Tegyrius]

Hm. In lieu of mothballed older designs, would the Saudis have been able to provide repair assets to the RDF that were sufficient to refurbish some less-than-catastrophically-killed vehicles? Nothing would be Anniston-fresh, but with a turret here and a power pack there...

- C.

[Olefin]

probably depends on two things - how catastrophic and can they even get to the tanks

i.e. a tank killed in areas the Soviets are controlling is pretty much gone

plus if you read the original rules any vehicle left out in the open gets stripped pretty fast to nothing - probably anything wrecked earlier and recoverable was stripped for spare parts and anything else they could find (hmm wonder how many guns trucks you can armor up with the side skirts off an M1)?

[Webstral]

Another possibility for the increase in tank strength in CENTCOM is the opening of a fabrication center in Iran that can supply some of the most needed parts faster than those parts are consumed. I’m not a tanker, so I don’t know which parts wear out the quickest (other than the tracks. Tanks eat up tracks like nobody’s business). However, even a modest facility in-theater can widen the bottleneck created by a lack of the most-needed parts and bring more of a specific type of tank back into operation.

A few things would be required to fabricate tank parts on anything like an assembly line basis. CENTCOM would need a facility. An unused large structure should not be hard to find. The shop would need power. We know there’s some oil coming out of the wells in the region, so diesel generators should work fine. Machine tools and some skilled labor are also necessary. We know that Iran has both. Whether both are available in the areas controlled by the US is an unknown; however, pro-Western Iranians, of which there are more than a few, probably have fled into southern Iran by 2000. The right metals are also a necessity. I know next to nothing about metallurgy, so I can’t say how hard it would be to acquire the requisite metals and render them into the appropriate condition for working with machine tools. That much said, if fabricating engine parts for M1A1 is a genuine priority for CENTCOM, then the resources seem to be available locally.

[kato13]

Whoops sorry there Kato

ok thats three hits for me on the body location of your choice

No problem it made me laugh.

As far as kings ransom I KNEW that I had read something where MBT was clearly substituted with AFV. It annoyed me then and it annoys me now.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Another possibility for the increase in tank strength in CENTCOM is the opening of a fabrication center in Iran that can supply some of the most needed parts faster than those parts are consumed. I’m not a tanker, so I don’t know which parts wear out the quickest (other than the tracks. Tanks eat up tracks like nobody’s business). However, even a modest facility in-theater can widen the bottleneck created by a lack of the most-needed parts and bring more of a specific type of tank back into operation.

A few things would be required to fabricate tank parts on anything like an assembly line basis. CENTCOM would need a facility. An unused large structure should not be hard to find. The shop would need power. We know there’s some oil coming out of the wells in the region, so diesel generators should work fine. Machine tools and some skilled labor are also necessary. We know that Iran has both. Whether both are available in the areas controlled by the US is an unknown; however, pro-Western Iranians, of which there are more than a few, probably have fled into southern Iran by 2000. The right metals are also a necessity. I know next to nothing about metallurgy, so I can’t say how hard it would be to acquire the requisite metals and render them into the appropriate condition for working with machine tools. That much said, if fabricating engine parts for M1A1 is a genuine priority for CENTCOM, then the resources seem to be available locally.

Their politics aside, the Iranians have since 1980 essentially lived Twilight:2000 in terms of military hardware. They got little shipments trickled in (some, sadly, from the US), they have had to adapt and improvise, and while they've gotten a LOT from the Soviets for handing over an F14 and a few Phoenix missiles, that's not enough to last them through 30+ years. They got a small influx of ex-Iraqi planes, and they've gone to home-grown APCs and IFVs.

If nothing else you could use that as a sort of inspirational spark for what the Iranians can do when motivated. With some US mechanics behind them, perhaps the "Zulfiqar-1" could be shoehorned in limited numbers into T2k...non-canon, of course, but still...

[Olefin]

Armor and the guns tubes would be the killer Webstral - armor on a tank only comes from certain specialized mills - like the one in Israel that I read got nuked to deny it to the Israelis. Ditto for gun tubes.

so while they might be able to make tracks or possibly engine parts, the armor and the main guns are goign to stop them cold.

Now saying that - it takes a lot less space to ship 35 gun tubes to Saudi Arabia than it does to ship 35 full tanks.

And keep in mind - you may be lookign at as many as 50 tanks due to replacing combat losses that occured from June 2000 to Jan 2001 to end up with a net increase of 35 tanks

[Webstral]

No problem it made me laugh.

