Destruction of Weapons.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Well said Stainless.

But there is something fun about arguing back and forth on the bigger picture. :P

Well yes, I tend to not think of that aspect, I suppose I'm a bit stale in the brain at times.


As for getting more information on particular units to use them as enemies for the pc group, any good book could supply that information, it isn't necessary for the game company to supply that information

[copeab]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

As for getting more information on particular units to use them as enemies for the pc group, any good book could supply that information, it isn't necessary for the game company to supply that information

Admittedly, though, certain information from Merc 2000 would have been useful in T2K (such as squad and platoon TO&E of selected nations),

[jester]

Originally Posted by Targan

My all time favourite two sessions in my last T2K campaign were when Major Po and his original small band of hard core killers snuck into Lublin, planted their tac nuke and, as they withdrew, were pursued by a Spetznaz group which had been hunting them for several months. The level of suspense was awesome, not least due to the knowledge by both sides that had they engaged in a final, pitched battle it would be brutal and absolutely no quarter would be given.

In the end the deciding factor was about 2.5 kilometers. That was how much closer to the nuke blast the Spetznaz were when it went off. Also the Spetznaz were in the open while Po's group were hiding in a ditch.

Thats brutal! I love it!

I have a team of Naval Spetzies chase the PC's throughout their campaign even when they slipped into France with the local Mil Gov contact and safe house. LOL!!! The PCs had accepted a woman into their ranks who turned out to be a Spetzie officer, they "rescued" her and then she became the girlfreind of one of the units leaders. In the end she let loose with the diplomate with a HK CAW and then ran out the back door of the not so safe house to a waiting car. From that point, the PCs were a bit more paranoid of ALL people including those they rescued.

LOL, I had the chick kill her 2nd in command and act like she was in the process of being violated when the PCs stormed their house. And they bought it

[Legbreaker]

Absolutely true. Not all enemy a PC group encounters are going to be disorganised rabble, and it's a bit more work than most of us want to do in the middle of a game to research the proper composition.

Still, we all struggled through this far.

Of course by 2000, even regular professional units may no longer even superficially resemble their prewar makeup. A section/squad of 9-12 men which used to include one, maybe two light machineguns plus a grenade launcher or two is likely to number about half a dozen with a heavier emphasis on firepower. Some of those members might also be non-combat troops, or at least were in their last assignment, and sent into infantry units as replacements once their role as cook, clerk, band member, etc becomes irrelevant.

Regardless of nationality, I would expect a commander would want approximately half his infantry with automatic weapons capable of sustained fire (ie belt fed or extended mags) and the other half armed with grenade launchers or similar explosive type weapons. This would go some way towards countering the lack of personell, but the loss of even a simgle soldier would significantly downgrade the units effectiveness. Unfortunately smaller units also mean less flexability - less able to split into teams and attack a position for several angles, etc...

[Targan]

Originally Posted by jester

LOL, I had the chick kill her 2nd in command and act like she was in the process of being violated when the PCs stormed their house. And they bought it

Wow, she sounds like a truly cold, hard bitch. I love it!

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Targan

Wow, she sounds like a truly cold, hard bitch. I love it!

The worst I've done was inflict Lilith on a party.

Yes, that Lilith.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Of course by 2000, even regular professional units may no longer even superficially resemble their prewar makeup. A section/squad of 9-12 men which used to include one, maybe two light machineguns plus a grenade launcher or two is likely to number about half a dozen with a heavier emphasis on firepower. Some of those members might also be non-combat troops, or at least were in their last assignment, and sent into infantry units as replacements once their role as cook, clerk, band member, etc becomes irrelevant.

Very good assessment.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Regardless of nationality, I would expect a commander would want approximately half his infantry with automatic weapons capable of sustained fire (ie belt fed or extended mags) and the other half armed with grenade launchers or similar explosive type weapons. This would go some way towards countering the lack of personell, but the loss of even a simgle soldier would significantly downgrade the units effectiveness. Unfortunately smaller units also mean less flexability - less able to split into teams and attack a position for several angles, etc...

Although I agree in principle, I'm not sure this would work since ammo would be a lot harder to come by in later years (at least good ammo*). I think there would be a greater emphasis on fire discipline and marksmanship than on high volume of fire. Having three SAWs, two M203s, and two GMPGs in a 9-man squad wouldn't be very practical with ammo limited. No longer could a unit expend a few thousand rounds of ammo to kill a single enemy soldier (I've read in a couple of places that in the Vietnam War, the Americans expended something like 10,0000 rounds per enemy KIA).

