Canon Germany to RDF tank transfer

[95th Rifleman]

The problem or me, as far as canon goes, is it's just not written.

All these theories about transfers to RDF are just that, theories.

It was NEVER written in any sourcebook that these elements where trasferred, thus it can not be considered canon.

As a theory that can be used in games to include that equipment I'm all for it. However it can not be considered canon, because it's not, if it was there would be a source book with pages we could quote from that says X equipment was transferred to Y battlefront on Z date.
Now, for the love of whatevr is considered holy by all participants, can we drop the canon crap and just focus on discuss things rationaly.

Personaly I don't see why the Americans would go to all the trouble to send that kit to a backwater front when the war was for all intents and purposes over with a potential civil war brewing in the USA. However that's just my view.

[Olefin]

The sections that Kate is posting are

SOVIET 74TH KGB MOTORIZED RIFLE REGIMENT

Weapons: Standard Soviet small arms. Artillery support is provided by a battery of 120mm mortars and two self-propelled
122mm howitzers. AFVs are T-72s and T-80s; APCs are
BTR-70s and BMPs. The unit uses the BRDM-3 armored car.

also

SOVIET 19TH MOTORIZED RIFLE DIVISION
Weapons: Standard Soviet small arms. The 119th Tank Regiment
consists of 32 AFVs, mostly T-55s with 6 SU-130 assault
guns for long-range fire support. The divisional artillery assets
are comprised mainly of 120mm mortars, SAU-122s and
SAU-1 52s. There is also a mixed battery of BM21 and BM14
self-propelled multiple rocket launchers.

also notice that the in the below section the armored cars are not referred to as AFVs


US DETACHMENT 14, 619TH COMBAT SECURITY GROUP

The unit also has two Peacekeeper armored cars and two Commando

and also this

THE TUDEH POPULAR MOBILIZATION ARMY (PMA)

Weapons: Soviet-made small arms (mostly AKMRs) with a
few NATO weapons mixed in. AFVs are a mixture of third line
Soviet tanks (mainly T-55s) with a few captured NATO tanks
(M60A4s and Chieftains). APCs are scarce, with the infantry
either walking or riding in trucks. What few exist are usually
BTR-70s or OT-64s. The BRDM-3 is the standard armored car.
Artillery consists of 82mm and 120mm mortarsarmored cars.


Clearly Frank Frey is saying that an AFV is a tank

he makes the designation repeatedly - and he wrote the RDF as well

so that should put to rest that an AFV - for Kings Ransom and the RDF at this point as written which means they are canon as written - is a tank

that means the US Army from June of 2000 to January of 2001 received at least 35 tanks if not more to make up for any losses in that period

you can disagree if you like - but if you do then you need to treat the RDF and Kings Ransom as non-canon for saying that the US got a reinforcement of tanks - he clearly means tank with all the refernces to AFV's as tanks in Kings Ransom

not trying to force this down anyone's throat - either you believe what Frank wrote or you have to say that the module isnt canon

there arent many other choices - its one thing if he said it once - but he said it over and over and over

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Webstral

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.

SPGs should be classed as AFVs because they can (while it's not recomended) be used in the direct battle role, many nations kept a reserve of anti-tank shells for their SPGs (The American M109 was one such SPG).

However there is allot of debate on the use of mobile artillery and it's classification as an AFV.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Olefin

The sections that Kate is posting are

SOVIET 74TH KGB MOTORIZED RIFLE REGIMENT

Weapons: Standard Soviet small arms. Artillery support is provided by a battery of 120mm mortars and two self-propelled
122mm howitzers. AFVs are T-72s and T-80s; APCs are
BTR-70s and BMPs. The unit uses the BRDM-3 armored car.

also

SOVIET 19TH MOTORIZED RIFLE DIVISION
Weapons: Standard Soviet small arms. The 119th Tank Regiment
consists of 32 AFVs, mostly T-55s with 6 SU-130 assault
guns for long-range fire support. The divisional artillery assets
are comprised mainly of 120mm mortars, SAU-122s and
SAU-1 52s. There is also a mixed battery of BM21 and BM14
self-propelled multiple rocket launchers.

also notice that the in the below section the armored cars are not referred to as AFVs


US DETACHMENT 14, 619TH COMBAT SECURITY GROUP

The unit also has two Peacekeeper armored cars and two Commando

and also this

THE TUDEH POPULAR MOBILIZATION ARMY (PMA)

Weapons: Soviet-made small arms (mostly AKMRs) with a
few NATO weapons mixed in. AFVs are a mixture of third line
Soviet tanks (mainly T-55s) with a few captured NATO tanks
(M60A4s and Chieftains). APCs are scarce, with the infantry
either walking or riding in trucks. What few exist are usually
BTR-70s or OT-64s. The BRDM-3 is the standard armored car.
Artillery consists of 82mm and 120mm mortarsarmored cars.


