Improvised Armor in T2K

[Raellus]

I hesitated to post this topic due to some of the recent silliness in a related thread, but I decided to appeal to your better natures by doing so. What follows is a link to an interesting piece about what a few skillful, determined individuals can do with limited resources.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-tour-of-ukraines-mad-max-tank-factory

I reckon one would see a lot of this sort of thing in the T2KU.

This would be a good place to post pics of example of improvised or heavily-modded armor from around the world.

[Legbreaker]

Years ago a group I was playing with added about ten layers of corrugated roofing iron to a light truck. Was more psychological than actual armour, but anything's better than nothing right?

[ArmySGT.]

That is a former tank factory (one that would have been nuked in any timeline) so the scale of the equipment is equal to the task. Note 100 ton crane in the first picture.

The first thing that makes this work is that it has the permission (backing) of the government.

Slightly more than a hillbilly armor thread.

[Targan]

So does that mean Azov has a license for Azovette and her fellow Mad Max tanks?

“No, this is a tractor. For paperwork purposes it’s a tractor,” Zvarych says with mock innocence, “We put metal on our own tractor. Why would we need a license for this?”

I LOL'd. Reminds me of my great-grandfather's tank.

[Raellus]

Slightly more than a hillbilly armor thread.

A fair point. I can change the title of the thread, if you like.

[ArmySGT.]

A fair point. I can change the title of the thread, if you like.

I don't know what title you could use.

Customized armor? Additional and certainly unauthorized armor? Trade off and one off, the armor edition?

I, for one am curious how Azovette is going to get around....... 1.5 meters of armor .... What is the new tonnage and can any Ukrainian roads or bridges support it?

What they really need to do is consolidate working equipment and bring in machinists / electricians to get the non working equipment going too. Ukraine if it was smart would invest in them with the stipulation that they produce agricultural equipment too.

[pmulcahy11b]

Years ago a group I was playing with added about ten layers of corrugated roofing iron to a light truck. Was more psychological than actual armour, but anything's better than nothing right?

Somewhere in a forgotten corner of my site is a handy-dandy chart that would tell you the armor value of that corrugated iron.

[Legbreaker]

I, for one am curious how Azovette is going to get around....... 1.5 meters of armor .... What is the new tonnage and can any Ukrainian roads or bridges support it?
I believe that's the total thickness of the spaced armour - 7 layers on the front, 3 elsewhere.
Therefore the weight should be "relatively" low.
Somewhere in a forgotten corner of my site is a handy-dandy chart that would tell you the armor value of that corrugated iron.

I think it worked out as 10 points in V1.0 and 1 point in 2.x

[Olefin]

If you want to see improvised armor have you seen what Mexican druglords are doing in Mexico now as to making improvised "narco" tanks? Definitely something that someone could come up with in T2KU.

FYI as to corrugated iron - has anyone seen the Top Gear episode where they add corrugated sheets on top of a SUV to protect James when he approached an active volcano from overhead debris? The principle would be the same to protect someone in an improvised armored vehicle.

[mpipes]

While we are on the subject....anyone know what the armor stats would work out for a standard bank/payroll armor car?

[pmulcahy11b]

While we are on the subject....anyone know what the armor stats would work out for a standard bank/payroll armor car?

Just a WAG -- HF3 HS2 HR2

[ArmySGT.]

While we are on the subject....anyone know what the armor stats would work out for a standard bank/payroll armor car?

To the best of my knowledge these are normally only good against pistol cartridges.

Larger more lucrative companies could have armored a part of the fleet, specifically those in large bank and asset transfers up to 7.62N AP.

[Olefin]

Interesting link here - http://www.armored-trucks.com/ballistics.php

company that builds armored trucks showing their ballistics protection ranging from level 1 (9mm semi-automatic hand gun) all the way up to level VII (5.56mm rifle, full metal jacket) - FYI 7.62 NATO cartridge is their level V

per their site - "This material is manufactured from start to finish to meet MIL-A-46100D and MIL-A-46177B Armor Plate as per the rigorous U.S. Military's Armor Specifications"

Paul - considering that bank armored cars are used in two canon modules - "A River Runs Thru It" and "Urban Guerrilla" - have you thought about adding an armored bank car section to your site - or is it there and I missed it?

here is another link - http://www.texasarmoring.com/armoring_levels.html - actually shows the weapons that the level of armor protection is made to defeat

[swaghauler]

To the best of my knowledge these are normally only good against pistol cartridges.

Larger more lucrative companies could have armored a part of the fleet, specifically those in large bank and asset transfers up to 7.62N AP.

We had armored cars from LENCO which came out of Canada as well as TEXAS ARMORING. The LENCO cars (both Ford E350 diesel vans) were rated at Level 5. This was supposed to stop multiple 30-06 armor piercing rounds. This is a "structural armored rating" that is a continuation of the NIJ ratings (which include level 1, level 2A, level 2, level 3A, level 3 and level 4. For more info, go to the National Institute of Justice's website).
The TEXAS ARMORING vehicles varied in size but were standardized at NIJ Level 3 armoring standards.
LOOMIS and BRINKS both seem to have standardized on NIJ level 3 standards as well. This is why the armored car that was used to rescue stranded officers in the "44 Minute Hollywood Shootout" was able to "shrug off" 7.62mm X 39mm rounds from the two perps.

During my work with the drug taskforce; we were able to procure NIJ level 3A soft panels that fit inside the doors of a number of "civilian" vehicles (cut to fit along the inside door panel and just bolt in). These included Ford, Chevy, Dodge and several other models. As I type this, I have NIJ Level 3A panels in the doors of my 2011 Ford Fusion as the price of just $1200 per panel. Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean there isn't someone out there who wants to kill me....

[ArmySGT.]

As I type this, I have NIJ Level 3A panels in the doors of my 2011 Ford Fusion as the price of just $1200 per panel. Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean there isn't someone out there who wants to kill me....

When I get my industrial sewing machine, for making my own tents and other gear, one of the things I wanted to look into is the rolls of Kevlar. Comes in large rolls like other cloth. I haven't seriously looked for sources or costs yet.

[ArmySGT.]

Interesting link here - http://www.armored-trucks.com/ballistics.php

company that builds armored trucks showing their ballistics protection ranging from level 1 (9mm semi-automatic hand gun) all the way up to level VII (5.56mm rifle, full metal jacket) - FYI 7.62 NATO cartridge is their level V

per their site - "This material is manufactured from start to finish to meet MIL-A-46100D and MIL-A-46177B Armor Plate as per the rigorous U.S. Military's Armor Specifications"

Paul - considering that bank armored cars are used in two canon modules - "A River Runs Thru It" and "Urban Guerrilla" - have you thought about adding an armored bank car section to your site - or is it there and I missed it?

here is another link - http://www.texasarmoring.com/armoring_levels.html - actually shows the weapons that the level of armor protection is made to defeat

Those charts all mention bullets with a lead core until the highest rating.

Since M855 5.56mm has a tungsten core and there is steel core 7.62Bloc on the market, this throws into question this schema.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Out of curiosity, where can you find the "A River Runs Thru It" module?
I can't recall seeing it anywhere and I can't find a reference for it anywhere so naturally I'm as curious as hell to read it!

[Legbreaker]

Never heard of it myself, and I've got at least two copies of everything.

[ArmySGT.]

Since this is a former tank factory...... What would it take to get the kilns and smelters online? It can do something that any garage cannot......Make actual armor and laminate armor at that from scratch.

