RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-29-2011, 05:36 PM
Ronin's Avatar
Ronin Ronin is offline
Designated Marksman
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mid-Michigan DMZ
Posts: 53
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
Jobs better suited to lightly armored WHEELED vehicles. Tracks are maintenance intensive and burn through to much fuel for security patrols.

I could see the Border patrol using M113 is the roughest terrain or the most dangerous areas.

The .gov could contract from Loomis (makes their own armored cars) to build security vehicles.
Seems like the M1117 (Successor to the Cadillac Gage Commando) might be a good fit for what you are suggesting.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-29-2011, 06:14 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin View Post
Seems like the M1117 (Successor to the Cadillac Gage Commando) might be a good fit for what you are suggesting.
It is a V-150. Hasn't changed all that much since the XM706.

Ironically, during my time in Iraq the MP Companies with these worked in Baghdad protecting convoys to and from BIAP to the Green Zone.

While we escorted convoys from Talil AB to BIAP or the fuel depot (civilian) in Mahmudiyah. Using M114s and M1025s.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ground/asv.htm

I am thinking that by this late in Twilight, the factory is nuked or running full tilt to supply U.S. Allies like Portugal and Spain with replacement parts and vehicles. So a civilian source making armored cars on civilian chassis would be available and provide what is adequate for the task.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-29-2011, 06:19 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Used properly, the M113 is adequate on most battlefields. With a proper crew using the terrain, and NOT acting like a tank (ie rolling over the top of heavily armed opponents) the '13 performs quite well.
Basically, if an enemy is known to possess anything heavier than 7.62, the '13s should stay well back and let the infantry destroy the heavy weapons. Hull down and providing fire support once they've dropped the infantry off is the best way to use them in that situation.
Should an enemy be armed with nothing more than rifles and medium machineguns, then the '13 can roll in and crush the enemy (litterally!)

Just because a vehicle has light armour, doesn't make it useless on the battlefield. The tactics have to be adjusted of course, and the commanders need to be aware of the limitations of their vehicles.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-29-2011, 06:25 PM
natehale1971's Avatar
natehale1971 natehale1971 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Monroe, NC, USA
Posts: 1,199
Send a message via AIM to natehale1971 Send a message via MSN to natehale1971 Send a message via Yahoo to natehale1971
Default

I'm looking for something that would be cost effective and that new construction wouldn't be necessary for the units being sent to Police, State Guard, Territorial Guard units.

It's the reason i was asking if the decommissioned M113s would be cost effective and useful for those kinds of units, or bring more return by just having them scrapped.
__________________
Fuck being a hero. Do you know what you get for being a hero? Nothing! You get shot at. You get a little pat on the back, blah blah blah, attaboy! You get divorced... Your wife can't remember your last name, your kids don't want to talk to you... You get to eat a lot of meals by yourself. Trust me kid, nobody wants to be that guy. I do this because there is nobody else to do it right now. Believe me if there was somebody else to do it, I would let them do it. There's not, so I'm doing it.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-29-2011, 07:02 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by natehale1971 View Post
I'm looking for something that would be cost effective and that new construction wouldn't be necessary for the units being sent to Police, State Guard, Territorial Guard units.

It's the reason i was asking if the decommissioned M113s would be cost effective and useful for those kinds of units, or bring more return by just having them scrapped.
Worth far, far more as hulls than as scrap metal. Even if it was political capital doing a lend lease deal with an Ally.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-29-2011, 07:06 PM
natehale1971's Avatar
natehale1971 natehale1971 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Monroe, NC, USA
Posts: 1,199
Send a message via AIM to natehale1971 Send a message via MSN to natehale1971 Send a message via Yahoo to natehale1971
Default

Thank you SGT...

That gives me some ideas... in a highened threat level world, older hulls (armored vehicles and naval vessels) being sold or given to allies would be a good idea. how hard is it to turn an already existing M113 hull into one of the variants? is the mod of say a stock M113 into a variant something that can be done quickly and economically?
__________________
Fuck being a hero. Do you know what you get for being a hero? Nothing! You get shot at. You get a little pat on the back, blah blah blah, attaboy! You get divorced... Your wife can't remember your last name, your kids don't want to talk to you... You get to eat a lot of meals by yourself. Trust me kid, nobody wants to be that guy. I do this because there is nobody else to do it right now. Believe me if there was somebody else to do it, I would let them do it. There's not, so I'm doing it.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-29-2011, 07:32 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

M113 into an M113A3? Stripped to the hull and introduced into the assembly line. Whatever time it takes to assemble an M113A3, a week, two weeks, or just a few hours? I have no idea.

If it is not a fundamental change to the hull like a large turret, would not say much more.

A lot of things are done, then the equipment is shipped to the Ally so the Ally completes the Mod to their specs. Like radio mounts, weapons mounts, fording gear, night vision, etc.

The Ally fits it to meet their supply chain.