Clearly Frank Frey is saying that an AFV is a tank

he makes the designation repeatedly - and he wrote the RDF as well

so that should put to rest that an AFV - for Kings Ransom and the RDF at this point as written which means they are canon as written - is a tank

that means the US Army from June of 2000 to January of 2001 received at least 35 tanks if not more to make up for any losses in that period

you can disagree if you like - but if you do then you need to treat the RDF and Kings Ransom as non-canon for saying that the US got a reinforcement of tanks - he clearly means tank with all the refernces to AFV's as tanks in Kings Ransom

not trying to force this down anyone's throat - either you believe what Frank wrote or you have to say that the module isnt canon

there arent many other choices - its one thing if he said it once - but he said it over and over and over

Put down the whip and step away from the dead horse.

I think, thanks to kato, we can safely say that GDW misused the term AFV and in this context it means MBT.

That being said, there is still no black and white evidence in canon that the extra tanks came from Germany. They could of come from America or they could of come from the Saudis or UAE (nations that used Chieftens).

I'm nopt saying they didn't come from Germany, it's just not canon.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Olefin

does anyone know how to contact Frank and ask him - he wrote the three modules and he is really the only man who can directly answer the questions

as for canon - the tanks (i.e. AFV's that Frank calls tanks) are there in Jan of 2001 after Omega - and that means US tank strength went up - unless we get something from Frank otherwise contradicting Kings Ransom, what he wrote there clearly shows he means tanks when he says AFV's

Hopefully Frank is still around and reads this forum and we can get a hold of him

http://forum.juhlin.com/member.php?u=414

- C.

[Olefin]

but it is there Rifleman - not in black and white saying the 3rd AD or took there tanks with them

but where I come from 2+2=4

and when a= b and b=c then a=c - i.e. symbolic logic

the only reinforcment that arrived in the RDF in 2000 was the 6000 men from Europe

the number of tanks in the RDF went up by 35 tanks from June of 2000 to January of 2001

and there was no other reinforcment mentioned at all

a= b

the only reinforcment during that period was from Europe of 6000 men and it is a fact that the units in question who saw combat had a net increase of 4000 men

b= c

the number of AFV's went up by 35 total tanks from June 2000 to Jan 2001 and as established per Frank Frey an AFV is a tank per Kings Ransom which he wrote

thus a=c

the reinforcement of 6000 men also included at least 35 tanks and most likely more since the US most likely lost tanks during that time period

and since the men came from Europe the tanks came from Europe


either way - the men and the tanks are there in the RDF - and not APC's or armored cars, they are tanks (and that we do have written proof of in Frank Frey's own module Kings Ransom)

so a question then- why does it seem so many people are apparently so dead set on such a small reinforcement of vehicles when so many other details of the canon WWIII are also not filled in and are acceptable as such?

not picking a fight at all - to me, its pure logic that is what Frank had in mind - and I dont go on faith or supposition when it comes to logic

thats what symbolic logic is for to fill in the gaps in the record and show what occurred even if not implicitly stated

its the same as saying that you are walking thru a huge crater and you find your rad detector is going off - there is no one to tell you a nuke burst happened there but a nuke leaves a huge crater, a nuke has rad contaminaton - thus a crater plus rad contamination equals a nuke burst there - even if no one is there to tell you when it happened or how the nuke got there

[95th Rifleman]

The more I think about it, the more likely I believe that the extra tanks came from the Saudis.

They had no interest in the soviets winning and, for political reasons, wouldn't want to get dragged too deeply into the mess. Supplying the US army with tanks and equipment would of been a great (and relatively easy) way of providing material support without getting too involved and would explain a few grey areas.

[Olefin]

thanks Tegyrius - do you now if he still actively participates here?

and I agree with you Rifleman - AFV here clearly means MBT

unfortunately what would have solved the issue was if a US unit with tanks had been in Kings Ransom

but lets see if Frank can weigh in on this - and who knows maybe it will help fill in a hole in the canon as to where they came from and what MBT's they are

[Tegyrius]

Last Activity: 06-30-2010 01:01 PM

I thought I'd seen a post from him more recently, but his most recent is here. Still, if he has email notifications of PMs turned on, you might get a response that way.