As far as kings ransom I KNEW that I had read something where MBT was clearly substituted with AFV. It annoyed me then and it annoys me now.

Well, good on you for differentiating between what you like and what is in print.

[95th Rifleman]

Ooooh, I didn't even think about that. Yeah! Yankee-driven Chieftains for everyone! :D

SCENE: US Armor cantonment, outside Basra, Iraq

"Hey welcome to the 24th sir. This is our track, we call her 'Qom-Guzzler', if uh you'll pardon the joke. Anyhow, I hope it doesn't weird you out driving a Brit tank like the Chieftain, but she's a good track and - "

"Son, I left Poland last month where my last three 'tanks' were a Wartburg with an RPK on a sponson where the passenger door used to be, A BMP-1, and a T55 with no main gun and a MILAN launcher tripod tack welded to the turret roof. Trust me when I say this is the least weird vehicle I've commanded since 1998."

You sir, just made my day with that image.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

probably depends on two things - how catastrophic and can they even get to the tanks

i.e. a tank killed in areas the Soviets are controlling is pretty much gone

plus if you read the original rules any vehicle left out in the open gets stripped pretty fast to nothing - probably anything wrecked earlier and recoverable was stripped for spare parts and anything else they could find (hmm wonder how many guns trucks you can armor up with the side skirts off an M1)?

Good point; also note that if the Saudis have lend/leased any M88s to US forces in the area even a handful of those could slightly ameliorate the "leave to be stripped" situation.

[95th Rifleman]

Armor and the guns tubes would be the killer Webstral - armor on a tank only comes from certain specialized mills - like the one in Israel that I read got nuked to deny it to the Israelis. Ditto for gun tubes.

so while they might be able to make tracks or possibly engine parts, the armor and the main guns are goign to stop them cold.

Now saying that - it takes a lot less space to ship 35 gun tubes to Saudi Arabia than it does to ship 35 full tanks.

And keep in mind - you may be lookign at as many as 50 tanks due to replacing combat losses that occured from June 2000 to Jan 2001 to end up with a net increase of 35 tanks

Depends if you are willing to downgrade the armour. The chobham on an M1 or Chally is going to be impossible to produce. However it would be possible to produce more conventional armmour.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

You sir, just made my day with that image.

Just read the senior officer's bit with Tommy Lee Jones' clipped, rapid-fire style in mind and the image is perfect :D

[Webstral]

Armor and the guns tubes would be the killer Webstral - armor on a tank only comes from certain specialized mills - like the one in Israel that I read got nuked to deny it to the Israelis. Ditto for gun tubes.

so while they might be able to make tracks or possibly engine parts, the armor and the main guns are goign to stop them cold.

Absolutely agreed. This may be why one only sees 35 tanks added to the rosters. The most-easily fixed tracks are the first ones to go back to the line. Mobility kills and breakdowns will be among them. The catastrophic kills won't be worth much, except as spare parts. It's possible that the maintenance units already were fabbing as many of the bottleneck parts as possible in 1998 and 1999, but they just couldn't keep up with the demand. Only with the hypothetical opening of a semi-proper facility could supply grow enough to pull a few tracks out of the salvage depots and put them back into line units.

RJ Panzer, your point about the Iranians is well-taken. I wonder, though, if they wouldn't turn their abilities to supporting vehicles already in use in-country.

[Olefin]

and the tubes could have come from Saudi stocks depending on the tank - they didnt just buy tanks but a lot of stores as well

and if you arent shooting the tanks then you have a lot of gun tubes that could be used for at least some of the tanks - I dont think they are all repairs

but keep in mind even if they did come from Europe they probably needed repairs anyway

see the raketenjagdpanzer earlier post about the state of tanks in Europe

[Olefin]

Just read the senior officer's bit with Tommy Lee Jones' clipped, rapid-fire style in mind and the image is perfect :D

Ok for that one I think we all can agree in your next gaming session you can find one operational vehicle of your choice

[raketenjagdpanzer]

RJ Panzer, your point about the Iranians is well-taken. I wonder, though, if they wouldn't turn their abilities to supporting vehicles already in use in-country.

Oh that was meant more as a "as the 00s wear on" kind of thing; as the front stabilizes and US forces more-or-less hold the Soviets at bay across the greater Southwest Asia front (at least in Iran), they'd go to something like that. While the war was still hot though in 2000/2001, yeah, it'd be all support what's in the field, innovate much later...

