![]() |
![]() |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
" Is he lucky?" ![]() |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
That much said, I agree heartily with most of what you have written in defense of the AT gun in the Y2k setting. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, context matters. In the context of North Central Europe of 1999 or 2000, the AT gun has almost overwhelming advantages over the ATGM--many of which you have named. I'll offer a couple more: Following the 1998 campaign season in Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia, the fighting winds down to a virtual standstill. Fuel shortages and lack of spare parts dramatically reduce the ability of both sides to conduct a mobile defense. By the same token, fuel shortages and lack of spare parts dramatically reduce the need for a mobile defense. Both sides now have the luxury of time to site their guns and prepare optimal defensive positions. Although there will be great demands on manpower, it still should be possible to create camouflaged firing positions for the AT guns. Depending on the initiative of the local commanders and the resources available, it should be entirely plausible for the AT guns to enjoy overhead protection, a ready supply of ammunition under cover, and perhaps even an alternate firing position or two. Additionally, it’s entirely reasonable to expect that cantonments will have extensive obstacle belts covered by AT guns, preregistered artillery and mortar zones, and machine guns firing from fixed and camouflaged firing positions. Now we find the AT gun coming into its own. Woe betide the IFV that ventures onto this battlefield. At this point, the relative ease of manufacture of the AT gun ammunition versus the ATGM becomes a commandingly decisive factor. ATGM will still be in use, to whatever degree they are still available. NATO will have a substantial body of AT guns available at this point, having captured Pact materiel during the offensives across East Germany, Poland, and western Czechoslovakia. The value of the AT gun in static defenses of great depth will have become abundantly clear during the operation in Poland. (No doubt, the PLA will have tried to pass on their wisdom following their own defensive triumph in Manchuria in 1996. No doubt, the West will fail to take note.) It might even be possible that NATO will see fit to protect its southern flank in (former) East Germany with extensive obstacle belts and captured AT guns. Of course, I could be giving NATO too much credit. All of this leads me to ask an uncomfortable question: is the set-up for “Escape from Kalisz” even plausible? 5th ID jumps off from its positions in northwestern Poland for a cavalry raid into central Poland. Where are the static defenses? The remnants of the defenses constructed in 1997 should be everywhere. These defenses should have been enhanced between 1998 and 2000. What’s the story? I should clarify what I mean by static defenses. Minefields backed by machine guns, artillery, and AT guns are at the heart of such defenses. These kinds of minefields are not FASCAM. I’m talking complex minefields with a mix of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines. Covering them would be whatever direct fire and indirect fire weapons were available. Any unit staying in one place for any length of time will improve on the defenses already in place. Bunkers will be constructed of whatever materials are available and sited so that they can cover their obstacles with overlapping fields of fire. Given time, communication trenches will be constructed, covered, and concealed. The trenches will be made at least semi-permanent by having their walls reinforced with wood. The floor of the trenches might have a raised portion to keep soldiers out of the mud during the rainy season. Wire commo will be laid. Backup communications will be established. Command posts will be dug in and fortified. All of this is very low-tech and requires little in the way of electronics or sophisticated tools. If you have the time, some shovels and axes, and the manpower, you can create a very extensive and formidable set of earthworks. (This is me going back to my 12B roots) Time and manpower can be substituted for each other. Other types of obstacles we should expect to find used extensively in Poland in 2000 include wire obstacles, which are often combined with minefields, and water obstacles. Abatis probably have been used as much as they can be used back in 1997. By 1998, the roads probably have been cleared of all of those downed trees. Crib-style obstacles probably have been used, but they don’t wear well. If I were planning defensive obstacles in post-Exchange Europe (or anywhere, really), I wouldn’t use many crib-style devices. They have their uses, but the real money lies in minefields, wire obstacles, and water obstacles—preferably in combination. So where are these kinds of defenses when 5th ID jumps off from its starting point? Webstral |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Such gaps may have been covered by mines, but without adequate infantry to cover those minefields, they would be fairly easy to traverse. I'm sure that many surviving tanks c.2000 would be equiped with mine rollers or plows or fitted with ad hoc devices designed to do the same thing (I'm thinking along the lines of the Cullen hedgerow cutters of the WWII Normandy campaign). Most gaps would be screened by picket forces or covered by routine patrols but these forces would be tasked primarily with providing warning of enemy offensive operations and perhaps delaying attacking forces while mobile reserves are rushed to the scene. Anyhow, certain valuable areas would have extensive active defensive works while other areas would be largely undefended or have only passive defenses. I'm sure that there would be miles and miles of old, abandoned trench systems and other defensive works. But without troops there maintaining them, they would be little more than speed bumps. In a nutshell, there just aren't enough troops to man and defend the sorts of trench systems that were the hallmark of WWI.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I agree that given the choice, the ATGM is certainly the better option.
