![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#92
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
When introducing an older vehicle into the game I usually try and work outs context first. If it's a one off some group got going then anything goes, but if it's not then there has to be some considerations.
First off, some vehicles need essentially gutting and installing stuff from existing vehicles. This is made easier if the vehicle comes from a class of vehicles that are still in service such as the common-as-mud M113 chassis. Otherwise you're looking at installing new engines, transmissions and suspensions. Really, don't do this for tracked vehicles but you can get away with it for some wheeled vehicles. If the vehicle is really old you can simply throw the turret (if there is one) away and drop in a new turret. Note this has to be a lighter turret. Most turrets have their dimensions available on the internet and such things as the BMP-1 turret or the Textron 1 metre turret will fit into a lot of things. Next, weapon commonality. It doesn't need just compatible ammunition, you need enough spares. Really you want a standard NATO/WarPact (depending on who fields it weapon). Either you have to have enough to cannibalise or it has to be dead simple so division can fabricate new parts (such as for rocket tubes). A classic gun for NATO vehicles on the large scale is the L7 105mm gun because there's buckets of them around. Generally thinks like a coax and pintle mounts will be swapped for the correct weapons unless you're making an all-OPFOR equipment force, something usually only done in emergencies. Likewise radios. Adaptors for things like periscopes can be made given time and inclination. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thats one reason a Ferret would be a common older vehicle that could be pressed back into service - the UK made a ton of them, they exported them all over the place and there are a ton of spares - and even ones that were bought by civilians can be put right back into service - just mount a machine gun and you are back in business
|
#94
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
We've probably all seen or included crossbowmen or bowmen in T2k, but is this also true of slingers? I can't remember if it's ever come up here before. I reckon very few PC's, if any, have used slings in combat, but it strikes me as being a weapon one might encounter in the hands of NPCs (civie militia or poorly equipped marauders come to mind).
I've read that in classical warfare, slingers using led shot could kill an armored man at 100 yards with a head shot. They've found skulls with depressed fractures and some with sling shot imbedded or inside the cranium. One sees slingers at work during uprisings in the Palestinian territories. I don't know how effective they are. Simple to make and with readily available ammo, I don't see why slings wouldn't make a comeback in the T2kU. The biggest obstacle, IMHO, is training, as a sling is not something one can just point and shoot. Dating back to at least the dawn of civilization, slings would be one of the most anachronistic weapons, probably the most anachronistic projectile weapon, on the 2000 battlefield. -
__________________
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 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I'll be popping in more frequently soon guys. Dad's estate is winding down, Gram's estate is settled and my cousin Johnny's memorial is now done and everything concluded. They say bad things come in threes, so let's hope I can catch a break for a while! |
#96
|
||||
|
||||
![]() 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 |
#97
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I don't know if anyone has posted this but the Cadillac Gage (now Textron) V-150 and V-200 are perfect for refurbishing into the Twilight War.
Firstly, they have a rugged simplicity that follows the maxim of "the less complexity = the higher reliability". But more importantly the vehicles were specifically designed to use as many components of the M113 armoured personnel carrier and M939 series 5-ton 6×6 trucks as possible, greatly easing the problems with resupply, deployment and maintenance. Both vehicles have benefitted from advances over the years and the bane of the early V-100, twisted axles, is a long gone memory. They can have a variety of turrets meaning you can field multiple different mission vehicles on the same chassis, another big boon. A special point is that the best turret for T2K, the Textron One Metre Turret which features either a M209 or an M2HB and a Mk 19, was specifically created with this vehicle in mind. And even when carrying the 90mm low pressure gun they can still carry eight troops. Of course, you pay for this in thin armour. It's only rated against 7.62mm AP. However the M1117 featured up-armour packages and anyone should be able to do this with applique and/or slat armour. The base armour is too thin for ERA though. However you may not want to. The base V-150 is only 9,800kg, giving the players a relatively lightweight vehicle handy for getting over bad infrastructure. In my experience players only use their vehicles as fire support and not assault vehicles anyway, so send those grunts in to clear out the heavy weapons. As an aside it'd make a great rail/road vehicle for railway campaigns. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#99
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Here's an odd one out of mothballs: In 1972 Libya purchased 8 C-130s. By the time manufacturing was complete the Quadaffi regime's hostility to the US had led to an arms embargo, so the brand new aircraft (with spares aboard), painted desert tan, were placed in storage at the plant in Marietta Georgia. The State Department paid the storage fees and they remain there to this day; IRL when the arms embargo was lifted in 2009 the aircraft were more fit for the scrap heap than a refit. The Libyans, when they got the estimated cost, were no longer interested in the aircraft, and with the revolution in 2011 there was no resolution. (some details at http://www.marietta.com/libyas-c-130-hercules-aircraft)
In a v1 timeline I could see the aircraft, at the outbreak of war, being refurbished and sent into action, despite their terrible condition post-2000. (Supposedly the spares aboard, including complete engines, were pristine in 2007). Possible recipients would include the US, any of its allies that operated the C-130, and China and Iran.
