RPG Forums

RPG Forums (https://forum.juhlin.com/index.php)
-   Twilight 2000 Forum (https://forum.juhlin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   AT Guns (https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=929)

copeab 06-29-2009 11:16 PM

A couple of other observations:

First, while ATGMs do have a much longer effective range than AT guns, local terrain will likely greatly limit advantage, unless you flatten and clear everything within 3,000 meters.

(OTOH, the ambush factor of an ATGM that finds a commanding view firing at very long range is significant.)

Secondly, AT guns have a useful role against attacking infantry, firing HE or some type of multiple-projectile round.

Mohoender 06-30-2009 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webstral
Bear in mind the context of the original post, Mo. The author wants to explore the fact that by the 1980's NATO had virually eliminated the AT gun from its collective arsenal, while the Pact forces maintained significant numbers of them. If you re-read the original post, the author doesn't even address AT guns in Twilight: 2000, other than to imply that the pre-war arsenals are the foundation of the post-Exchange arsenals.

Right. I didn't pay attention and have a tendancy to think according to T2K. My fault.:confused:

TiggerCCW UK 06-30-2009 02:21 AM

Disclaimer - This post is made on the basis of complete ignorance.

Would EMP have affected the guidance systems of the fancy schmancy missiles? That could be another big point in favour of AT guns.

Abbott Shaull 06-30-2009 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK
Disclaimer - This post is made on the basis of complete ignorance.

Would EMP have affected the guidance systems of the fancy schmancy missiles? That could be another big point in favour of AT guns.

Not for sure, but I think there would a few, likely several that would have to be written off as malfunctioning due to EMP.

Abbott Shaull 06-30-2009 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by copeab
A couple of other observations:

First, while ATGMs do have a much longer effective range than AT guns, local terrain will likely greatly limit advantage, unless you flatten and clear everything within 3,000 meters.

(OTOH, the ambush factor of an ATGM that finds a commanding view firing at very long range is significant.)

Secondly, AT guns have a useful role against attacking infantry, firing HE or some type of multiple-projectile round.

Yes, ask any WWII vet who had the misfortune of being on the wrong end of German 88 that were firing at general ground targets, due to the fact there were no Allied Tanks to kill.

Raellus 06-30-2009 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK
Would EMP have affected the guidance systems of the fancy schmancy missiles? That could be another big point in favour of AT guns.

Good question. I also wonder how long some of those pre-packaged ATGMs would last under battlefield conditions (rain, heat, cold, dust) etc. If the last missiles were manufactured in '97, would they function well enough in 2000? What the normal failure rate for an ATGM and would it increase over time?

cavtroop 06-30-2009 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raellus
Good question. I also wonder how long some of those pre-packaged ATGMs would last under battlefield conditions (rain, heat, cold, dust) etc. If the last missiles were manufactured in '97, would they function well enough in 2000? What the normal failure rate for an ATGM and would it increase over time?

Totally anecdotal, but I got to fire a Tow-II when in the NG years ago. I forget the manufacture date, but it was pretty old. Malfunctioned on me (three of the 4 stabilizing fins popped, the observers said), sending the missile flying wildly off into the sky. It didn't respond to the self-destruct command when I let go of the yoke, either (supposed to nose dive into the ground, but I guess when your control surfaces malfunction, all bets are off).

We were told to expect 5% or so failure rate, during good times. No clue how close that is to reality though.

Raellus 06-30-2009 02:45 PM

Great story, Cavtroop. On a related note, I wonder how well the sighting/targetting and command guidance systems would hold up under battlefield conditions.

Legbreaker 06-30-2009 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cavtroop
We were told to expect 5% or so failure rate, during good times. No clue how close that is to reality though.

5%!? That's a woeful failure rate!

Regarding EMP and missiles, that's a very interesting question and one I doubt we're ever going to be able to answer (at least until certain secret and restricted documents are made public).
My guess is that most simple AT weapons should be fine (one the whole) - M72s and the like anyway as there's almost no components in them to be effected. More sophisticated wire guided, or "fire and forget" systems are another matter.

One would hope that exposed systems would be sent back to the unit armourer for testing and repair and so this shouldn't be too much of an issue by 2000 (no nukes in a few years). On the other hand, if a hidden cache of munitions was found.....

Just think of the possibilities for an evil GM!

:devil5:

pmulcahy11b 06-30-2009 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker
My guess is that most simple AT weapons should be fine (one the whole) - M72s and the like anyway as there's almost no components in them to be effected.

Those kind of rockets can even be reloaded (and probably could be in a T2K timeline.) They can also be used as mortars -- it became policy in Vietnam to bring back their expended M-72s if possible, and crush as many as they could under tracked vehicles to keep the Viet Cong from turning them into mortar tubes.

Raellus 06-30-2009 09:46 PM

Were NATO tube artillery units issued with AP rounds for self defense? If they were, I supposed then they could be used as AT guns in a pinch.

Targan 06-30-2009 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker
One would hope that exposed systems would be sent back to the unit armourer for testing and repair and so this shouldn't be too much of an issue by 2000 (no nukes in a few years). On the other hand, if a hidden cache of munitions was found.....

Just think of the possibilities for an evil GM!

:devil5:

This has occurred a number of times in my campaign. The PCs get all excited at having found some guided ATGMs only to discover that they are either dodgy or completely non-functional.

pmulcahy11b 06-30-2009 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raellus
Were NATO tube artillery units issued with AP rounds for self defense? If they were, I supposed then they could be used as AT guns in a pinch.

Don't think they have AP rounds, but 155mm guns have a HEAT round available. And of course a CLGP might be able to be used as an antiarmor round in a pinch, there's ICM-DP, and SADARM...

Mohoender 06-30-2009 11:44 PM

I already answered webstral in a private message but it seems that the smilies I chose in my last post brought some confusion. Sorry about that for anyone who founded that I might have been offensive and sorry to web. I truly found his point a good point.

Thanks anyone:)

kato13 06-30-2009 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mohoender
I already answered webstral in a private message but it seems that the smilies I chose in my last post brought some confusion. Sorry about that for anyone who founded that I might have been offensive and sorry to web. I truly found his point a good point.

Thanks anyone:)

Again what I like about this group. We resolve things rather than let them build. Good job everyone.

Webstral 07-01-2009 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mohoender
I already answered webstral in a private message but it seems that the smilies I chose in my last post brought some confusion. Sorry about that for anyone who founded that I might have been offensive and sorry to web. I truly found his point a good point.

Thanks anyone:)

It's true, Mo, that you're a class act.

Webstral


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:22 AM.

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