[Legbreaker]

I think fuel would be the big issue. The equipment could probably be resurrected given enough time, but smelting steel requires a hell of a lot of coking coal.
Given the current state of the Ukraine, I don't see how that hurdle can be overcome by such a relatively small group.
http://defence.pk/threads/ukraine-controls-only-35-out-of-95-mines-in-donbas.371778/

[Targan]

Years ago a group I was playing with added about ten layers of corrugated roofing iron to a light truck. Was more psychological than actual armour, but anything's better than nothing right?

I LOL'd. Reminds me of my great-grandfather's tank.

FYI as to corrugated iron - has anyone seen the Top Gear episode where they add corrugated sheets on top of a SUV to protect James when he approached an active volcano from overhead debris? The principle would be the same to protect someone in an improvised armored vehicle.

I've posted this before, my great-grandfather's "tank": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Semple_tank

3515

My father's father's father, "Fighting Bob" Semple, was New Zealand's Minister of Public Works during WWII. The rest of the Empire couldn't spare New Zealand any armour, so great-granddad sat down with the heads of the Department of Works and designed and had built a "tank" based on a tractor chassis.

3516

[Olefin]

Whoops got the wrong title in my head (actually thats the name of a movie I love ) - I meant to say A Rock In Troubled Waters from Challenge Magazine number 42 and it details much of New Jersey in 2001 including some of the MilGov and NJ state forces in the area including how they were using bank armored cars as armored transports much as New America was doing so in Urban Guerilla.

Sorry about getting that confused

Oh and the section I was referring to is the following:

2nd Cavalry Squadron, NJSM:
Fifty troopers carried by 10 armored bank trucks.These vehicles have an armor value of 8, and all have other characteristics of a two and a half ton truck. Each car has a radio and an M79, in addition to the passengers' small arms. They are responsible for road patrol in and around Cape May, north of the canal.

[Legbreaker]

1st ed stats obviously which equate to barely 1 point in 2.x. No idea about T:2013 - anyone?

[Olefin]

Like I said love to see Paul put some stats up on armored bank cars and the like for use. It does seem that they could be encountered by characters especially if they are playing in the US and Canada as either potential enemy vehicles or ones they can put into action themselves

Whats interesting is that Urban Guerrilla has three different kinds of armored cars mentioned but doesn't flesh them out as to what kind of armor value they have - meaning they left it up to the GM to come up with something if the characters encountered them.

The Peacekeeper vehicle was basically an armored truck - maybe that's the best way to look at bank armored cars

[WallShadow]

In Urban Guerrilla, the New American forces had modified bank trucks as armored vehicles

[Legbreaker]

Urban Guerilla is supposed to be a scouting mission only - specifically states that going toe to toe is very likely to end with very dead PCs. Therefore, not much need for the stats in an already crowded book.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Interestingly enough, many, many years ago (like some time in the very late 1990s kinda many years ago...) I tried to find armour values for bank cars and so on and I actually found it easier to get valid info on military armoured vehicles.
Seem they were a bit paranoid back then about criminals getting the specs (fair enough point) for cash transit vehicles and the like.

As for A Rock In Troubled Waters, yeah it's a good piece but I believe that, because it's a fan submission, it's considered as support material but isn't canon per se.

[Legbreaker]

As for A Rock In Troubled Waters, yeah it's a good piece but I believe that, because it's a fan submission, it's considered as support material but isn't canon per se.

Agreed. Adds flavour and can be of assistance, but canon it ain't.

[Olefin]

Guys A Rock In Troubled Waters is canon not a fan submission - if its in Challenge Magazine its canon as far as I know - lots of what became the 2nd edition are also in Challenge Magazine

And Adam Giebel wrote seven pieces for Challenge Magazine - and that was hardly a fan submission magazine - it was official GDW material for a bunch of their products

so canon it is unless what you are saying is that every article in Challenge Magazine wasnt canon

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Guys A Rock In Troubled Waters is canon not a fan submission - if its in Challenge Magazine its canon as far as I know - lots of what became the 2nd edition are also in Challenge Magazine

And Adam Giebel wrote seven pieces for Challenge Magazine - and that was hardly a fan submission magazine - it was official GDW material for a bunch of their products

so canon it is unless what you are saying is that every article in Challenge Magazine wasnt canon

Challenge most definitely was a fan submission magazine, just like White Dwarf, Dragon, Dungeon, Pyramid and others.
That part in small print, right from the very first issue, that says "We welcome articles and illustrations for Challenge. Please inquire before submitting manuscripts..." makes it very clear that it was just as much a fan submission mag as it was for official material. It's probable that half the articles in Challenge were written by fans and not by GDW staff.
Unless it was actually written by one of the staff of GDW or it was a paid submission for a GDW game, then it is not canon.

[Olefin]

The company that markets the GDW twilight 2000 product that they bought the rights to markets the challenge magazine material as part of what they bought the rights to as part of the official Twilight 2000 material. To me that shows that the material is official and thus canon. The way it is presented is that this material was part of GDW's continuing support of the game and that it is considered "official" in the same way that other material on Twilight 2000 from Loren and other authors was official and thus canon. Which is why they have the rights to it.

As compared to things like the East African, Polish, Czech and Mexican sourcebooks or the fan magazine which was published here and are definitely fan canon works that are not "officially" recognized in any way as part of the actual T2K universe.

[Schone23666]

I've posted this before, my great-grandfather's "tank": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Semple_tank


My father's father's father, "Fighting Bob" Semple, was New Zealand's Minister of Public Works during WWII. The rest of the Empire couldn't spare New Zealand any armour, so great-granddad sat down with the heads of the Department of Works and designed and had built a "tank" based on a tractor chassis.



True respect to your ancestor, Targan. It just shows how creative people can be when times are desperate. Wonder what the stats would look like for this vehicle?

If you were to mount a decent cannon on it, it would probably have some decent success against the Japanese tanks, which were relatively light compared to the majority of other tanks fielded by the Germans and Soviets. Heck, one American tanker that served aboard a Sherman essentially called the M4 a "hodgepodge" (besides the not-so-affectionate name of Ronson) of various weapons and gears derived from different branches of the military. One could argue we eventually got it right with the M1 Abrams tank...though it only took us several decades and conflicts to do so. :(

[Olefin]

I have always treated the Challenge Magazine material as part of the canon because so much of it is by the same GDW authors who wrote the actual modules - Loren for instance submitted a bunch of articles much of which went into the V2.2 version

[Legbreaker]

One could argue we eventually got it right with the M1 Abrams tank...though it only took us several decades and conflicts to do so. :(

There is however no "right" or "perfect" design is there. It's always a trade off between the big three - Protection, firepower, and manoeuvrability. There's really only a "best fit" for the job at hand, and that only until somebody introduces something new - a new tactic or weapon perhaps which screws with one of the three areas.

Tank design (and pretty much all military equipment really) will continue to evolve long after we are dust. Who knows, a thousand years from now AFVs could be completely unrecognisable to us today. They could be the size of a bread box, or as big as an office building. Armour may be a thing of the past with force fields or high speed manoeuvrability the key to surviving. They could even be holograms for all we know!

A soldier in the year 3,000 may look back at us and shake their heads in disbelief, much like we do with the tactics employed in the first days of WWI.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The company that markets the GDW twilight 2000 product that they bought the rights to markets the challenge magazine material as part of what they bought the rights to. To me that shows that the material is official and thus canon. And as far as I know the author of that mini-module was on the GDW staff

Challenge was indeed an official product of GDW, nobody disputes that.
The articles written in the magazine were done by GDW staff and by fans. Fan submissions to a magazine are deemed as supporting articles but that does not define them as "official" or "canon". What it does mean is that the rights holder of the magazine has the right to re-publish or not, anything that was in the magazine.