- C.

[Raellus]

Hi folks.

As a forum moderator, I feel the need to step in here. My cautionary posts have been ignored and what I feared is coming to pass. Although most of you are approaching the current canon debate in a more or less responsible, respectful, and constructive manner, a couple of you are clearly not. As a result, I am seriously considering closing this and all other "canon discussion" threads. I will also be discussing this issue with my fellow moderators.

As a community, I really don't think we can afford the kind of drama and acrimony that chases off members. Please, everyone just chill out.

Please take a look at our forum guidelines. If you can't or won't abide by them, this is probably not the place for you.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=2961

Raellus

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Olefin

The sections that Kate is posting are

I don't generally remark about typos but my Y chromosome is having a little trouble with this one.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

The more I think about it, the more likely I believe that the extra tanks came from the Saudis.

They had no interest in the soviets winning and, for political reasons, wouldn't want to get dragged too deeply into the mess. Supplying the US army with tanks and equipment would of been a great (and relatively easy) way of providing material support without getting too involved and would explain a few grey areas.

If GW1 (or 2 depending on your point of view) fits into Canon then if the Saudis did provide those tanks they may well have been M1A2s. Although (unless there's a vehicle-specific breakdown!) M60A3s are far more likely...

as much as I hate to lean on Wackypedia for stuff, this is to my knowledge pretty accurate:

The army’s main equipment consists of a combination of French- and U.S.-made armored vehicles: 315 M–1A2 Abrams, 290 AMX–30, and 450 M60A3 main battle tanks; 300 reconnaissance vehicles; 570+ AMX–10P and 400 M–2 Bradley armored infantry fighting vehicles; 3,000+ M113 and 100 Al-Fahd armored personnel carriers, produced in Saudi Arabia; 200+ towed artillery pieces; 110 self-propelled artillery pieces; 60 multiple rocket launchers; 400 mortars; 10 surface-to-surface missiles; about 2,000 antitank guided weapons; about 200 rocket launchers; 450 recoilless launchers; 12 attack helicopters; 50+ transport helicopters; and 1,000 surface-to-air missiles.[3] In 2011, the Saudi-Arabian army has furthermore ordered 200+ German Leopard 2A7+ main battle tanks to extend their fleet.

The Saudis are, as of 2012 in our reality literally drowning in armor. Even in the T2k setting I'd wager they could shave off some wallowed out M60s and M113s to their US friends.

[Olefin]

And Kato I want to give you a huge credit for findign the applicable sections in Kings Ransom - I never thought of looking there to see if Frank used the same terminology.

Thas was a great find and deserves a very heart felt well done.

Go ahead and take a few boxes of grenades out of petty cash for your character to use on the maruader formation oh his choice.

[95th Rifleman]

The sticking point for me is this.

Yes, the numbers increased by 6000 in one source

Yes, they got 35 extra AFVs in another source

However one does not automaticly lead to the other. It's a grey area in which the gaps are filled with opinion and supposition.

Transporting men is one thing, transporting an MBT is another entirely which requires allot of effort, specialist equipment and the right kind of ship. You can transport infantry on anything (look at Dunkirk for examples).

At the end of the day if you or your group goes with the idea that the tanks came from Germany then fair play and all the best.

That being said the idea tat they came from America in a seperate reinforcement or the tanks came from the Saudis or other Arab states is equaly plausible.

[Olefin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin
The sections that Kate is posting are

I don't generally remark about typos but my Y chromosome is having a little trouble with this one.

Whoops sorry there Kato

ok thats three hits for me on the body location of your choice

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Webstral

The man has splendid attention to detail and a gratifying lack of rubbing-your-nose-in-it.

Thank you for the complement.

I hope my BINGO was not read that way. It was a mix of my own excitement and to attract the attention of anyone who read my original post but might miss the edit.

Honestly I remember being annoyed with the AFV/MBT thing way back when.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

If GW1 (or 2 depending on your point of view) fits into Canon then if the Saudis did provide those tanks they may well have been M60A3s and M1A2s. Although (unless there's a vehicle-specific breakdown!) M60A3s are far more likely...

as much as I hate to lean on Wackypedia for stuff, this is to my knowledge pretty accurate:

The army’s main equipment consists of a combination of French- and U.S.-made armored vehicles: 315 M–1A2 Abrams, 290 AMX–30, and 450 M60A3 main battle tanks; 300 reconnaissance vehicles; 570+ AMX–10P and 400 M–2 Bradley armored infantry fighting vehicles; 3,000+ M113 and 100 Al-Fahd armored personnel carriers, produced in Saudi Arabia; 200+ towed artillery pieces; 110 self-propelled artillery pieces; 60 multiple rocket launchers; 400 mortars; 10 surface-to-surface missiles; about 2,000 antitank guided weapons; about 200 rocket launchers; 450 recoilless launchers; 12 attack helicopters; 50+ transport helicopters; and 1,000 surface-to-air missiles.[3] In 2011, the Saudi-Arabian army has furthermore ordered 200+ German Leopard 2A7+ main battle tanks to extend their fleet.