This is where picking up enemy weapons and ammo might become SOP. I'd think that the RPK and PKM series would become very popular with NATO units.

*In quite a few T2K games I've seen or been involved with, ammo produced after '97 is sub par- causing more frequent misfires, jams, fouling, etc. This seems realistic to me.

[chico20854]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Regardless of nationality, I would expect a commander would want approximately half his infantry with automatic weapons capable of sustained fire (ie belt fed or extended mags) and the other half armed with grenade launchers or similar explosive type weapons. This would go some way towards countering the lack of personell, but the loss of even a single soldier would significantly downgrade the units effectiveness.

As long as you didn't have to clear a building... if I had a squad with RPKs, GPMGs/M-60s and M-203s I'd be real reluctant to have them trying to pop around corners real quick! (And much of the battlefield late in the war would be in urban/ruins). Add in the burden of pulling endless guard mounts with a GPMG. While there are firepower arguments for going real heavy, there are "soldiering" concerns for doing otherwise. Of course, there might be enough excess weapons to go both ways... when I was in Bosnia I carried a M-9 around the base, a M-4 or M-16 on most trips outside the wire, unless we were "hunting for bear" and went out with 3 SAWs, 3 M-9s and a M-16/203 per HMMWV.

[Webstral]

There's a reason the M16A2 and later models have a BURST function instead of an AUTO function.

Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Webstral

There's a reason the M16A2 and later models have a BURST function instead of an AUTO function.

Webstral

I agree. The Mad Minute philosophy died a proper death (at least when I was in; I don't know if it's come back today). And I would think that as ammo supplies dwindle, there would be an even bigger accent on marksmanship over volume of fire.

[Legbreaker]

All vaild points.

Note however that I doubt 9+ man sections/squads would be possible in most cases with a more likely number of 5-6 being the norm. This means 2 maybe 3 LSW's (M249, RPK, perhaps an M60 or MAG, etc) and the rest with an M16/M203, AK/BG-15, etc type weapons.

Yes, there may be a shortage of grenades, but small arms ammo should, at least in larger units, be in relatively plentiful supply. It might not be top quality, but I've personally had no problems with reloaded ammo over the years, even brass that's been reused half a dozen or more times.

I also agree that "buckets of bullets" is NOT the way to go - anything that is not equiped with at least a bippod should be firing single, well aimed (hopefully) shots and any burst or full auto feature should only be used in very close quarters (buildings, etc) or in the intial moments of a contact by the scout/pointman.

These lighter weapons (excluding SMGs obviously) simply aren't designed for high volumes of accurate fire, something I think the V2 rules show rather well for a very simplified system.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I also agree that "buckets of bullets" is NOT the way to go - anything that is not equiped with at least a bippod should be firing single, well aimed (hopefully) shots and any burst or full auto feature should only be used in very close quarters (buildings, etc) or in the intial moments of a contact by the scout/pointman.

From my personal POV I couldn't agree more. Of course, most of my trigger time was with the SLR so for me aiming was everything. And you only need one hit with 7.62mmN to send your target off to the Big Sleep.

[Abbott Shaull]

I think by 2000, while troop were at their base many of them would carry Assault Rifle/Carbine/SMG/Pistol for personal protection. The Machine gun and heavier equipment would be secured for safety reason, even though there would be location in the area where heavy weapons would be emplace and staff for security reasons.

Remember before the war, when units went to to the rifle range, everyone had assault rifle of their own to use. I am sure it will not be much different after the fighting start. One thing that both Persian Gulf conflicts, operations in Afghanistan, and other conflicts of the last 60 years have shown. There is no Front line. It more of region where enemy troops can show up at any time, much like the famous SAS raids they pulled off in Africa in WWII.

By 2000 for Squad/Platoon element I don't see maybe 1 Automatic Rifle per squad and 1 Machine Gun per platoon due to the reduction of size of many Squads/Platoon. Even I can see some Automatic Rifle being pressed into service as the Platoon Machine Gun role. While some Company would consolidate the Machine Guns into MG platoons. Especially light units that are in static situations. As for when in firefights I wouldn't think many troops would be using full auto option, and those on Machine guns and Sub Machine guns would use burst. Only time they would do rock and roll auto would be if a unit was in position where they would be overrun.

