OT: Putin's War in Ukraine

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

My one issue with any AA is the fact that TWILIGHT2000 really didn't address the radars that many AA Gun Systems & Missile Launchers have installed in them. Without those rules, the GM is left to fumble about trying to figure out what each radar can actually detect.

That is a problem, but the solution (other than an RF bonus) would range from cumbersome to nightmarish -- radar detection and ranging is incredibly complicated, which is why the first production stealth designs didn't appear until the late 1970s. I've been trying to come up with something coherent for decades.

[The Zappster]

Has any checked if the traveller house rules has anything that can help ?

[Homer]

Everything over and above a simple search radar or ranging radar gets complex quickly. I think GDW took three approaches to simplify things: first, radar/lrf/ballistic computer, etc are rolled into a single modifier; second, remove most air assets from the game due to cannon circumstances; finally, limit availability of complex systems using availability and judgement.

That said, much of AD in the 90s was moving towards networked systems. This included linking forward search and cueing systems into non radar equipped fire units, using bridging data structure to merge the air and AD pictures, and expanding engagement envelopes to include non-air breather threats. Most of this structure is probably destroyed or needing repair by 2000, but allowing certain items to remain could help replicate the search and cue capabilities.

[Raellus]

The convenient thing about SPAAGs in the T2k-verse is that players/Ref's probably won't ever have to figure out/use radar rules, as aerial targets are few and far between by the late stages of the war. However, those auto-cannons are still useful against ground targets. A SPAAG has a good chance of knocking out anything short of a modern MBT.

-

[Homer]

Against an MBT their volume of fire would probably have a pretty good chance of getting a suppression or a mission kill by crazing vision blocks, hitting primary sights, destroying exposed portions of FCS (wind sensors, rangefinders), and knocking off antennas and exposed machine guns. The tank and crew will survive, but they may need to fight degraded or pull off for repair. Against anything less they’d be absolutely deadly.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Homer

Against an MBT their volume of fire would probably have a pretty good chance of getting a suppression or a mission kill by crazing vision blocks, hitting primary sights, destroying exposed portions of FCS (wind sensors, rangefinders), and knocking off antennas and exposed machine guns. The tank and crew will survive, but they may need to fight degraded or pull off for repair. Against anything less they’d be absolutely deadly.

That might again take new rules!

This reminds me the story out of Vietnam about a Cobra crew who needed to stop a PT-76. Unfortunately, they only had HE rockets, which did not penetrate the PT-76. But they kept firing, and the tank was stopped -- not by destruction or a mobility kill, but by the concussion from the HE explosions on the PT-76 killing the crew.

New rule?

[Homer]

I don’t have my rules handy, so I’m winging it. That might be able to be replicated by rolling for hit and location then allowing for judgement on a non-penetrating hit. The 1st Edition rules with their more detailed vehicle damage would probably be easier to work with. Otherwise you’d need to have a copy of janes handy!

Artillery, especially HE/VT, is the same way. Even 60mm mortar fragments can effect an armored vehicle by chopping off antennas, damaging external weapons or sights, shredding external stowage (esp crew gear), etc.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

That might again take new rules!

This reminds me the story out of Vietnam about a Cobra crew who needed to stop a PT-76. Unfortunately, they only had HE rockets, which did not penetrate the PT-76. But they kept firing, and the tank was stopped -- not by destruction or a mobility kill, but by the concussion from the HE explosions on the PT-76 killing the crew.

New rule?

For overpressure damage in V2.2, I take the Concussion Damage dice and subtract the vehicle's armor protection from that number. If the number is positive, that is the number of D10s you roll for occupant damage. This "blast damage" (like my actual concussion damage) is divided up and applied to ALL the locations with extra damage being applied to specific locations as follows...

Head first
Chest second
Abdomen third
Limbs (start with the arms) last

Personal body armor (other than a bomb suit) DOES NOT work for Concussion Damage.

Vehicle Damage:

I put electronics on the outside lines of my vehicle charts. So you can hit radio antennas, electronics, and optics by rolling that line on my location charts (these resemble the charts used by BATTLETECH the mech game).

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

That is a problem, but the solution (other than an RF bonus) would range from cumbersome to nightmarish -- radar detection and ranging is incredibly complicated, which is why the first production stealth designs didn't appear until the late 1970s. I've been trying to come up with something coherent for decades.

I have been kicking around a chart like my Observation and Spotting Chart (yes I have posted that chart in this forum) where a DETECTION radar would have a Skill Difficulty column for...

Large Aircraft above NOA (Nap of Earth)
Large Aircraft at NOA or small aircraft (drones)
Large Ground Targets
Small Ground Targets

Non-Doppler Radars would give range and bearing (with two units needed for altitude triangulation).

Doppler Radars would give a range, bearing, and altitude. It's hard to believe, but before Doppler Radar (and now ESA) everyone needed two radars scanning to pinpoint exact range and altitude.

In addition to DETECTION RADARS, you'd also have a TARGETING Radar that could direct weapons fire. By the '70s, you could combine BOTH Radar types into one unified system.

[Raellus]

Kind of silly, kind of clever: In this parody mashup, HIMARS, representing Ukraine, makes an appearance on America's Got Talent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKJw1K3PA8Y

I read that the HIMARS video was created by the same folks that did the Sir David Attenborough BBC Planet Earth parody about the Javelin Missile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_INS-96zgNE

-

[bash]

I found this video today, it's an American foreign fighter in Ukraine recording his first mission on a helmet mounted GoPro. I found it pretty interesting. Also game-wise I see this as basically the day to day life of T2K characters.

https://youtu.be/5_HupFPE3io

Normal combat footage warnings apply, NSFW etc.

[pmulcahy11b]

The Ukrainians have integrated HARMs onto their MiGs, with mixed success:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqY9CDsOpvk

[bash]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

The Ukrainians have integrated HARMs onto their MiGs, with mixed success:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqY9CDsOpvk

I have been really amused by coverage about adapting US/NATO systems to Ukraine's equipment. Commentators act as if adapting NATO weapons to WP equipment is some brand new concept no one has ever tried before. Former Soviet satellites have been working to integrate old WP tech and NATO tech for thirty years.

I don't say that to disparage the Ukrainians at all, they obviously have the tech talent to do the work. I'm 100% sure they've gotten a lot of advice from all their Eastern European NATO neighbors about sticking NATO systems on their WP equipment. Between such advice and their own ingenuity they've pulled some impressive feats. I'm just amused at the breathless commentary from YouTubers.

[pmulcahy11b]

One of the interesting items I noticed from the cockpit shots was the use of a Garmin commercial GPS receiver in a jury-rigged mount.

As far as mixing the use of Russian and Western equipment, look to the Indians, who do that on a regular basis. They buy systems from everyone, and mix and match as they see fit.