RPG Forums

RPG Forums (https://forum.juhlin.com/index.php)
-   Twilight 2000 Forum (https://forum.juhlin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   M59 APC? (https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=2805)

HorseSoldier 04-13-2011 01:15 AM

I can't see them being resurrected pre-TDM for active service. M113s were available in sufficient quantity that we'd given them to half the Free World as well as our own use.

Post-TDM as things go pear shaped, I could see them getting dusted off for issue to CONUS forces to try and give US troops doing internal security work some sort of AFVs as the security situation deteriorates.

Abbott Shaull 04-13-2011 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier (Post 33159)
I can't see them being resurrected pre-TDM for active service. M113s were available in sufficient quantity that we'd given them to half the Free World as well as our own use.

Post-TDM as things go pear shaped, I could see them getting dusted off for issue to CONUS forces to try and give US troops doing internal security work some sort of AFVs as the security situation deteriorates.

One could see them going to lot of the Reserve Divisions in limited numbers to help give them little more fighting power than a hand full of SUVs and Pickups and the few HMMWVs they would have.

HorseSoldier 04-13-2011 10:49 AM

Exactly -- I could see someone wanting to issue them to the late war USAR divisions, maybe to fill out a DivCav squadron. Some tanks for gun power would be nice, too, in the Cav squadron or elsewhere, but maybe M59s with 106 recoilless rifles would be adequate for CONUS internal security. Keeping them all stateside would help with some really sketchy logistics issues.

Abbott Shaull 04-13-2011 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier (Post 33164)
Exactly -- I could see someone wanting to issue them to the late war USAR divisions, maybe to fill out a DivCav squadron. Some tanks for gun power would be nice, too, in the Cav squadron or elsewhere, but maybe M59s with 106 recoilless rifles would be adequate for CONUS internal security. Keeping them all stateside would help with some really sketchy logistics issues.

Actually I see them being used much like the Aphib tractors are used in the Marine Division. They are place in Battalion where Driver and Commanders with Maintenance personnel in Battalion and they are farmed out to the troops as needed. Yeah, it brings up some difficulty when a unit gets their turn to play the dismount element, but it will get them mobile.

I have always been of the thought that even with the Light Infantry Division of the National Guard and Regular units with the exception of the 82nd and 101st would of had one Brigade that would have been Motorized at least.

The other 6 Battalions - Task Force would probably have enough transport to have one platoon up to one Company that can be made motorized. While at with Division level asset they would be able to get one full task force up to another one that can be moved from place to place in hurry if needed.

Let's face it by 2000 many of the former Mechanized and Armor Divisions will more than likely have something similar to WWII Rifle regiment or two, in other words 3 or more Rifle Battalion/Task Forces that help them control their area. On the same token the Light Infantry Divisions will have transformed one Brigade into mobile Brigade that not tied down too much and can be used as Rapid Reaction Force. By 2000 many of the Divisions level units that take to the field will be a collection of mobile Brigades from several Division while the Light Brigade stay behind to protect and watch over the crops the unit needs in the future.

Just some thoughts...

HorseSoldier 04-13-2011 10:49 PM

I was thinking basically recreating the Vietnam era cav squadron that provided QRF/striking power/etc for the infantry divisions of the era. Those units included pretty robust infantry/dismount strength compared to the M1/M3 armored cav combo these days.

Kangaroo carriers would definitely be another option, the main downside to that approach being that it doesn't work really well and there's all sorts of coordination/familiarity issues when people try to use it for anything more than just mobility. Even if the preference was to focus on mechanizing infantry, I think the preferred course of action would be to build a mech battalion (or whatever resources allowed) rather than trying to pair foot infantry with carriers on the fly for pretty delicate and complicated missions.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.