Here's part of the editorial from the very first issue: -
"The new format will permit us to do a few things that we've never been able to do before, due to space constraints, but it also raises our need for articles, concerning both Traveller and Twilight: 2000, so I urge all of you who ever thought about writing something for the Journal to send in an SSAE for our manuscript guidelines and then get to it
-Loren K. Wiseman"
(my emphasis)

Far Future Enterprises owns the rights to the Twilight: 2000 material as well as for Dark Conspiracy and Traveller and 2300AD. This includes such things as Challenge magazine. FFE is Marc Miller, a former staffer of GDW.
Nowhere in any FFE literature do they proclaim that articles written by non-GDW personnel are to be considered official or as canon.
If FFE or GDW did do that, it would have put them into some serious trouble because with that line of thinking, then all the Star Wars, Cyberpunk, ShadowRun, Star Trek, Warhammer 40k, etc. etc. articles submitted to the magazine would also have to be declared as canon for their respective universes.

And as for Adam Giebel, unless I can prove he was not on GDW's staff and you can prove that he was, then all claims about him being a staff writer are purely speculative at best and wishful thinking at worst. Until we see a staff list or a contract stating he was a paid freelancer, then it will continue to be speculation or wishful thinking.

[Olefin]

That's why I edited my post because I tried to find a staff list but couldn't. And while those submissions may have been from fans the fact that they had to be vetted by the GDW staff to me implies that they are canon. In other words the people who wrote the original material were on staff and had to evaluate if they would publish it or not. If the material was not canonical then most likely it would have been rejected or clearly marked as not to canon. I cannot find any place so far in Challenge where the twilight 2000 material that was submitted was marked as "not to canon" or alternate version. The material that was submitted by the GDW staff was not marked as canon specifically.

As for Adam - he submitted over a half dozen submissions for Merc 2000 and twilight 2000 over the years. So you would think that many submissions shows that his material was regarded as canon because of the amount of material submitted.

[Legbreaker]

Or perhaps he just wrote entertaining articles?
Proliferation doesn't make canon.

[LT. Ox]

That's why I edited my post because I tried to find a staff list but couldn't. And while those submissions may have been from fans the fact that they had to be vetted by the GDW staff to me implies that they are canon. In other words the people who wrote the original material were on staff and had to evaluate if they would publish it or not. If the material was not canonical then most likely it would have been rejected or clearly marked as not to canon. I cannot find any place so far in Challenge where the twilight 2000 material that was submitted was marked as "not to canon" or alternate version. The material that was submitted by the GDW staff was not marked as canon specifically.

As for Adam - he submitted over a half dozen submissions for Merc 2000 and twilight 2000 over the years. So you would think that many submissions shows that his material was regarded as canon because of the amount of material submitted.

When an article or story is included in the Mag. It is for entertainment value and to be considered for future publication in an upcoming release as cannon. That is my take.
I have never seen nor heard at any of the Gencons or other locations that the material in the Mag was cannon.
I have often heard that the only material to be considered cannon is in the Official core books and supplements published.
However as I have stated before it is YOUR game so run the material you like and have fun.

[Olefin]

As far as I know any material submitted to Challenge would have been vetted by the editors of the magazine - that means they would have looked at it, rejected material that did not support the canon, made changes as needed and worked with the authors on their ideas.

Far Future states explicity that the material on the CD's that they sell is part of GDW's committment to the sustainment of the V2.2 timeline and their listing of the material makes no statement in any way that the material is not canonical or differentiate between what is to canon and what isnt

As Mark Miller, who was a former staffer, made that statement that the material was part of GDW's sustainment of the V2.2 timeline then I would take that as being official material for the game.

[Olefin]

However I didnt mean to take this discussion off track

And Lt Ox - I agree with you as it the right of anyone who is running a game to play fast and loose with canon if they want to or say what is canon and what isnt, at least once you get past the initial game start (after all your players could do things that make some modules not happen - Major Po nuking the Soviet HQ comes to mind)

So back to what was posted - considering the Peacekeeper is basically an armored truck modeled on the same kind of trucks used by banks to transport money would that be what should be used to model bank armored cars as vehicles used by characters or others as to armor protection?

We know from 100% canon sources (offical modules) that the 278th and the 49th both used the Peacekeeper as armored cars in combat - and that New America is using bank armored cars in Florida for sure.

So I would definitely add them to the list of improvised armored vehicles types - with possibly extra armor added onto them to make them even more resistant to damage - i.e. kevlar, extra armor plates, possibly spaced armor bolted on top of them - and there definitely would be a lot of them to go around if you look at the total number in use right now in the USA and Canada.

[Olefin]

Oh and by the way the Challenge magazine articles being canon has been discussed before - i.e.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Six
IIRC there was a scenario published in a Challenge magazine that involved an M1 plant in Lima, Ohio (I haven't viewed the Youtube video so don't know if that's the plant in question). I can't recall the specifics - I think it might have involved the PC's having to recover some machinery or such like.

That Challenge Mag adventure has been discussed a number of times on this forum before. It's titled Lima Incident and it's in Challenge issue #56. Opening paragraph of the description:

*SPOILERS*

"The 112th Medical Division recently learned that 30 M-1 Abrams MBTs are sitting outside the former General Motors Lima Tank Plant in Lima, OH."

During one of the previous discussions about this scenario it was suggested (by Kato perhaps) that according to the canon strike lists, the Lima tank plant would likely have been within the zone of destruction caused by a nuke strike. However, given that GDW sanctioned a Challenge Mag adventure featuring the plant being intact, I treat it as being intact in my campaigns.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

canon
noun
1. a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged.
2. a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine.
3. material accepted as officially part of the story in an individual universe of that story.

And while those submissions may have been from fans the fact that they had to be vetted by the GDW staff to me implies that they are canon. It might imply that to you but that in no way means that line of thinking is correct. What it says to me is that GDW accepted the articles as support material for the game. If you were arguing point 1. in the definition of "canon" I listed above, then we might agree.
In other words the people who wrote the original material were on staff and had to evaluate if they would publish it or not. If the material was not canonical then most likely it would have been rejected or clearly marked as not to canon. A total supposition on your part. There is no requirement for a magazine that clearly states that it supports gaming and also very clearly states they want fan submissions, to accept the submitted material as canon. Nor is there any requirement on their part to point out that it is not canon. Generally, the audience is smart enough to realize that articles in a magazine that has fan written submissions, are not to be assumed automatically as canon.
I cannot find any place so far in Challenge where the twilight 2000 material that was submitted was marked as "not to canon" or alternate version. The material that was submitted by the GDW staff was not marked as canon specifically. Like every other game support magazine that asks for fan submissions, they had no need to, they felt their audience was smart enough to know that a lot of the material was written by fans and was acceptable for use but was very much "unofficial".

As for Adam - he submitted over a half dozen submissions for Merc 2000 and twilight 2000 over the years. So you would think that many submissions shows that his material was regarded as canon because of the amount of material submitted. Not in any way what so ever. What it makes me think is that he was a dedicated writer and his material was good enough to be published in support of the game. The quantity of material submitted is not the criteria that makes it eligible as canon.