As for units with the means to being mobile they seemed to always have a lot more toys than the standard Light Infantry unit. If IIRC the Mechanized Platoons had access to M-60 later M240s and other weapons that were stored on their vehicles. It one of the advantages when you don't have to carry all your equipment.

Even Motorized units will be able to carry more weapons with to use if they were needed. I seem to remember reading something about MP units operating in HMMWV. How a six man unit was expected to operate out one. Also US Special Forces and SAS have mobile units that use HMMWV/Land Rovers that are used to transport other units to the field.

I also see to some extent Submachine Guns making their way back down to squad level, especially unit operating in urban area/ruins. These would be easier for urban combat. As well as various shotguns which when I was in we never used unless were were on guard duty at the Battalion Motor Pool when the Battalion was DRF-1.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

I also see to some extent Submachine Guns making their way back down to squad level, especially unit operating in urban area/ruins. These would be easier for urban combat. As well as various shotguns which when I was in we never used unless were were on guard duty at the Battalion Motor Pool when the Battalion was DRF-1.

Easily-manufactured and -maintained SMG like the Soviet PPsh-41 would predominate. Overall, I think post-Exchange small arms would tend towards weapons like the PPsh-41 SMG, the Mossberg 500 12-gauge shotgun, the Winchester 1873 rifle, and Springfield 1903 rifle. Obviously, these weapons are examples of the types of weapons that post-Exchange manufacturers might favor over the more complex M16 variety. Perhaps MilGov or someone else opens an SKS or Ak-47 line. Certainly any cantonment with the ability to mass-produce any type of small arms will want to manufacture its own rifles for long-range duty, plus shotguns and SMG for short-range work.

Webstral

[StainlessSteelCynic]

You'd want to find a place like Suhl in eastern Germany, a town with a history of metal processing and firearms manufacture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suhl
Hopefully you could find tools and even people with the right skills there.

[Abbott Shaull]

Many of the Sub-Machine Gun designs that were used in WWII would be making their way back into production on the limited basis since they were machined stamped. Same with civilian weapons will be made more likely than not too.

Don't forget the shotguns can serve a double purpose for use in hunting too.

I am sure by 2000 the service life of many of weapons system would be toward the end of their usefulness. Many would want to have something of to replacement. Remember in WWII there were enough units that had squads and platoon armed almost exclusive with Sub-Machine Guns on the Eastern Front. Done for two reason, one they were easiest to make, and all of the urban fighting that was encounter.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Many of the Sub-Machine Gun designs that were used in WWII would be making their way back into production on the limited basis since they were machined stamped. Same with civilian weapons will be made more likely than not too.

Ammunition may also play a factor in the resurgence of SMGs. Pistol ammo requires much less gunpowder than a rifle round (frex, 9x19mm uses about 1/4 the powder of 5.56x45mm), which might be a factor in the T2K world (pistol bullets are heavier, but I would think lead is easier to acquire than smokeless powder).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by copeab

Ammunition may also play a factor in the resurgence of SMGs. Pistol ammo requires much less gunpowder than a rifle round (frex, 9x19mm uses about 1/4 the powder of 5.56x45mm), which might be a factor in the T2K world (pistol bullets are heavier, but I would think lead is easier to acquire than smokeless powder).

Speaking of smokeless powder, here's some links to the various types that give some idea of what's required to make it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poudre_B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordite
And wiki also has a page on smokeless powders that mentions some of the additives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeless_powder

So even given the level of damage to a nations infrastructure due to the war, I think it would still be possible to manufacture a smokeless powder just as long as you could get the components. Cases would be available in their thousands and some cottage industry may be set up to scour battle sites to recover the cases, determine their usefulness, clean them and perhaps even resize them. Making primers isn't a major industrial process and casting lead certainly isn't.
The only real obstacle is making the propellant but given that they were able to manufacture it in the 1880s, I think the only hurdle is actually finding the ingredients. Nitric acid is going to be incredibly important but to make nitric acid you're probably going to need to make sulphuric acid.
An entire chemical industry will have to be built up but again, considering these things were all achievable with technology from the mid-1800s, it should be achievalble by a group with sufficient resources.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

An entire chemical industry will have to be built up but again, considering these things were all achievable with technology from the mid-1800s, it should be achievalble by a group with sufficient resources.