The Saudis are, as of 2012 in our reality literally drowning in armor. Even in the T2k setting I'd wager they could shave off some wallowed out M60s and M113s to their US friends.

Another thing I'm thinking about is that the Saudis (and most of the southern, pro-west arab states) all relied heavily on the Chieften before some bought the Abrahms as a replacement.

That means allot of mothballed Chieftens just waiting to be sent, under the table, to the RDF.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

You know, I don't know the man personally but Frank Frey is a member of an old gaming club I used to be affiliated with: HMGS-South. You might be able to get ahold of him on www.hmgs-south.com through the forums there.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

Another thing I'm thinking about is that the Saudis (and most of the southern, pro-west arab states) all relied heavily on the Chieften before some bought the Abrahms as a replacement.

That means allot of mothballed Chieftens just waiting to be sent, under the table, to the RDF.

Ooooh, I didn't even think about that. Yeah! Yankee-driven Chieftains for everyone!

SCENE: US Armor cantonment, outside Basra, Iraq

"Hey welcome to the 24th sir. This is our track, we call her 'Qom-Guzzler', if uh you'll pardon the joke. Anyhow, I hope it doesn't weird you out driving a Brit tank like the Chieftain, but she's a good track and - "

"Son, I left Poland last month where my last three 'tanks' were a Wartburg with an RPK on a sponson where the passenger door used to be, A BMP-1, and a T55 with no main gun and a MILAN launcher tripod tack welded to the turret roof. Trust me when I say this is the least weird vehicle I've commanded since 1998."

[Olefin]

Chieftain is a pretty good tank too especially since a lot of the tanks the Russians and the Tudeh have are T-55's. And the Saudis werent stingy with their ammo purchases either - so there should be plenty to go around.

[Tegyrius]

Hm. In lieu of mothballed older designs, would the Saudis have been able to provide repair assets to the RDF that were sufficient to refurbish some less-than-catastrophically-killed vehicles? Nothing would be Anniston-fresh, but with a turret here and a power pack there...

- C.

[Olefin]

probably depends on two things - how catastrophic and can they even get to the tanks

i.e. a tank killed in areas the Soviets are controlling is pretty much gone

plus if you read the original rules any vehicle left out in the open gets stripped pretty fast to nothing - probably anything wrecked earlier and recoverable was stripped for spare parts and anything else they could find (hmm wonder how many guns trucks you can armor up with the side skirts off an M1)?

[Webstral]

Another possibility for the increase in tank strength in CENTCOM is the opening of a fabrication center in Iran that can supply some of the most needed parts faster than those parts are consumed. I’m not a tanker, so I don’t know which parts wear out the quickest (other than the tracks. Tanks eat up tracks like nobody’s business). However, even a modest facility in-theater can widen the bottleneck created by a lack of the most-needed parts and bring more of a specific type of tank back into operation.

A few things would be required to fabricate tank parts on anything like an assembly line basis. CENTCOM would need a facility. An unused large structure should not be hard to find. The shop would need power. We know there’s some oil coming out of the wells in the region, so diesel generators should work fine. Machine tools and some skilled labor are also necessary. We know that Iran has both. Whether both are available in the areas controlled by the US is an unknown; however, pro-Western Iranians, of which there are more than a few, probably have fled into southern Iran by 2000. The right metals are also a necessity. I know next to nothing about metallurgy, so I can’t say how hard it would be to acquire the requisite metals and render them into the appropriate condition for working with machine tools. That much said, if fabricating engine parts for M1A1 is a genuine priority for CENTCOM, then the resources seem to be available locally.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Whoops sorry there Kato

ok thats three hits for me on the body location of your choice

No problem it made me laugh.