As far as I know any material submitted to Challenge would have been vetted by the editors of the magazine - that means they would have looked at it, rejected material that did not support the canon, made changes as needed and worked with the authors on their ideas. Absolutely they would have vetted it, but they rarely work with the authors of fan submissions, they don't have the time. They edit fan material as they see fit and their legal terms state that they reserve the right to do so. However, they are under no obligation to declared those submissions as "canon". It's a completely different story when the writer is being paid for their work, they are contracted to provide material and then the implication is that the material will be part of canon.
Tegyrius is a good example of this - he wrote the Czech vehicle sourcebook for 2013 as part of a contract to provide canon material. The sourcebook was ultimately not accepted for publication so it is not part of official canon. It's not a fan submission, he was to be paid for the work. Fortune dictated otherwise and the 2013 rights holder did not exercise any attempt to claim the material so although everyone can clearly recognize the book was meant to be canon, it is not officially part of the product line and therefore, not canon.
Far Future states explicity that the material on the CD's that they sell is part of GDW's committment to the sustainment of the V2.2 timeline and their listing of the material makes no statement in any way that the material is not canonical or differentiate between what is to canon and what isnt
What this means is that FFE is offering material to continue to support the original product. It does not mean that the supporting material is canon and it does not mean people should jump to the conclusion that everything in a magazine that asked for fan submissions is actual canon.
If we were take that line of thinking then the Paranoia/Twilight: 2000 crossover adventure must also be considered canon - it is endorsed and official licensed material but it does not fit the T2k universe and is accepted as being sideline to the main game. It is official and accepted, but not as canon.

As Mark Miller, who was a former staffer, made that statement that the material was part of GDW's sustainment of the V2.2 timeline then I would take that as being official material for the game. You can take it as "official material" but what it actually is, is "official support", there is a difference.
Ultimately you can do with it as you will, just as we will - you might desire to believe it is canon but that does not mean that we too should believe it's canon.

[Rainbow Six]

Oh and by the way the Challenge magazine articles being canon has been discussed before - i.e.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Six
IIRC there was a scenario published in a Challenge magazine that involved an M1 plant in Lima, Ohio (I haven't viewed the Youtube video so don't know if that's the plant in question). I can't recall the specifics - I think it might have involved the PC's having to recover some machinery or such like.

That Challenge Mag adventure has been discussed a number of times on this forum before. It's titled Lima Incident and it's in Challenge issue #56. Opening paragraph of the description:

*SPOILERS*

"The 112th Medical Division recently learned that 30 M-1 Abrams MBTs are sitting outside the former General Motors Lima Tank Plant in Lima, OH."

During one of the previous discussions about this scenario it was suggested (by Kato perhaps) that according to the canon strike lists, the Lima tank plant would likely have been within the zone of destruction caused by a nuke strike. However, given that GDW sanctioned a Challenge Mag adventure featuring the plant being intact, I treat it as being intact in my campaigns.

If you are going to drag me into your canon / non canon debate would you mind at least quoting me properly?

This is what I said.

IIRC there was a scenario published in a Challenge magazine that involved an M1 plant in Lima, Ohio (I haven't viewed the Youtube video so don't know if that's the plant in question). I can't recall the specifics - I think it might have involved the PC's having to recover some machinery or such like.

Not quite sure what the above quote has to do with whether material published in Challenge is canon or isn't but it was my sole contribution to the thread in question; everything after it, which you appear to have attributed to me, was said by other people.

[Olefin]

did not mean to imply any agreement or disagreement on your behalf - that was a piece of the discussion showing acceptance in that line of discussion that the factory still being intact was a reality because GDW, by posting the article, had sanctioned the factory still being in existence even though earlier canon had stated the city had been hit by a nuke strike.

Was only used by me to show similar discussions from the past and opinions beyond my own

[Rainbow Six]

did not mean to imply any agreement or disagreement on your behalf - that was a piece of the discussion showing acceptance in that line of discussion that the factory still being intact was a reality because GDW, by posting the article, had sanctioned the factory still being in existence even though earlier canon had stated the city had been hit by a nuke strike.

Was only used by me to show similar discussions from the past and opinions beyond my own

Olefin, what I was really looking for in your response was just "sorry Rainbow, I'll edit that just now to show the proper quote" not a defence / justification.

You misquoted me. Period.

[Olefin]

And I will edit it when I get the chance when I get back to my desk and can properly edit it - and sorry not trying to defend any misquote - the part at the end was a response to your original quote by Targan and not you - and again was used as an example of how others see the articles as at the very least GDW sanctioned.

However until I can get to my desk later today please accept my full apology - no slight of any sort was intended. I will show the full thread and who the quote at the end as to sanctioning came from.

[.45cultist]

Guys A Rock In Troubled Waters is canon not a fan submission - if its in Challenge Magazine its canon as far as I know - lots of what became the 2nd edition are also in Challenge Magazine

And Adam Giebel wrote seven pieces for Challenge Magazine - and that was hardly a fan submission magazine - it was official GDW material for a bunch of their products

so canon it is unless what you are saying is that every article in Challenge Magazine wasnt canon

I liked that article. Who did the Texas inland waterway article? And which issue is it in?

[simonmark6]

"Angels are pure intelligences, not material, but limited, so that they have location in space, but not extension. Therefore, the number is infinite."

Dorothy L. Sayers

[Olefin]

With big time apologies to Rainbow 6 - this shows how the question of a Challenge Magazine article was canon was discussed in the past

thread

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=4306&highlight=tank+plant

Initial quote is from Rainbow 6

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six
IIRC there was a scenario published in a Challenge magazine that involved an M1 plant in Lima, Ohio (I haven't viewed the Youtube video so don't know if that's the plant in question). I can't recall the specifics - I think it might have involved the PC's having to recover some machinery or such like.

Response to his post from Targan

Originally Posted by Targan


*SPOILERS*
"The 112th Medical Division recently learned that 30 M-1 Abrams MBTs are sitting outside the former General Motors Lima Tank Plant in Lima, OH."

During one of the previous discussions about this scenario it was suggested (by Kato perhaps) that according to the canon strike lists, the Lima tank plant would likely have been within the zone of destruction caused by a nuke strike. However, given that GDW sanctioned a Challenge Mag adventure featuring the plant being intact, I treat it as being intact in my campaigns.


I am sorry again Rainbow Six and I never meant to make it sound like that whole quote had come from you

[swaghauler]

Years ago a group I was playing with added about ten layers of corrugated roofing iron to a light truck. Was more psychological than actual armour, but anything's better than nothing right?

You actually had a fairly decent form of light armor there. If you place the corrugated tin with the raised sections "overlapping" (put the raised edge of one sheet into the trough of another one) and bolt or weld them all together; You will produce a form of spaced armor that will stop handgun rounds and even some light rifle rounds (M1 Carbine rounds). Back it with some cork or fiberglass and it will resist multiple rounds. Bolt it to a frame about a foot away from the vehicle of structure and you have a fairly good "RPG Screen" as well.

[Olefin]

One last post on canon and Challenge magazine which was edited by Loren Wiseman - i.e. the articles by him, by Frank Frey, and others who were GDW authors - these articles are either by known GDW authors or ones who Loren worked with directly on articles he submitted, meaning they may have worked for GDW in some capacity - so do you consider these to be canon for either Twilight or MERC?

"Twilight scenario: False Knight on the Road", Ch25: 9-10
Frey, Frank

"Twilight: 2000 Air Module", Ch26: 3-11
"Air Module II", Ch28: 3-5
Frey, Frank, & Loren Wiseman

"All that Glitters", Ch67: 12
"Poppies", Ch68: 6
"Avery's Raiders", Ch69: 6
"Altruistic Motives", Ch73: 10
Brown, Timothy B.

"Black Siberia", Ch51: 6-12 (1991)
"Merc: 2000 - Jumpy Jehosophat", Ch55: 10-11 (1991)
Kiesche, Fred, and Loren Wiseman

"Equipment for Armor Crews", Ch32: 3-7 (1988)
"Haute Cuisine a la 2000", Ch33: 3-5 (1988)
Keith, William H.