But it does show that there are some pretty smart cookies in the jar over there, and in terms of keeping the Iranian and "guest" US Armed forces up and running they'd probably become experts at parts production - at least the lightweight stuff...

[raketenjagdpanzer]

ok for that one i think we all can agree in your next gaming session you can find one operational vehicle of your choice

Ohio class SSBN with armed VLSS! :D :D :D

[95th Rifleman]

and the tubes could have come from Saudi stocks depending on the tank - they didnt just buy tanks but a lot of stores as well

and if you arent shooting the tanks then you have a lot of gun tubes that could be used for at least some of the tanks - I dont think they are all repairs

but keep in mind even if they did come from Europe they probably needed repairs anyway

see the raketenjagdpanzer earlier post about the state of tanks in Europe

Chieftns used the 120mm rifled L11A5, the Americans used the 120mm smoothbore.

Now I'm not techie, but I think it's feasible to replace the Amrican guns with the Chieftens and getting ammo won't be a huge problem as the chieften is such a common tank in the middle east.

[Sanjuro]

a sort of inspirational spark for what the Iranians can do when motivated
I've been a passenger in Tehran traffic... and I have seen Iranians jaywalk in it. If that keeps up, in 200 years evolution is going to make the survivors' descendants like Superman!

[James1978]

Another thing I'm thinking about is that the Saudis (and most of the southern, pro-west arab states) all relied heavily on the Chieften before some bought the Abrahms as a replacement.

That means allot of mothballed Chieftens just waiting to be sent, under the table, to the RDF.
Chieftain was never used by Saudi Arabia, but Iran, Jordan, Kuwait and Oman did use it.
- Jordan seems an unlikely source given their neighborhood, but you never know.
- Oman only had about 27.
- Kuwait bought 165.
- Jordan had a total of 350.
The British 120mm gun was rifled, so ammo wasn't compatible with the smooth-bore 120mm gun used by the M1A1/A2. I'm not sure what kind of ammo stocks Kuwait of Oman would have by 2000/2001. Though the Shah had been big on building up Iran to be self-sufficient in some munitions, so I don't see why they couldn't have some capacity to manufacture some rifled 120mm and 105mm tank ammo in limited quantities.


AMX-30 was used by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

M60 was used by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Jordan, and Egypt.

M1A1 used by Egypt. M1A2 used by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Though if you play a timeline where GW1 never happened, maybe not Kuwait who may have just bought more Yugoslav M84s.

The UAE may have some LeClerc tanks. They first bought them in 1995,

Saudi Arabia is also a potential source for Bradley IFVs.

[95th Rifleman]

My bad

For some reason I always mix up Jordan and Saudi

[Panther Al]

You know, saying the Saudi's slipped some parts (And yes, they have a mountain of parts from road wheels, engines and trannies, to breeches and tubes sitting in warehouses spread out all over the middle of nowhere) and the occasional full up track would make a lot of sense in how it seems that with all the heavy fighting in the Middle East, so much stuff is still in great shape. With the intel saying a new push is in the card in the summer of 2001, it would be in the interests of the Saudi's to make sure that the RDF gets a 'accidental' resupply that fills all the dreams of the poor old S4's trying to make due with 2x4's and #8 wire. If in the buildup to the war they purchase the M1 series, and they bought spares and ammo on the scale they did in the real world, the amount of stuff that is technically available - and unnuked - is insane.

[James1978]

If in the buildup to the war they purchase the M1 series, and they bought spares and ammo on the scale they did in the real world, the amount of stuff that is technically available - and unnuked - is insane.
If the tech reps who maintained all the equipment stuck around and survived, CENTCOM could probably man a decent armored vehicle overhaul/repair depot back in Saudi. It's not Anniston, but it's something.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

If the tech reps who maintained all the equipment stuck around and survived, CENTCOM could probably man a decent armored vehicle overhaul/repair depot back in Saudi. It's not Anniston, but it's something.

I like this idea a lot.

Same goes for still-flying a/c - the Saudis already had a fleet of F15's they needed to maintain, for example.

[Legbreaker]

With 6,000 coming from Europe and arriving a few weeks before January, how many of those are techs and what sort of effect is that sudden influx of skilled labour going to have on the vehicles and equipment waiting for repair? That alone can account for an increase in available AFVs.
The moment the Soviets and Iranians got word of the reinforcements, you can bet they'd use their available air and sea assets to try and put a hole in their numbers. Fortunately for the US, the southern, sea route leaves the transports well out of range of the enemy for most of the journey, and places CENTCOM's assets between them and the Russians.
The risk to the Soviets and their allies isn't just from added infantry, but an overall increase in ability for their enemy.