However, as the war dragged on and missiles became scarce (not to mentionteh delicate electronics of the various launchers becomeing damaged), the gun is going to retake prominance as the primary AT weapon. Something else to keep in mind is that engaging targets at a weapon systems theoretical maximum range is nearly never going to happen. The shorter the range, the more likely a hit will be scored, and with a kinetic penetrator (AP rounds) the longer the range, the lesser the penetration. Even though a TOW (for example, but could use any of the guided systems) had a range of several miles, missiles are fairly slow. During the flight, the operator must maintain a line of sight on the target, all the while hoping the enemy don't respond in kind with HE and machineguns. If the missile has bee fired in less than ideal terrain (rolling hills), there is a chance that the target might even disappear from normal movement before the missile gets close. AT weapons of any type benefit from being sited close to the target area. Once again, I'm all for missiles as a first choice, but once supplies begin to dry up and mobility becomes less of a factor, give me the gun.
__________________
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 |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Something to keep in mind is that minefields are essentially useless unless covered by fire - ie somebody with a weapon is watching over them.
An unguarded minefield is little more than a rather dangerous mine storage area for the enemy as was shown in Vietnam when a (very) large minefield laid by western armies (not sure if it was US or Aus). A few short months later after it had been handed over to the ARVN, there was no minefield - the ARVN had failed to guard it and the VC lifted the whole thing for their own use! The vast majority of mines encountered for the remainder of the war were from this field.
__________________
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 |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
![]() Last edited by Targan; 06-29-2009 at 10:45 PM. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I served with one of the victims of that minefield - Warrant Officer Lees (Corporal at the time). Lost half a foot, terrible wounds up the legs and lost a testicle to an M16. Still managed to have another son afterward though (served with him too).
http://www.5rar.asn.au/narrative/mines.htm He served two tours - not sure if that was the first or second.
__________________
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 |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
![]() |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Yes, Cpl at the time. Great man and a great drinker too. Spent many a late night with him, his son and about a dozen others around the fire (and bar).
When I first met him he was in the assault pioneer plattoon, ironic since one of their major roles is mine warfare.... Moved on to mortars after that, or at least instructed on the course.
__________________
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 |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
A couple of other observations:
First, while ATGMs do have a much longer effective range than AT guns, local terrain will likely greatly limit advantage, unless you flatten and clear everything within 3,000 meters. (OTOH, the ambush factor of an ATGM that finds a commanding view firing at very long range is significant.) Secondly, AT guns have a useful role against attacking infantry, firing HE or some type of multiple-projectile round. |
#42
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#43
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Disclaimer - This post is made on the basis of complete ignorance.
Would EMP have affected the guidance systems of the fancy schmancy missiles? That could be another big point in favour of AT guns.
__________________
Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#46
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
We were told to expect 5% or so failure rate, during good times. No clue how close that is to reality though. |
#48
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Great story, Cavtroop. On a related note, I wonder how well the sighting/targetting and command guidance systems would hold up under battlefield conditions.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Regarding EMP and missiles, that's a very interesting question and one I doubt we're ever going to be able to answer (at least until certain secret and restricted documents are made public). My guess is that most simple AT weapons should be fine (one the whole) - M72s and the like anyway as there's almost no components in them to be effected. More sophisticated wire guided, or "fire and forget" systems are another matter. One would hope that exposed systems would be sent back to the unit armourer for testing and repair and so this shouldn't be too much of an issue by 2000 (no nukes in a few years). On the other hand, if a hidden cache of munitions was found..... Just think of the possibilities for an evil GM! ![]()
__________________
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 |
#50
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Were NATO tube artillery units issued with AP rounds for self defense? If they were, I supposed then they could be used as AT guns in a pinch.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
![]() |
#53
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#54
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I already answered webstral in a private message but it seems that the smilies I chose in my last post brought some confusion. Sorry about that for anyone who founded that I might have been offensive and sorry to web. I truly found his point a good point.
Thanks anyone ![]() |
#55
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#56
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Webstral |
![]() |
Tags |
weapons |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Guns a GoGo and the Twilight War | Brian S | Twilight 2000 Forum | 33 | 05-06-2009 09:51 PM |
What happened to all those guns? | Jason | Twilight 2000 Forum | 2 | 12-22-2008 05:05 AM |
Sub Machine guns | Brother in Arms | Twilight 2000 Forum | 30 | 12-04-2008 01:17 PM |
New long guns: from Futureweapons | kato13 | Twilight 2000 Forum | 0 | 09-10-2008 03:51 AM |
Large Calibre Guns - are they being used? | kato13 | Twilight 2000 Forum | 0 | 09-10-2008 01:46 AM |