"Going On Safari", Ch52: 6-12 (1991)
Mulkey, Thomas E. (Capt., US Army, ret'd)

"Merc 2000: Silence is Golden", Ch58: 12-16 (1992)
"Things Got Weirder", Ch62: 12-13, 16-18 (1992)
Smith, Lester W., & Loren K. Wiseman

"Umpiring Twilight", Ch38: 4-5 (1989)
Wiseman, Loren K.


"Target 2000: The 'Hit List' for WWIII", Ch27: 9-10/47 (1986)
"Twilight: 2000 Consolidated Price List", Ch27: 11-14 (1986)
"Buildings: Optional rules for Urban Locales", Ch29: 12-14 (1987)
"TWILIGHT Survey", Ch33: 11 (1988)
"Heavy Weapons Guide Preview", Ch40: 4-6 (1989)
"The Stoner 63 Weapon System: the Guns that Never (Really) Were", Ch40: 8-9 (1989)
"Sheltie Holiday", Ch43: 6-15 (1990)
"TWILIGHT II: The Adventure Continues", Ch45: 6-11 (1990)
"Attack of the Mud Men", Ch46: 6-9 (1990)
"Merc: 2000 - Barbados", Ch48: 7-12 (1991)
"Infantry Weapons: Special Preview", Ch48: 16-17 (1991)
"HOW TO: Obtain Maps for Gaming", Ch49: 16-17 (1991)
Wiseman, Loren K., and Timothy B. Brown

"Inside an M1", Ch29: 8-10 (1987)
"Mobile Artillery - Mortars", Ch34: 6-7 (1988)
McRae, Legion G.

"Canada: 2000", Ch30: 13-18 (1987)
"Red Maple", Ch36: 3-10 (1988)
"Seeing is Believing", Ch54: 6-9 (1991)
"It Was Unlikely...", Ch65: 8
McRae, Legion G., and Michelle Sturgeon


"Citymaker", Ch35: 4-10 (1988)
Wiseman, Loren K., and Legion G. McRae

[Raellus]

My Lions of Twilight was publicly endorsed by Frank Frey, right here on this very forum. Does that mean that it's canon? Does it mean that it's more canonical than Olefin's East African Sourcebook? Does it matter?

My take on these is:
A. No.
B. No.
C. No.

Why are we still debating what is and what is not canon? Every GM has the power to decide what to use and what to omit from his/her own T2KU. Some forumites ignore Howling Wilderness, which is, by Olefin's definition, canon. So, why do some of those same people bring out the "this is in canon so it's more valid" argument elsewhere (i.e. in this thread)?

My point is, we all pick and choose, so no one should really be trying to impose their views on others with the "this is canon" argument. It's moot because all determine what is or isn't the case in our own T2KUs.

Let's drop it and move on.

[Olefin]

No actually I am not trying to impose any view Raellus. I am just asking because I had always assumed that the challenge magazine material was canon because so much of it was written by the GDW authors themselves. And I have seen others refer to it as such as well.

With the exception of HW and Kidnapped I try to keep my writing and play as canonical based as I can. Thus it's good to know what a canon source is versus non. But again in the big scheme it's not that big a deal. If I base something on A Rock in Troubled Waters then I do. If someone doesn't accept it then they dont

[pmulcahy11b]

Here it is:
http://www.pmulcahy.com/misc_pages/armor_values.html
It doesn't actually have a link to it anywhere on the site (as far as I can tell)

As far as I can calculate (according to that chart), the 10 layers of corrugated iron (assuming 2mm sheets) would have an AV of 3 (actually 3.33), and possibly spaced (especially if it's welded together loosely).

[Raellus]

No actually I am not trying to impose any view Raellus. I am just asking because I had always assumed that the challenge magazine material was canon because so much of it was written by the GDW authors themselves. And I have seen others refer to it as such as well.

With the exception of HW and Kidnapped I try to keep my writing and play as canonical based as I can. Thus it's good to know what a canon source is versus non.

It's seems like you're doing a lot more than "asking". Folks have answered you several times yet you persist to "ask". Let's be honest here.

But again in the big scheme it's not that big a deal. If I base something on A Rock in Troubled Waters then I do. If someone doesn't accept it then they dont

Right on! More power to you.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

There was a small number of vehicles made by the nascent Israeli state when they were in dire need of armoured vehicles. I've never found much in the way of technical specs and they are all generally referred to as "Sandwich armour" cars/trucks etc.
The "sandwich armour" was an early sort of composite but you can see the vehicles were made in a decent workshop and are not "hillbilly" as such. In some cases the vehicles are changed enough that its difficult to tell what it originally was before they added the armour.

The Israelis may have started using the "sandwich" label early on but there's just so little information available that the who & when is still unclear. What is known is that they constructed the armour as a thick wooden board between two iron or steel sheets and that they armoured a number of vehicles to make scout cars, APCs and protected ambulances. It's also stated at the Latrun museum that the vehicles were heavy and a strain on the motors so the vehicles were slow moving - and hence easy targets.
There's two examples on the following link (pics 7 & 8)
https://milinme.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/
And a much more in depth look at one such APC on the following link
http://svsm.org/gallery/improvised_armored_car?page=1

At a guess I'd say that the steel plates probably didn't add much protection and so the board provided most of it, (the plates were probably more to stop splinters from flying off the wood). I'm guessing at game stats (2nd Ed.) but based on the table for AV, the larger vehicles could have been AV 6 or 7 with the smaller vehicles having maybe AV 4 or 5. Useful against smallarms but when the vehicle is slow, it ain't so great for anything else :(

[Olefin]

Here it is:
http://www.pmulcahy.com/misc_pages/armor_values.html
It doesn't actually have a link to it anywhere on the site (as far as I can tell)

As far as I can calculate (according to that chart), the 10 layers of corrugated iron (assuming 2mm sheets) would have an AV of 3 (actually 3.33), and possibly spaced (especially if it's welded together loosely).

So Paul - how would the Cadillac Gage Ranger (i.e. the Peacekeeper) compare to a typical armored car - are the numbers for the vehicle comparable to what a bank armored car would be?

[.45cultist]

So Paul - how would the Cadillac Gage Ranger (i.e. the Peacekeeper) compare to a typical armored car - are the numbers for the vehicle comparable to what a bank armored car would be?

Doesn't the Ranger use the "Cadalloy" aluminum alloy armor by Textron?

Cadillac Gage became Textron, Food Machinery Corp. became Alliant Tech. Some mistake "FMC" for Ford Motor Co.and not Food Machinery Corp.

[Olefin]

I think you may be right - wasnt it only about a 1/4 inch thick?

The Stingray tank and the V-100 Commando had the Cadalloy armor for sure

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I liked that article. Who did the Texas inland waterway article? And which issue is it in?
Title: The Inland Waterway: Supplemental Material for Red Star/Lone Star
Author: William H. Keith, Jr
Challenge Issue No27, pages 6 to 8 then continued on page 22.
Published: sometime around the end of 1986.

It would be a bit of luck to find a printed copy these days but if you have the spare dollars, Far Future Enterprises has PDF copies for purchase either individually through places like DrivethruRPG (and the price is discounted at the moment)
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/87160/CHALLENGE-Magazine-No-27
or on the 1st edition or 2nd edition CD-ROMs of T2k. FFE also offer a CD-ROM of all the Challenge mags.
http://www.farfuture.net/FFE-CDROMs.html
The T2k disks cost US$35 each, the Challenge disk cost US$45

[Olefin]

Title: The Inland Waterway: Supplemental Material for Red Star/Lone Star
Author: William H. Keith, Jr
Challenge Issue No27, pages 6 to 8 then continued on page 22.
Published: sometime around the end of 1986.

