[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

actually they used the Peacekeepers as replacements for the armor they lost fighting Soviet Division Cuba

They why isn’t important, it is the how. If they are using them as tanks in frontal attacks against a dedicated defense meant to hold ground those are going to be dead to the first DsHK 38/42. Having any AT rocket or missile is irrelevant against a bank car which is armor up to 30.06 or 7.62N AP ammo. A 120 motor will take one out with just a near miss and shrapnel.

That is taking exceptional liberties with calling a bank car meant to protect cash from robbers a military armored vehicle.
If they are and that is canonically correct, who is in charge of this 49th ? The post office? Because something is seriously wrong in the implementation of combined arms theory over there.

Originally Posted by Olefin

and bank cars being used as APC's are in both "A River Runs Thru It" by MilGov and in the Florida module being used by New America and quite effectively so against guerrillas who have no anti-armor weapons

How loosely are we defining “Use as an APC” because again to use these even moderately successfully they are battle taxis or convoy escorts. Either taxing troops with 500 to 1000 meters to avoid engagements and leaving the infantry to themselves; option two is as a convoy escort that hopes to survive the initial ambush and belch out troops to counter attack. Any other way and all I can forsee is a loss of the vehicle quickly.

Originally Posted by Olefin

and we are talking about T2K here - so in the canon they have converted vehicles to run on methanol and ethanol and have done so since 1998 when gasoline and diesel got short

Which is still ridiculous and not a ringing endorsement for the setting either. They can’t manufacture parts or support armies in the field, yet all sides can engineer a engine replacement, manufacture this, ship these globally, and refurbish every vehicle in the fleet combat or combat support with a new gasoline / ethanol motor. See the shortfalls in that.

Originally Posted by Olefin

basically outside of Oklahoma, Ohio, Kenya, and Iran there arent many military vehicles they have that arent running on alcohol and have been doing so for quite a while

It is elemental handwavium for the sake of having military vehicles for the players and the opposing forces. Let’s just call that what it is.

Originally Posted by Olefin

so you may not like it but thats the world those of us who play the game have gotten used to

Yup, I bought my first copy of T2k in 1986, doesn’t mean the story holds water any better than a colander then or now. Would be better to dispense with the ethanol foolishness and state that the coal oil conversion process doesn’t have the same outputs as the pre-war petrochemical. So it takes months to get enough for a large offensive. Easy peasy, still works with the slow advance and long periods of settling in.

Originally Posted by Olefin

and the lack of anti-armor weapons by 2000 is why any remaining tanks are as effective as they are - look at the Soviet Vehicle Guide and it specifically states how effective one APC is because the guerrillas its fighting have almost no anti-armor weapons

Which is again ridiculous given the simplicity of rudimentary shape charges with a government capable of doing so. Panzerfausts and Bazookas can comeback into fashion if everyone is into WW2 relics and bank cars.

Originally Posted by Olefin

look at the Soviet attack on Brownsville in the Texas module - they lose a grand total of one vehicle to anti-armor weapons in close in fighting - not exactly a ringing endorsement of the availability of anti-armor weapons

Which is a plot point necessary for the author versus a ringing endorsement of combined arms theory. It was necessary for the story, so that is the way it went.