Of those 6,000, there may be a few Brits or even French too - those governments/Generals taking advantage of the convoy to shift around a few specialists. Numbers wouldn't be large though - few dozen, maybe a hundred or so. Enough that a player may be able to make a case for their PC to make the trip with official sanction.

[Louied]

How plausible is this....
IMC I had the smaller Gulf States side with the US/UK (FWIW I have a slightly larger MEFF with one Armd Bde, one Abn Bde, one Cdo Bde, one Gurkha Bde)
Saudi's stay out of it and eventually "invite" the French in to help them keep Neutral. The French in turn convince the Saudi's to divest themselves of all their non-French made equipment, promising that they would provide French made equipment in return. The French then "donate" this equipment (plus ammo) to CENTCOM (the French definitely DO NOT want the Soviets controlling any oil). However these shipments to the Saudi Military keep getting mysteriously held up. So by 2000 the French have full control of Saudi and her oilfields while the Saudi Military is essentially de-fanged of any heavy equipment.

I also was wondering if Egyptian factories were producing their M1's or were they just putting them together from kits sent over from the US. If they were producing them would it have been more cost effective to have CENTCOM
purchase them from Egypt and then have the US shipping over uparmour kits to maintinence units in Theater to add-on ?

[Olefin]

The only problem is that the French dont have that kind of influence in Saudi yet - its gettng there but the US is still the top dog there - now Kuwait is a different situation but Saudi is still mainly American influence.

Now let the war end and the Soviets get kicked out of Iran and things will change.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

How plausible is this....
IMC I had the smaller Gulf States side with the US/UK (FWIW I have a slightly larger MEFF with one Armd Bde, one Abn Bde, one Cdo Bde, one Gurkha Bde)
Saudi's stay out of it and eventually "invite" the French in to help them keep Neutral. The French in turn convince the Saudi's to divest themselves of all their non-French made equipment, promising that they would provide French made equipment in return. The French then "donate" this equipment (plus ammo) to CENTCOM (the French definitely DO NOT want the Soviets controlling any oil). However these shipments to the Saudi Military keep getting mysteriously held up. So by 2000 the French have full control of Saudi and her oilfields while the Saudi Military is essentially de-fanged of any heavy equipment.

I also was wondering if Egyptian factories were producing their M1's or were they just putting them together from kits sent over from the US. If they were producing them would it have been more cost effective to have CENTCOM
purchase them from Egypt and then have the US shipping over uparmour kits to maintinence units in Theater to add-on ?

Kits; IIRC the Egyptians however have a "mostly-built-here" tank plant (engines and armor are shipped to them, all else is license-built).

[Olefin]

Remember that the only real tank factory in the Middle East is the one in Israel - the one making the Merkava - where they make it from scratch. The industrial base just isnt there, even today, to be able to make their own modern tanks.

A lot of expertise just isnt there - for instance Saudi Arabia lacks facilities to do aluminum armor welding so things like Bradleys and M109's are just beyond their capabilities.

[Raellus]

I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere (in an Osprey book, I think), that Iraq was liscence-building its own T-72s (a basic Soviet/Russian export version).

@Louied: Since you asked for feedback... I don't think any country not in desperate straits would willingly give up heavy weaponry like MBTs based on a promise of future military aid, especially during wartime. The French really couldn't guarantee that they could get their stuff to the Saudis safely with the war at sea (the Med sounds pretty chaotic and Soviet commerce raiders would certainly be active around Cape of Good Hope) so such a deal would be a huge gamble on the part of the Saudis. Heck, such a proposition could easily be seen as a ploy to get the Saudis to drop their guard and allow the French to waltz in and take direct control of the oil facilities.

[Matt Wiser]

Iraq was building the T-72, in kit form. They were known as the "Lion of Babylon" tanks.

The idea of the Saudis buying a lot more tanks and spare parts than they really needed is very plausible and very likely, IMHO. IMI in Israel may still be up and running on a limited basis, and they'd be a source for 120-mm main gun rounds, among other things. In our CSU Fresno group, we didn't go home, but went via the Med to Israel, and then to CENTCOM. Before going through Jordan and Iraq to Iran, IMI refurbished all our vehicles. Not to brand-new specs, mind you, but a good enough job nevertheless.