It would be a bit of luck to find a printed copy these days but if you have the spare dollars, Far Future Enterprises has PDF copies for purchase either individually through places like DrivethruRPG (and the price is discounted at the moment)
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/87160/CHALLENGE-Magazine-No-27
or on the 1st edition or 2nd edition CD-ROMs of T2k. FFE also offer a CD-ROM of all the Challenge mags.
http://www.farfuture.net/FFE-CDROMs.html
The T2k disks cost US$35 each, the Challenge disk cost US$45

the pdf versions are very good ones - good scan quality

[StainlessSteelCynic]

That's good news. In the early days, the scans on the disks had some problems, bad sizing, poor colour reproduction or just blanked out. To be clear, this mostly affected the Challenge articles and not the majority of the game books.
I don't think it was a problem with the actual scanning, I think it was from the digital transfer when burning to disk as at the time it was very much a case of FFE burning new CD-ROMS when they received orders (rather than having a bunch of them made and then sitting around waiting to be sold).

Both my T2k disks have this problem but I didn't really care too much about it as I have all the Challenge mags in dead tree format and I wanted to support FFE, not hassle them for refunds etc. etc.
However it would've been a real pain in the arse for anyone who wanted those articles because they didn't have the magazines. As it is now, I believe the problems are fixed on any disks sold by FFE but it's still good to hear from people who have bought the pdf versions.

[Legbreaker]

...if you have the spare dollars, Far Future Enterprises has PDF copies for purchase either individually through places like DrivethruRPG (and the price is discounted at the moment)

Also available by less...reputable means.

[Olefin]

That's good news. In the early days, the scans on the disks had some problems, bad sizing, poor colour reproduction or just blanked out. To be clear, this mostly affected the Challenge articles and not the majority of the game books.
I don't think it was a problem with the actual scanning, I think it was from the digital transfer when burning to disk as at the time it was very much a case of FFE burning new CD-ROMS when they received orders (rather than having a bunch of them made and then sitting around waiting to be sold).

Both my T2k disks have this problem but I didn't really care too much about it as I have all the Challenge mags in dead tree format and I wanted to support FFE, not hassle them for refunds etc. etc.
However it would've been a real pain in the arse for anyone who wanted those articles because they didn't have the magazines. As it is now, I believe the problems are fixed on any disks sold by FFE but it's still good to hear from people who have bought the pdf versions.

I have seen some stuff that was posted for free on various share sites that had very bad scan quality - the point you couldnt make out details on the maps, crooked pages, missing pages, you name it

so far from what I am seeing both FFE and the pdf's that you pay for dont have those issues -

and I am always suspicious that a "free" download may have a fun virus along for the ride

[Legbreaker]

So you've never heard of people sharing the PDFs they've bought then? Like anything digital, they're easy to copy and paste....

[Olefin]

Oh I have heard of that - I am talking about ones that were on free sites that look like older scans - the ones for sale and on the disks are very good ones and nice to be able to see the colors correctly for instance on the maps and the vehicle plates

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Sounds like FFE fixed those earlier problems then. I bought my T2k disks from FFE very soon after they announced them for sale (I got them probably 4-6 months after they went on sale).
I don't recall if the Dark Conspiracy CD-ROMs I bought from FFE have the same problem but that fact that I can't recall any leads me to believe that there probably weren't as many (or any at all).

[rcaf_777]

Mythbuster made phone book Armour

[Raellus]

Keep It Legal

We do not tolerate piracy or copyright infringement here. Do not post links to bit-torrents or other illegal content-sharing sites.

This conversation is veering into some pretty murky legal waters. Let's get back on topic.

[Sanjuro]

But at least it's veering into good-tempered murky legal waters! Actually FFE were great, I need to choose the next 4 discs to buy...

[Raellus]

But at least it's veering into good-tempered murky legal waters!

LOL. True, but still.

[Legbreaker]

Nobody will be posting any links to torrents here, but ignoring the fact they exist and are easy to find doesn't make them go away either.

[Raellus]

Nobody will be posting any links to torrents here, but ignoring the fact they exist and are easy to find doesn't make them go away either.

Steering people in the direction of illegal bootlegs is not a whole lot better than downloading them and sharing them yourself. It's like, "I'm not dealing crack, I'm just telling people where to look for it." I guess there's no crime in that, but it's pretty darn shady nonetheless.

Please follow the spirit of the law, instead of parsing its letter.

[Tegyrius]

I'll put it more simply. Don't be a dick, and don't sanction or aid dickery. Discussions like this one make me want to stop writing for publication.

- C.

[LT. Ox]

I'll put it more simply. Don't be a dick, and don't sanction or aid dickery. Discussions like this one make me want to stop writing for publication.

- C.
Your post, while understandably direct, is Offensive in nature and a direct personal attack to a member here.
Perhaps that is just my take.
I too have had more than one episode of copyright infringement, I am sure not so prevalent as yours, I have run a pewter casting company and made pewter products and reproductions up until five years ago and my work is easy to copy with the right tools I see it (the copies) for sale on E-bay and would love to discuss the matter with those listing the items.
Your work is much easier to duplicate now and a real problem to seek redress, I do not think that is justification to call anyone a dick head or other demeaning names on this site.
Before you reply that you did not direct that post towards anyone person in particular I would like to point out it seems that way to me and I am sure to a number of others as well.
I would have done this in the personal area but your post is public I therefore think it should be a public discussion.
Harry O

[Tegyrius]

Here, have some context:

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=2531&page=2

Relevant discussion begins with post 38. You may wish to reference my brief analysis in post 60.

- C.

[LT. Ox]

Absolutely no argument with your position, nor do I think that supporting theft is acceptable and it is pure and simple theft to use copyrighted material without permission obtained by the rightful holder of that copyright.

As I said earlier I have lost a lot of revenue to people that cannot or will not have enough integrity to purchase material or ask to obtain it in a legal and respectful manner.
My Company was also me, myself and I, I researched historic items I carved and engraved masters, made models and molds and then cast cleaned and polished the products.
The most time consuming part is the research and model making as much as three hundred hours went into a piece. Then someone takes my work and puts it into a machine and two hours later is producing the item. Then sells it for fifty cents less. Yep it upsets me.
That is not the point Sir. What I object to is name calling on a site and where it can go.
I am sure your use of the Term, Dick, has a different meaning then it does to me, Generational for sure. If you referred to me with that term face to face I would be prone to punch you in the nose. (Not really I have grown out of that just last year.)
I hope you see my point. If not I am sorry if I have upset you or added to a touch situation.

[Legbreaker]

As I said, ignoring the existence of internet piracy and insulting people does not make the issue or files go away. They are a fact of life whether we like it or not and sticking ones head in the sand does nobody any good.
Those that pay for material, good on them. Those that don't, well, what can really be done about it in a practical sense? The internet and international law is complex and it would seem there are many, many skilled people more than willing to "break" any protections placed on written work (and all other forms of digital media).
Morally it may not be right (depending on culture), but it happens and will continue to happen for as long as humans exist.

It may be harsh, and I intend no insult, but "deal with it" seems to be about the only advice that can be given to authors and other creators, short of expensive and probably futile legal action (like I said, the internet is big, and international laws complex and incomplete).

