Quote:
Originally Posted by kato13
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.