[Panther Al]

The idea that the Saudi's would stockpile stuff by the shipload during a cold war than never cooled down is very reasonable. Even with the drawdowns with the Cold War IRL, I've seen some of the stockpiles they have tucked away in the oddest places. The Kuwaiti's are almost as bad.

[Legbreaker]

Before going through Jordan and Iraq to Iran, IMI refurbished all our vehicles. Not to brand-new specs, mind you, but a good enough job nevertheless.

What did you pay them with, and how did you stop the Israelis simply requisitioning them? I'm assuming it was just a small group and not a battalion plus.
I can't imagine the Israelis doing anything out of the goodness of their hearts, and with the chaos surrounding them on almost all sides, they wouldn't be about to pass up a chance to "acquire" more gear on the cheap.

[Matt Wiser]

Simple: some of the proceeds from our Kelly's Heroes type operation. A few hundred gold bars paid the bill for that-and R&R in Tel Aviv....As for numbers, well, when you procure (read: hijack) two Frosch-class LSTs-and bribe the crews with some gold bars...we had the carrying capacity to take our group where we wanted to go, and our vehicles and equipment, too. We didn't have that many, but spread them out on both ships. Four M-1A1s, a T-72, a pair apiece of Bradleys and M-113s, an MTLB, four Hummers, a HEMITT cargo truck with the still-but most of our fuel was "liberated"...., and the prize: a Ural 375 truck with the gold. The amount of gold was lifted from the movie: 14,000 bars.

[Olefin]

Simple: some of the proceeds from our Kelly's Heroes type operation. A few hundred gold bars paid the bill for that-and R&R in Tel Aviv....As for numbers, well, when you procure (read: hijack) two Frosch-class LSTs-and bribe the crews with some gold bars...we had the carrying capacity to take our group where we wanted to go, and our vehicles and equipment, too. We didn't have that many, but spread them out on both ships. Four M-1A1s, a T-72, a pair apiece of Bradleys and M-113s, an MTLB, four Hummers, a HEMITT cargo truck with the still-but most of our fuel was "liberated"...., and the prize: a Ural 375 truck with the gold. The amount of gold was lifted from the movie: 14,000 bars.

14,000 bars - ok that would pay for it for sure!

[Legbreaker]

If I was the Israelis, I'd be inclined to just take it all.
"So you've got five worn out tanks and a few APCs..."
"What are you going to do about the company of Merkava 3's, battery of 105's, and battalion of infantry we've got surrounding you?"

[raketenjagdpanzer]

If I was the Israelis, I'd be inclined to just take it all.
"So you've got five worn out tanks and a few APCs..."
"What are you going to do about the company of Merkava 3's, battery of 105's, and battalion of infantry we've got surrounding you?"

Also perhaps "offer" them the "opportunity" to stay as "guests" of the Israeli Defense Force.

[James Langham]

Quick thought, how much does all that gold weigh?

[Legbreaker]

Quick thought, how much does all that gold weigh?

From Wiki:
The standard gold bar held and traded internationally by central banks and bullion dealers is the Good Delivery bar with a 400 Troy Ounces nominal weight. However, its precise gold content is permitted to vary between 350 oz and 430 oz. The minimum purity required is 99.5% gold.
One troy ounce is equivalent to 31.1034768 grams.

Therefore, an average bar of 400 oz is 12.44 kgs.
14,000 bars is a massive 174.17947 metric tonnes!

A Ural 375 has a cargo capacity of 9,920 lb or 4.5 tonnes. Just a small shortfall there I think....

If the limiting factor was the 4,500 kilogram capacity of the truck, each bar would be just 320 grams, or 0.7 lbs

4,500 kilograms of gold at today's value is worth US$242,246,565.00 - about a quarter of a BILLION US dollars!!!
174.17947 tonnes is an astounding US$9,376,528,511.34 - isn't that approaching the US national debt? :o

[James Langham]

Nobody ever thinks how much gold weighs, best examples are Die Hard 3 and Rome. Must rewatch Kelly's Heroes to see if they make the same mistake.

And yes paper money can be almost as bad (and is bulkier...)

From Wiki:

One troy ounce is equivalent to 31.1034768 grams.

Therefore, an average bar of 400 oz is 12.44 kgs.
14,000 bars is a massive 174.17947 metric tonnes!

