Programs that exist in your T2kU!

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Just one negative -- I don't think the Javelin exists in T2K. The Tankbreaker does -- but the Javelin does not, as the Tankbreaker Program didn't get far enough to produce the Javelin.

Both the Javelin and the Predator SRAW (which would be adopted by the Marines during the Global War On Terror) made it to the field by 1996.

The Javelin beat out the Predator because it had a better sight, longer range, and better warhead.

The Predator REQUIRES a missile to be loaded in order to use the CLU's Thermal imager (because it actually "sees" through the warhead's thermal optic) for recon, unlike the Javelin. The Predator is MUCH FASTER (like 1,000m per second) but only has a range of just about 1km. It is also cheaper.

Both systems could appear in Twilight2000.

[swaghauler]

One might also see the proposed fiber-optic upgrade of wire-guided missiles. These have resistance to the elements and the missiles can be much faster (up to 400m/sec) than the older missiles would be.

[castlebravo92]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

Both the Javelin and the Predator SRAW (which would be adopted by the Marines during the Global War On Terror) made it to the field by 1996.

The Javelin beat out the Predator because it had a better sight, longer range, and better warhead.

The Predator REQUIRES a missile to be loaded in order to use the CLU's Thermal imager (because it actually "sees" through the warhead's thermal optic) for recon, unlike the Javelin. The Predator is MUCH FASTER (like 1,000m per second) but only has a range of just about 1km. It is also cheaper.

Both systems could appear in Twilight2000.

I always assumed the "Tank Breaker" was just a Javelin by another name.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by castlebravo92

I always assumed the "Tank Breaker" was just a Javelin by another name.

DARPA's published history agrees with you: https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/tank-breaker

I can't find the reference at the moment, but I seem to recall GDW also hypothesizing that the then-proposed Assault Breaker concept would play a role in the Sino-Soviet War.

https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/assault-breaker
https://warontherocks.com/2014/11/th...ta-revolution/

- C.

[Raellus]

It was my understanding as well that Tankbreaker was what the v1 creators called what would become the Javelin ATGM IRL. As a Ref, at least, they are one-in-the-same in my T2kU.

IRL, recent reports suggest that a Javelin ATGM achieved its first aerial kill- a Kamov K-52- in Ukraine. The source of the reports is Ukrainian and, AFAIK, there's been no independent confirmation, but the Javelin was designed with that capability in mind. Other ATGM systems have achieved confirmed aerial kills v. helicopters (a TOW II downed a Gazelle in Syria, and a Stugna-P killed a KA-52 in Ukraine).

...

One thing I really liked about T2k as a kid were the speculative weapon systems, especially vehicles. The writers got more wrong (LAV-75, Diana SPAAG, turretless M1A2) than they got right, but it was fun to think about what weapon systems lay just over the temporal horizon. I understand why 4e didn't include any speculative systems (unlike the v1 creators, they didn't have to project forward), but it was a little disappointing to not see any "legacy" or new speculative systems. I would have appreciated it if they'd included something like the LAV-75 as fan service.

If this topic is of particular interest to you, the linked thread focuses on small arms programs that may or may not have gotten off the ground prior to/during the Twilight War:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....pons+timelines

-

[castlebravo92]

Originally Posted by Raellus

<snip>

One thing I really liked about T2k as a kid were the speculative weapon systems, especially vehicles. The writers got more wrong (LAV-75, Diana SPAAG, turretless M1A2) than they got right, but it was fun to think about what weapon systems lay just over the temporal horizon.

I thought GDW got a lot of stuff "right" and made some pretty good guesses, especially pre-internet age.

Who would have thought that, almost 40 years later, that US ground forces still wouldn't have an effective standardized air defense system other than the Patriot and the USAF!

[ToughOmbres]

Originally Posted by castlebravo92

I thought GDW got a lot of stuff "right" and made some pretty good guesses, especially pre-internet age.

Who would have thought that, almost 40 years later, that US ground forces still wouldn't have an effective standardized air defense system other than the Patriot and the USAF!

I agree. GDW did quite well in my view-speculative fiction just that-speculative. Not perfect but very good.

Does anyone have the Viper in their campaigns or the Copperhead?

[Homer]

I think AT4 (M136) probably killed Viper’s future as a system, especially after combat performance in Panama and ODS. Congress was so fed up with viper that the program was substantially defunded in the early 80s and trials reopened resulting in AT4 procurement. If you do want to introduce an M72/M136 alternative, the SMAW/B300 saw limited use in the US Army and was type standardized in the USMC. The Armbrust was also well regarded in tests and available for purchase, but the lethality is closer to the M72 than the M136.

The copperhead could be there in a campaign, but they’re definitely not the most rugged munition, requiring special handling. But it’s big at 137lbs. If you want to introduce it you will need the following, in addition to standard FA items-
1. NATO standard 155mm tube (M198, M109, M114, FH70, etc.)
2. Missile test set, cased M712 round, G/VLDD or other laser designator
3. Met data for engagement area, especially cloud base height

Copperhead shoots are normally computed in advance because of the designation, weather, and trajectory requirements. The round has a pre-determined trajectory and “footprint” it is shot into to be able to acquire the laser designation and maneuver to the target. The round is set to a three digit Pulse Repetition Frequency (PRF) that the observer also uses. If the cloud base is too low for the round to be able to acquire and track to target after descending through it or no PRF matched designator is available the round will “go stupid” and follow a ballistic trajectory. The key safety requirement is to ensure the designator is with 45 degrees left or right of the gun-target line (angle t) to prevent acquisition of the designator by the round rather than the target spot.

A few ideas to introduce copperhead into a campaign:
1. PCs are tasked to lase, or escort an observer into position to lase for a copperhead shoot at a high payoff point target (SSM system, radar, etc).
2. PCs must conduct a patrol to secure an abandoned Field Ammo Supply Point with a supply of copperheads needed to support an upcoming operation. Just for fun, you could make the PCs hump or pack animal the rounds out!
3. PCs receive copperhead support or be facilitated by a copperhead mission. This could be through a third party (thinking of the SASR team in “How do you say g’day in Polish”) who happens to be lasing an HPT for an unrelated mission.
4. Krasnopol (RU copperhead equivalent in 152mm) is used against the PCs or recovered by the PCs from a cache/vehicle. Insignificant on its own, but valuable combat information if part of an organized force.

Hope this helps.