Any author under the current situation really only has two choices - publish and risk being ripped off, or don't.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Hey fellas, how about we stop talking about this in this particular thread?
There's already been enough derailing (and yes I was one of the culprits).
If people want to discuss it, there's always PMs or an Off-Topic thread that can be started yeah?

Cheers :)

[LT. Ox]

Roger:)

[rcaf_777]

Here's a novel idea lets get back on the topic of the thread which is improvised armour

How about making armour using other items

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Here's a novel idea lets get back on the topic of the thread which is improvised armour

How about making armour using other items

Seems your bluntness didn't do the trick :p

This particular form of alternate armour has been mentioned before, it was seen on vehicles in the break up of Yugoslavia - thick rubber matting like that seen on conveyor belts. In fact conveyor belts are superior because they generally have fibre or metallic strands braided through the material for extra strength.

You could probably form a decent composite from steel plate, conveyor belt, hard wood planks and another layer of steel plate. The conveyor belt would give it a little bit of resistance in the same manner as ballistic fibres (as in they stretch somewhat to absorb some of the energy).

Even conveyor belt hanging as a skirt might have some value against solid projectiles and possibly even light anti-armour rockets. Being unsecured on one or more sides means the belt would flex wildly when struck and likely change the trajectory of the round along with reducing its energy.

[rcaf_777]

In the TV Show Mythbusters, they used phone books to amour up at car, while it did protection againsit some of the smaller rounds it was unable to deal with large caliber stuff and the weight made the car very slow

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Another thing I've seen done is a composite of ceramic tiles like those you use for tiling a bathroom, sheet steel, fibreglass cloth and rolls of duct-tape.

Bond the tiles to the sheet steel, add another layer of tiles to cover the gaps in the first layer, cover each side in a few layers of fibreglass cloth then bond it with fibreglass resin then wrap the whole thing in metres of duct-tape.

It's labour & resource intensive to make vehicle sized plates but a 1-2cm plate stops common pistol rounds and buckshot and severely slows down mid-calibre rifle rounds.

[aspqrz]

Sounds like all of this would be about as successful as the Soviet attempts to use improvised armour (not tanks) against the Finns at the beginning of the Winter War ... not very, in other words.

Counterproductive time wasting in fact - they would have been better off figuring out better tactics or deployments and not ordering human wave attacks!

Now, welding track links or stuff to MBT hulls or even scrap metal to Hummers is not quite as bad ... but, if you think about it, smacks of the same sort of sloppy thinking.

It's like what I remember reading about an assessment of US Army 'recon' in WW2 vs what everyone else did. Everyone else snuck around and actually sent people in on the sly (or tried to) to see what was in that copse of trees over thar yonder ... the US simply called in a divisional level artillery barrage and, voila, no trees (and no occupants, if any were there in the first place).

Or those officers (mostly) who act like anything with a track and a machinegun is a tank ... and find out sharpish that they aren't ... or who think that a Tank can make an unsupported cavalry charge, and find out that infantry support is a much better idea, usually too late for the tank crew (or the rest of the tank crew if they were the track commander).

If you're improvising armour then you're probably doing something wrong in the first place ... probably ... :)

Phil

[rcaf_777]

Another thing I've seen done is a composite of ceramic tiles like those you use for tiling a bathroom, sheet steel, fibreglass cloth and rolls of duct-tape.

Roof titles might work better

[rcaf_777]

Found this too

http://www.fortisarmour.com/products/19_vehicle_armour_covert/

[unkated]

If you want to see improvised armor have you seen what Mexican druglords are doing in Mexico now as to making improvised "narco" tanks? Definitely something that someone could come up with in T2KU.

Brief articles on Mexican narco tanks (http://www.businessinsider.com/most-amazing-narco-tanks-2015-2). Low on detail, but the pictures are good. I suspect that like bank armored cars, the armor is helpful against small arms only.

Second article (http://www.businessinsider.com/features-of-mexicos-narco-tanks-2015-6) with a few notes. Most of the added detail you will have guessed from the first pictures. 2-in steel sides especially angled, would up the defensive value to something more like 6 or 7 - again, good vs small arms & LMGs.

Uncle Ted

[Olefin]

Brief articles on Mexican narco tanks (http://www.businessinsider.com/most-amazing-narco-tanks-2015-2). Low on detail, but the pictures are good. I suspect that like bank armored cars, the armor is helpful against small arms only.

Second article (http://www.businessinsider.com/features-of-mexicos-narco-tanks-2015-6) with a few notes. Most of the added detail you will have guessed from the first pictures. 2-in steel sides especially angled, would up the defensive value to something more like 6 or 7 - again, good vs small arms & LMGs.

Uncle Ted

2 inch thick armor?! - hell thats better than the armor on most of equipment the Mexican Army uses - and your typical cop or narc agent isnt carrying around an RPG

[Rockwolf66]

2 inch thick armor?! - hell thats better than the armor on most of equipment the Mexican Army uses - and your typical cop or narc agent isnt carrying around an RPG

Well someone has used an RPG on one of the Narco-tanks. On page 70 there is an Image of what happens when a RPG hits the cab of one of these things.

Narco Armor PDF (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/Collaboration/international/Mexico/Narco-Armor.pdf)

[Olefin]

Well someone has used an RPG on one of the Narco-tanks. On page 70 there is an Image of what happens when a RPG hits the cab of one of these things.

Narco Armor PDF (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/Collaboration/international/Mexico/Narco-Armor.pdf)

thats what I call a kill!

and great resource there

[Rockwolf66]

thats what I call a kill!

and great resource there

Thanks,
I found it when I was researching for a Novel that I am writing that takes place around the El Paso/Juarez region. One of the Protagonists is a former Cartel associate. In doing the research I have found myself looking at some very horrible stuff.

One of the secondary groups is a team of Elite Mercs on loan to Mexican Intelligence.

Basically you have the US and mexican Government on one side, a cartel on the other and the protagonists stuck in the middle.

[Targan]

I'm very much looking forward to seeing Sicario.

[swaghauler]

One area that is often overlooked in Twilight is the effect that ordinary objects like furniture or interior walls have on gunfire or other projectile weapons. I know they have the Armor Values of Common Materials Chart for buildings and structures: but what about that bed or couch you dive behind when ambushed in your own "living room?"

I have a very basic system where I give an object like furniture a "barrier value (represented by a number in brackets like this [#])" from 1 to 10. This number represents the number of POINTS of damage that an object will absorb (as opposed to DICE for armor) from an attack. Penetration effects this number by multiplying it (or dividing it for 1/2 PEN). The object is affected by ALL the damage it absorbs and any excess damage passes through the object to the target. Unlike armor though, the object is visibly harmed by this absorbed damage. I increase the object's wear value each time in absorbs its "barrier value" in damage, and decrease its "barrier value" by one for each absorbed attack (representing the "erosion" of the object by the damage it absorbs). I use this system for some items that Twilight counts as "armored" (such as car doors). This means that while your car door will protect you (at value 8) from incoming fire; It may not work as a door anymore afterwards (or may even be shot up to the point it falls off your car). I was wondering how any of you deal with the "target jumping behind the desk" scenario?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I have to admit to not really thinking about it, other than give furniture etc. etc. a rough Armour Value.
I like your idea however and I think it should be in it's own thread to get some better exploration of the subject.
One area that is often overlooked in Twilight is the effect that ordinary objects like furniture or interior walls have on gunfire or other projectile weapons. I know they have the Armor Values of Common Materials Chart for buildings and structures: but what about that bed or couch you dive behind when ambushed in your own "living room?"