A Ural 375 has a cargo capacity of 9,920 lb or 4.5 tonnes. Just a small shortfall there I think....

If the limiting factor was the 4,500 kilogram capacity of the truck, each bar would be just 320 grams, or 0.7 lbs

4,500 kilograms of gold at today's value is worth US$242,246,565.00 - about a quarter of a BILLION US dollars!!!
174.17947 tonnes is an astounding US$9,376,528,511.34 - isn't that approaching the US national debt? :o

[Bullet Magnet]

As I recall, there was a mention in Kelly's Heroes that the total cash value of the gold was $16 million. If someone were able to find the price of gold circa 1944, we could get a reasonable figure as to the actual weight of gold they heisted.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

As I recall, there was a mention in Kelly's Heroes that the total cash value of the gold was $16 million. If someone were able to find the price of gold circa 1944, we could get a reasonable figure as to the actual weight of gold they heisted.

Gold was about $34/oz in 1944.

The total haul would have been something on the order of 14-15 tons.

Four CCKWs could have gotten all of it out (4000lb on-road carrying capacity). I'd want a spare truck along just to be sure.

[Matt Wiser]

We had a CENTCOM recruiting officer find us-how he did that I have no idea-and the GM didn't tell us, but he said "Want to hang onto your vehicles and equipment? We need fighting men and women like you in the Middle East. Find a ship or two to carry your vehicles and I'll handle the rest. And do that he did. Remember, Leg, the Israelis are our allies in Iran. And if Suez is closed, those troops from Europe who also arrive in the Middle East as replacements for CENTCOM have to get there somehow. Landing in Israel and moving overland beats going around Africa...

He likely got in touch with either the CENTCOM liasion detachment at IDF HQ, or the Defense Attache at the Embassy, and that was that. Still, we paid the crews of the two LSTs, and paid IMI for the armor refurbishment.

[Webstral]

Operating under the auspices of CENTCOM changes the entire context of the arrangement.

[Matt Wiser]

Still, the guys from IMI were glad to get paid: four boxes of gold bars was enough. And they did a good job on the overhauls. No way those vehicles would be restored to factory-fresh condition, but the job was good enough. Now, getting from Israel to Iran was more of an adventure! The drive across Jordan-with assistance from the Jordanian Army, was easy enough, but once we crossed the border into Iraq....we had to fight our way from As Samawah all the way down Highway 8 past An Nasiriya to the outskirts of Basra. Some Iraqi Army and RGFC, but most of the opposition were technicals of one sort or another. As if a Toyota four-by-four with a DShK or a KPV is going to harm a tank...

[Legbreaker]

Oh I have no doubt the GM and players had fun and whatever happened worked well enough in that game, it's just that I have a different viewpoint. Even though the Israelis are allies, 5 tanks, a couple of Bradleys and M113s plus all the rest is a tempting prize. Add in the truckload of gold and, well, "accidents" along the road happen....
If it could be set up so that CENTCOM was kept unaware of what really happened, I'm sure the Israelis would act. It wouldn't be the first time Mossad have prescribed little lead pills for people in order to ensure their silence.

[Matt Wiser]

This was probably the first time that the crews of hijacked ships-and yes, we did hijack them-were paid for their services at the end of the voyage. And I'll bet the crews decided to stay in Israel, it beats going back to Germany....

Keep in mind that we used some of the gold in Poland. Purchasing ammo and other supplies from some of the Krakow entrepeneurs was expensive, given that we were buying small-arms ammo in bulk, and were on the prowl for both 120-mm and 125-mm tank rounds. That HEMITT cargo truck was loaded.

[Webstral]

Oh I have no doubt the GM and players had fun and whatever happened worked well enough in that game, it's just that I have a different viewpoint. Even though the Israelis are allies, 5 tanks, a couple of Bradleys and M113s plus all the rest is a tempting prize. Add in the truckload of gold and, well, "accidents" along the road happen....
If it could be set up so that CENTCOM was kept unaware of what really happened, I'm sure the Israelis would act. It wouldn't be the first time Mossad have prescribed little lead pills for people in order to ensure their silence.

Before the CENTCOM part of the equation was mentioned, I'd have said this was a certainty. Enter CENTCOM, and it comes down to personality and hutzpah. If the PCs are going to fight a battle the Israelis want to have fought and which Israeli troops already are fighting, a conservative or cautious type might see going with the program as being in everyone's best interests. A more devil-may-care type might run the risk that somehow CENTCOM would get word of foul play.