As far as kings ransom I KNEW that I had read something where MBT was clearly substituted with AFV. It annoyed me then and it annoys me now.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Another possibility for the increase in tank strength in CENTCOM is the opening of a fabrication center in Iran that can supply some of the most needed parts faster than those parts are consumed. I’m not a tanker, so I don’t know which parts wear out the quickest (other than the tracks. Tanks eat up tracks like nobody’s business). However, even a modest facility in-theater can widen the bottleneck created by a lack of the most-needed parts and bring more of a specific type of tank back into operation.

A few things would be required to fabricate tank parts on anything like an assembly line basis. CENTCOM would need a facility. An unused large structure should not be hard to find. The shop would need power. We know there’s some oil coming out of the wells in the region, so diesel generators should work fine. Machine tools and some skilled labor are also necessary. We know that Iran has both. Whether both are available in the areas controlled by the US is an unknown; however, pro-Western Iranians, of which there are more than a few, probably have fled into southern Iran by 2000. The right metals are also a necessity. I know next to nothing about metallurgy, so I can’t say how hard it would be to acquire the requisite metals and render them into the appropriate condition for working with machine tools. That much said, if fabricating engine parts for M1A1 is a genuine priority for CENTCOM, then the resources seem to be available locally.

Their politics aside, the Iranians have since 1980 essentially lived Twilight:2000 in terms of military hardware. They got little shipments trickled in (some, sadly, from the US), they have had to adapt and improvise, and while they've gotten a LOT from the Soviets for handing over an F14 and a few Phoenix missiles, that's not enough to last them through 30+ years. They got a small influx of ex-Iraqi planes, and they've gone to home-grown APCs and IFVs.

If nothing else you could use that as a sort of inspirational spark for what the Iranians can do when motivated. With some US mechanics behind them, perhaps the "Zulfiqar-1" could be shoehorned in limited numbers into T2k...non-canon, of course, but still...

[Olefin]

Armor and the guns tubes would be the killer Webstral - armor on a tank only comes from certain specialized mills - like the one in Israel that I read got nuked to deny it to the Israelis. Ditto for gun tubes.

so while they might be able to make tracks or possibly engine parts, the armor and the main guns are goign to stop them cold.

Now saying that - it takes a lot less space to ship 35 gun tubes to Saudi Arabia than it does to ship 35 full tanks.

And keep in mind - you may be lookign at as many as 50 tanks due to replacing combat losses that occured from June 2000 to Jan 2001 to end up with a net increase of 35 tanks

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by kato13

No problem it made me laugh.

As far as kings ransom I KNEW that I had read something where MBT was clearly substituted with AFV. It annoyed me then and it annoys me now.

Well, good on you for differentiating between what you like and what is in print.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Ooooh, I didn't even think about that. Yeah! Yankee-driven Chieftains for everyone!

SCENE: US Armor cantonment, outside Basra, Iraq

"Hey welcome to the 24th sir. This is our track, we call her 'Qom-Guzzler', if uh you'll pardon the joke. Anyhow, I hope it doesn't weird you out driving a Brit tank like the Chieftain, but she's a good track and - "

"Son, I left Poland last month where my last three 'tanks' were a Wartburg with an RPK on a sponson where the passenger door used to be, A BMP-1, and a T55 with no main gun and a MILAN launcher tripod tack welded to the turret roof. Trust me when I say this is the least weird vehicle I've commanded since 1998."

You sir, just made my day with that image.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Olefin

probably depends on two things - how catastrophic and can they even get to the tanks

i.e. a tank killed in areas the Soviets are controlling is pretty much gone

plus if you read the original rules any vehicle left out in the open gets stripped pretty fast to nothing - probably anything wrecked earlier and recoverable was stripped for spare parts and anything else they could find (hmm wonder how many guns trucks you can armor up with the side skirts off an M1)?

Good point; also note that if the Saudis have lend/leased any M88s to US forces in the area even a handful of those could slightly ameliorate the "leave to be stripped" situation.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Armor and the guns tubes would be the killer Webstral - armor on a tank only comes from certain specialized mills - like the one in Israel that I read got nuked to deny it to the Israelis. Ditto for gun tubes.

so while they might be able to make tracks or possibly engine parts, the armor and the main guns are goign to stop them cold.

Now saying that - it takes a lot less space to ship 35 gun tubes to Saudi Arabia than it does to ship 35 full tanks.

And keep in mind - you may be lookign at as many as 50 tanks due to replacing combat losses that occured from June 2000 to Jan 2001 to end up with a net increase of 35 tanks

Depends if you are willing to downgrade the armour. The chobham on an M1 or Chally is going to be impossible to produce. However it would be possible to produce more conventional armmour.