I have a very basic system where I give an object like furniture a "barrier value (represented by a number in brackets like this [#])" from 1 to 10. This number represents the number of POINTS of damage that an object will absorb (as opposed to DICE for armor) from an attack. Penetration effects this number by multiplying it (or dividing it for 1/2 PEN). The object is affected by ALL the damage it absorbs and any excess damage passes through the object to the target. Unlike armor though, the object is visibly harmed by this absorbed damage. I increase the object's wear value each time in absorbs its "barrier value" in damage, and decrease its "barrier value" by one for each absorbed attack (representing the "erosion" of the object by the damage it absorbs). I use this system for some items that Twilight counts as "armored" (such as car doors). This means that while your car door will protect you (at value 8) from incoming fire; It may not work as a door anymore afterwards (or may even be shot up to the point it falls off your car). I was wondering how any of you deal with the "target jumping behind the desk" scenario?

[pmulcahy11b]

So Paul - how would the Cadillac Gage Ranger (i.e. the Peacekeeper) compare to a typical armored car - are the numbers for the vehicle comparable to what a bank armored car would be?

I have the Ranger set at HF3 HS3 HR3 -- though HS2 might be more proper. A bank armored car would be more like HF2 HS2 HR2 (or maybe only 1).

[swaghauler]

I have the Ranger set at HF3 HS3 HR3 -- though HS2 might be more proper. A bank armored car would be more like HF2 HS2 HR2 (or maybe only 1).

I have to say that those armor values seem light to me. Almost every vehicle we had was rated at least NIJ level 3 (rifle) in the body and most were at least NIJ level 3A in the windows (.44 mag/12 gauge slug). I know all of LOOMIS's trucks are Level 3 (rifle). Level 3 (rifle) will stop multiple 5.56N or 7.62mm X 39mm rounds and is also proof against at least 2 .308/7.62mm rounds in the 150 grain/2800 ft per sec power range. That would mean your Level 3 (rifle) armor should be AV 4 for both cargo and crew compartment. an interesting note is that there is no armor on the engine compartment. There are "bullet deflectors" situated around the engine (AV1 Kevlar) but plate makes the hood too heavy and can lead to overheating in hot climates (because the engine cannot breath properly). The push guard seen on some trucks (very prevalent on the smaller 1 ton and 2 1/2 ton trucks) is AV2 rated and bolted to the frame to allow for ramming. Most newer trucks have fire suppression and "overpressure" gas protection (tied into the air conditioning). The vehicles also sport "run flat" tires and self sealing motor oil, coolant, and brake hoses.

[swaghauler]

When I get my industrial sewing machine, for making my own tents and other gear, one of the things I wanted to look into is the rolls of Kevlar. Comes in large rolls like other cloth. I haven't seriously looked for sources or costs yet.

Remember that you must seal the Kevlar into some form of watertight container. When Kevlar that is unprotected by laminate (like on the K-pot) or more commonly a waterproof cover (as found on soft body armor) is exposed to moisture (even sweat), it begins to degrade and loses it's protective capability quickly. This is what happened to the Second Chance Monarch NIJ Level 3A vests the PA State Police bought. Replacing 10,000 defective vests forced Second Chance into bankruptcy. Also remember that all soft body armor "degrades" through normal wear. After 5 years of daily use, a vest will no longer be guaranteed to stop its rated threat due to the natural "breakdown" of the fibers caused by your movement. Rounds which penetrate the vest will also destroy the integrity of the fibers as well as making a hole in the waterproof barrier, a "double whammy" to the wearer who may need the vest to hold up for a while under "field conditions."

[swaghauler]

I have to admit to not really thinking about it, other than give furniture etc. etc. a rough Armour Value.
I like your idea however and I think it should be in it's own thread to get some better exploration of the subject.

I'll put together a more detailed post as a "stand alone". I also have some rough rules on breaching that fall under a similar mechanic (1 to 10 to breach a door) which could use the input of the forum's collective knowledge.

[pmulcahy11b]

I have to say that those armor values seem light to me. Almost every vehicle we had was rated at least NIJ level 3 (rifle) in the body and most were at least NIJ level 3A in the windows (.44 mag/12 gauge slug). I know all of LOOMIS's trucks are Level 3 (rifle). Level 3 (rifle) will stop multiple 5.56N or 7.62mm X 39mm rounds and is also proof against at least 2 .308/7.62mm rounds in the 150 grain/2800 ft per sec power range. That would mean your Level 3 (rifle) armor should be AV 4 for both cargo and crew compartment. an interesting note is that there is no armor on the engine compartment. There are "bullet deflectors" situated around the engine (AV1 Kevlar) but plate makes the hood too heavy and can lead to overheating in hot climates (because the engine cannot breath properly). The push guard seen on some trucks (very prevalent on the smaller 1 ton and 2 1/2 ton trucks) is AV2 rated and bolted to the frame to allow for ramming. Most newer trucks have fire suppression and "overpressure" gas protection (tied into the air conditioning). The vehicles also sport "run flat" tires and self sealing motor oil, coolant, and brake hoses.

I likely got that from the canon books. I could jigger it by giving it a radically-sloped front (making it HF6), and the sides are sort of moderately sloped changing it to HS5, (or exactly 4.5). I'd keep the HR at 3.

[rcaf_777]

Some nice makeshift APC

[unkated]

Well, the original Cadillac-Gage Peacekeeper is available in the NATO Vehicle Guide. It's armor is listed as HF 2 HS 1 HR 1.

I find that a little weak if an unarmored car (or humvee) is supposed to have an armor value of 1. Peacekeeper I was armored with 1/4-in (6.3 mm) of steel.

Peacekeeper II has 0.5-in (12.7mm) of steel, and supposedly can stop 7.62mm NATO rounds (NiJ IV). The Lenco Bearcat claims it too has 0.5-in of steel, and that it stops 7.62mm NATO rounds. Armor value 3 all around?

'Normal' (Bank) armored cars seem viable against small arms smaller and weaker than 7.62mm NATO (pistols, 7.62mmS, 5.45mm, normal 5.56mmN)

Uncle Ted

[swaghauler]

Well, the original Cadillac-Gage Peacekeeper is available in the NATO Vehicle Guide. It's armor is listed as HF 2 HS 1 HR 1.

I find that a little weak if an unarmored car (or humvee) is supposed to have an armor value of 1. Peacekeeper I was armored with 1/4-in (6.3 mm) of steel.

Peacekeeper II has 0.5-in (12.7mm) of steel, and supposedly can stop 7.62mm NATO rounds (NiJ IV). The Lenco Bearcat claims it too has 0.5-in of steel, and that it stops 7.62mm NATO rounds. Armor value 3 all around?

'Normal' (Bank) armored cars seem viable against small arms smaller and weaker than 7.62mm NATO (pistols, 7.62mmS, 5.45mm, normal 5.56mmN)

Uncle Ted
Remember that NIJ Level 3 (rifle) in both soft (Dyneema) and hard (SAPI plates) configurations is rated to stop at least THREE 7.62mm NATO rounds in 150 grain/2800 ft per sec loading. NIJ Level 4 (rifle) is rated to stop at least ONE 3006 Armor Piercing round at 180 grain/2900 ft per sec loading.
This is hard to translate into game terms with the way Penetration works but I would say that NIJ Level 3 (rifle)/SAPI would be worth Armor Value 4 and NIJ Level 4 (Rifle)/ESAPI would be either Armor Value 5 or 6 in game.

[swaghauler]

A prepper named READYMAN just posted a video on Full30.com on how to "up armor" your vehicle in 30 minutes or less. They managed to stop 7.62mm X 39mm rounds with a case of green beans backed by books. It was worth watching.