__________________
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end... |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them. Old USMC Adage |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sounds reasonable, especially if Colonel Gaddafi would choose to side with the Neo Soviets of the Twilight War, which wouldn't be unlikely to happen. At that point the US government might just decide to disown Libya as part of general warfare.
__________________
Liber et infractus |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Remembering the salad days, in the 1990's, TT33's, SKS's and Mosins were cheap and plentiful, with the exception of the SKS that took AK mags. Even now, in the KC metro, .30-06 is hard to find, but 7.62X54R is common!
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
and in V2.2 in the East Africa canon I detailed Libya's participation in the war - including their attacking Egypt and taking out the Aswan Dam after the Soviets nuked several refineries in Egypt and then launching an invasion - and the US paying them back with multiple nuke hits including ones that stopped their invasion forces in their tracks i.e. December 9, 1997 Taking advantage of the chaos gripping Egypt, Libya launches an attack by Tu-22 bombers against the Aswan Dam, causing the dam to collapse and send a wall of water down the Nile, drowning hundreds of thousands of Egyptians and displacing even more. The attack destroys most of what electrical power was still being generated in Egypt after the nuclear attacks. Libyan tank formations cross into Egypt and head east against pitiful resistance. Dec 10, 1997 Multiple nuclear strikes hit pro-Soviet Algeria and Libya hard, destroying refineries, oil fields and ports, cutting off almost all oil production and in the process causing nearly seven million casualties. The cities of Tripoli, Skikda (Philippeville), Algiers, Arzew, Ra's Lanuf, Zawiya, Benghazi and Oran have all been targeted in the attacks. The attacks on Algeria incense the French government and many of its people who still think of that country as being part of France. Libyan armored formations that had crossed the Egyptian border are devastated by three tactical nuclear warheads, knocking out over 80 percent of the tanks and APC’s and sending the survivors fleeing back towards Libya. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
When I was at OTAG in Sacramento, the 2nd Street Armory had barrels of M1903s and M1911s sitting in cosmoline, along with ammunition and various other things. They were originally given to teh state by the US Army during WWII when every state's National Guard had been mobilized and incorporated into the Regular Army. They were intended to arm the various state militias and defense forces that formed to replace the missing Guard units.