This is such an important factor that I want to underline it, despite the fact that everyone on this board knows it already. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think the gentlemen of GDW also understood that once the food situation sorted itself out, the other pieces would begin to fall into place for national recovery. Admittedly, the road to recovery would be long and painful; and a recovered nation would not necessarily look like its predecessor. Nevertheless, recovery loomed so likely that GDW came out with Howling Wilderness to preserve the chaos that they felt bred good gaming.

Webstral

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Webstral

This is such an important factor that I want to underline it, despite the fact that everyone on this board knows it already. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think the gentlemen of GDW also understood that once the food situation sorted itself out, the other pieces would begin to fall into place for national recovery. Admittedly, the road to recovery would be long and painful; and a recovered nation would not necessarily look like its predecessor. Nevertheless, recovery loomed so likely that GDW came out with Howling Wilderness to preserve the chaos that they felt bred good gaming.

Pockets of recovery with reasonably high tech (for a post apocalyptic world) industries, dotted among vast areas of depopulation or chaos, lawlessnes and neo-barbarism.

[Webstral]

I do believe that even in a recovery environment, there's plenty of opportunity for enterprising players to do their thing.

Regarding recovery, players can take part in answering a couple of key questions. Among the top few questions is "To co-opt or not to co-opt?" To a degree, warlords and "legitimate" governments are on the same side against marauders and other forces of chaos. How does one deal with the Sealord of Jacksonville? How does one deal with the United Brotherhood of Fishermen? Both groups have significant armed forces. Defeating them in the field (so to speak) might be the most desirable solution, but open combat might prove too costly for everyone involved. Player characters might have a role to play in determining the susceptibility of warlords to co-option and possible execution of said co-option.

I've been thinking about the above in reference to the Shogun in Nevada. Obviously, the Nevada survivors can't be left to his tender mercies. However, his motorized army does provide security for the majority of the survivors. If, for instance, in 2001 the 111th Brigade were to establish a logistical base at Kingman, then meet and defeat the Shogun's forces in battle, there's still the question of administering the territory. To a degree, the survivors could be counted upon to run their own affairs. Nevertheless, there is a steady stream of marauders attempting to encroach on the Shogun's territory. The Snake River is controlled by New America; they'd love to get their hands on the surviving population, agriculture, and industry of the I-80 corridor in northern Nevada. The 111th doesn't have the manpower to protect Nevada, even if the mobility issues can be solved. Is it better to knock out the Shogun and leave the locals to their own devices or leave the Shogun in place? Co-option, though a bitter pill for everyone to swallow, might be the most practical answer to the problem of reestablishing MilGov control over the Silver State.

Ditto the Mexicans in the Imperial Valley. Destroying Second Mexican Army or driving it out of California would be a stupendous undertaking--well beyond the capabilities of 111th Brigade. Co-option might be the only way of bringing the agricultural potential of the Imperial Valley back under American control. More bitter pills.

On the other hand, co-option could go another way entirely. If conventional warfare isn't likely to yield good results in a given area, given the corrrelation of forces, perhaps the player characters could fall back on the Special Forces role that figures promimently into the US-based modules. Surely Texas offers a rich bounty of possibilities, regardless of what is happening in Colorado. The same might be said of Alaska, large swaths of the South, and so on.

Webstral

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Regarding recovery, players can take part in answering a couple of key questions. Among the top few questions is "To co-opt or not to co-opt?" To a degree, warlords and "legitimate" governments are on the same side against marauders and other forces of chaos. How does one deal with the Sealord of Jacksonville? How does one deal with the United Brotherhood of Fishermen? Both groups have significant armed forces. Defeating them in the field (so to speak) might be the most desirable solution, but open combat might prove too costly for everyone involved. Player characters might have a role to play in determining the susceptibility of warlords to co-option and possible execution of said co-option.

Just like back in the days of feudalism, various leaders/armed factions/groups will fall in and out of favour with the "authorities" and will at times be considered to have legitimacy while at other times will not.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

I am sure by 2000 the service life of many of weapons system would be toward the end of their usefulness.

I'm not convinced about that. In the hands of a decently trained soldier, a weapon should last thousands of rounds. Admittedly the war has been going on for a number of years, but I rather doubt there'd be many weapons, from pistols right up to the heavy artillery peices, that were involved in every action, let alone enough actions to wear them out.

Those recovered from the battlefield on the other hand may not be in as good a condition, some having possibly laid out in the elements for a substantial period of time.

I would therefore go on to say that a PC's issued weapon is likely to be in good condition (depending on training, etc), however addtional weaponry they've acquired, is more likely to be prone to problems.