The Leopard and the M113 are similar, NATO standard but, National specific models.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-29-2011, 07:44 PM
natehale1971's Avatar
natehale1971 natehale1971 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Monroe, NC, USA
Posts: 1,199
Send a message via AIM to natehale1971 Send a message via MSN to natehale1971 Send a message via Yahoo to natehale1971
Default

i see... the bad thing is, the biggest allies i see getting the M113s that were not sold/given to the police, state guard and territorial guard during the years before the Euro-Soviet War would have been the PRC and Mexico in my altered timeline.
__________________
Fuck being a hero. Do you know what you get for being a hero? Nothing! You get shot at. You get a little pat on the back, blah blah blah, attaboy! You get divorced... Your wife can't remember your last name, your kids don't want to talk to you... You get to eat a lot of meals by yourself. Trust me kid, nobody wants to be that guy. I do this because there is nobody else to do it right now. Believe me if there was somebody else to do it, I would let them do it. There's not, so I'm doing it.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-29-2011, 07:44 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Turning one into a mortar carrier or that level of alteration is possible, given the right tools and materials. Not sure how easy that would be in T2K when every last existing hull is likely to be refurbished rather than altered. Replacing old parts is much simpler than cutting and shutting...
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-30-2011, 08:26 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Used properly, the M113 is adequate on most battlefields. With a proper crew using the terrain, and NOT acting like a tank (ie rolling over the top of heavily armed opponents) the '13 performs quite well.
Basically, if an enemy is known to possess anything heavier than 7.62, the '13s should stay well back and let the infantry destroy the heavy weapons. Hull down and providing fire support once they've dropped the infantry off is the best way to use them in that situation.
Should an enemy be armed with nothing more than rifles and medium machineguns, then the '13 can roll in and crush the enemy (litterally!)

Just because a vehicle has light armour, doesn't make it useless on the battlefield. The tactics have to be adjusted of course, and the commanders need to be aware of the limitations of their vehicles.
And therein is the rub! Too many congressmen (and way too many officers for that matter!) think that if the vehicle has tracks, armor and a weapon, then it must be a tank and is fully capable of going toe-to-toe with any other tank (of course there is that M-113 ACCV armed with a 106mm RCL....)!
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-30-2011, 02:58 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
And therein is the rub! Too many congressmen (and way too many officers for that matter!) think that if the vehicle has tracks, armor and a weapon, then it must be a tank
The press is WAY guilty of that one -- some reporters even refer to light wheeled armored cars with no mounted weapons as tanks!
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-30-2011, 11:45 PM
Schone23666's Avatar
Schone23666 Schone23666 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Posts: 440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post
The press is WAY guilty of that one -- some reporters even refer to light wheeled armored cars with no mounted weapons as tanks!
Col. David Hackworth during Desert Shield/Desert Storm joked one time that he thought he should host a conference with all the reporters out there and teach them how to properly ID vehicles. "See this? It's big and heavy, it has tracks, it has a turret, and in the turret is a really big cannon...we call THIS vehicle a tank." ROFLMAO!!!


Of course.....cough....that doesn't mean the men in uniform also isn't guilty of stupidity from time to time. I remember a Colonel at a previous base I was at was giving us young airmen a pep talk, and showed us a static display of what I think was an F105 (been a while) and pointed out the big cylindrical device under the hull. "See that? That's a good sized bomb it's got there!"

Of course, as airmen we were all a little too embarrassed and intimidated at the time to mention it wasn't a bomb, it was a fuel tank.

__________________
"The use of force is always an answer to problems. Whether or not it's a satisfactory answer depends on a number of things, not least the personality of the person making the determination. Force isn't an attractive answer, though. I would not be true to myself or to the people I served with in 1970 if I did not make that realization clear."
- David Drake
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-01-2011, 12:10 AM
copeab's Avatar
copeab copeab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schone23666 View Post
Col. David Hackworth during Desert Shield/Desert Storm joked one time that he thought he should host a conference with all the reporters out there and teach them how to properly ID vehicles. "See this? It's big and heavy, it has tracks, it has a turret, and in the turret is a really big cannon...we call THIS vehicle a tank." ROFLMAO!!!
Y'know, I'd make the argument that calling a Bradley or BMP a 'tank' is not completely wrong -- MICVs are oversized light tanks with undersized rifle squads crammed inside.
__________________
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope

http://copeab.tripod.com
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-01-2011, 05:27 AM
B.T.'s Avatar
B.T. B.T. is offline
Registered Kraut
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ruhrgebiet, Germany
Posts: 271
Default

During my time in the Bundeswehr, we usually called the M113 "Panzer", like in phrases as: "No smoking in the Panzer!"

But "Panzer" is not clear as definition: The Tank (= Main Battle Tank) in German is: "Kampfpanzer".
The IFV/CAV and even the APC are called "Schützenpanzer" in German.
"Panzer" is used as a word for all kinds of tracked vecicles in German.

Therefore it was not completely false, but on the other hand: Everybody knew, that the M113 was not a "Panzer" like the Marder (and the Marder is a true "Schützenpanzer"). It was used as a kind of mocking phrase.
When we were introduced to our workhorse, the NCO explaining the M113 mentioned, that the trim vane would serve as a kind of additional armor. I've never read something like that afterwards, but in a way he was not for from reality. That special NCO even added that you could saw a M113 into pieces with MGs in 7,62 NATO, given time and a lot of ammo. Still don't know, if this is true.
__________________
I'm from Germany ... PM me, if I was not correct. I don't want to upset anyone!

"IT'S A FREAKIN GAME, PEOPLE!"; Weswood, 5-12-2012
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-01-2011, 08:52 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copeab View Post
Y'know, I'd make the argument that calling a Bradley or BMP a 'tank' is not completely wrong -- MICVs are oversized light tanks with undersized rifle squads crammed inside.
Ouch! I can see your point, but even a light tank carries more armor than a MICV!
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.