In about 1998 they decided to dispose of most of it, with the vast majority being demilled and recycled. That decision would not have been made in most of the T2K timelines, and I'd expect that in the post war era many rear echelon formations to be armed with M1903s. Also, Sierra Army Depot has been mentioned. In the mid-1990s many strange things could be found in dark corners of many Army equipment depots and warehouses. The Soviets never threw anything away, and had several WWII-era division sets of equipment stored, maintained and ready to go... tanks, artillery, small arms, ammo, trucks, uniforms, everything... as well as later divisional sets... 1950s, 1960s, etc. Keep in mind the Soviet reserve systems wasn't like ours. They didn't do the "one weekend a month/ two weeks per year" like we do. Most Soviet youth were conscripted, spent 2 years training, then went home and never saw the military again. Their NCOs were largely conscripts from the same year group who showed leadership potential or other factors... bt they were really no more experienced than their peers... much like our "noncommissioned officer candidate school" of the Vietnam era. The Soviet reserve plan was that conscripts from a particular period were kept together and on mobilization they would fall in on a divisional set of equipment appropriate for when they were conscripted. As they and their equipment got older, they were bumped down the readiness lists until they were completely too old for service... I think when the youngest conscripts in the group reached 60 or something they were completely removed from mobilization charts... but until then they were kept organized on paper as a "division" based on geographical loction and assigned a particular divisional set of equipment, which most never saw. However when the division was finally "retired" the equipment was retained. The plan at that point was, in the evet of extended war, new units would be conscripted train and fall in on the old equipment. So, in theory, new 16 year old conscripts could have been trained and deployed with T34s and other WWII era equipment. Quote:
It is possible to machine, forge or cast anything a T34 need to function in combat in post-war T2K. Nobody is making black boxes for M1A1s or T80s in T2K's 2001. Repairing modern equipment is easier IF you have the parts, but impossible without them. In the modern US Army, going back to at least 1990, nobody at the line level "fixes" M1 engines. If there is a problem, except for a few specific replacement parts, you replace the engine entirely and ship the broken one to a depot for fixing. Tank battalion mait platoons carry those few parts that can be replaced, and entire engines. That's it. When there are no more engines, there is almost nothing that a battalion, brigade or even divisional maint shop can do to fix the M1's engine... and nobody is forging turbine blades anywhere but the factory. ICE engines are different, but fire control computers and such are not. You replace black boxes, or it stays broken. Even engines with computer controls are iffy to fix in a shade tree environment. T34s, M46 and M47... even M48 and M48A1 can mostly be fixed with a basic machine shop and a hot enough fire. By 2002ish the old WWII equipment would likely rule the battlefield of T2K, and M1s and T80s would be reduced to immobile gun emplacements operating in emergency manual mode. Last edited by tanksoldier; 11-25-2021 at 12:20 AM. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#106
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Reposted from #14 upthread: To clarify the OP, I was addressing the deployment of relatively large stocks of mothballed weaponry, not so much one-offs like museum collections. The main issue that I see with the latter is a lack of spare parts and expertise re operation, maintenance, and upkeep. If anyone would like to discuss museum exhibits returning to combat, here are a couple of threads that address that topic specifically: https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....ht=littlefield https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....ht=littlefield -
__________________
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 Last edited by Raellus; 11-30-2021 at 06:01 PM. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Was reading about Cuban tanks and found out that Cuba still had 40 IS-2M tanks in useable storage at the time of the Twilight War. Definitely an interesting tank to run into.
|
#109
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Of course, I can't find it right now, but I recall reading that the USSR kept a sizeable stock of IS-3 tanks for use in the static border defense role. I imagine these would be dusted off and sent to the front lines once Soviet tank factories were put out of commission. According to Wikipedia, "In 2014, an IS-3 was captured by the Armed Forces of Ukraine near the city of Donetsk from pro-Russian rebels. Footage of the tank being reactivated by the rebels circulated online, showing the tank being successfully started and driven off its plinth at a memorial in the city of Kostiantynivka, Donetsk Oblast." -
__________________
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 Last edited by Raellus; 12-08-2021 at 09:36 PM. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
As per IISS' The Military Balance of 1989 (p. 190), these IS-2 hadn't been in working condition for quite some time: In this issue, "some 15 JS-2" had already been used as static defence artillery by that time. It might be worth noting that in the 1989-1990 timeframe, no T-34s were listed under the "MBT" section and some 150 T-54/-55 were listed as in store or static coast defence, whereas the 1997 issue clearly puts the T-34 under the MBT category and no T-54/-55 are listed as "in store or static coast defence". So, either Cuba actually reactivated an unknown number of T-34s and up to 150 T-54/-55 from static duty following the collapse of the Soviet Union or IISS figures turned out to be inaccurate after the end of Cuba's patron state. Either way, the IS-2s probably weren't active for quite some time, once the Twilight War started. A intermittent reactivation during the 1990s can also be excluded, I checked the 1994-1995 (combined) issue of IISS' The Military Balance and found the same 15 IS-2 being on static duty as before and after. I'd say, heavy tanks were pretty much dead during the 1990s, except for the occasional museum pieces, including some IS-3. The only exception being IS-2 and IS-3 that were used by South Ossetian forces and Georgian forces respectively during the low-intesity conflicts of the decade. Of course, who knows really what equipment mobilization only divisions of the Soviet Army would have fielded and how long it would have taken the Soviets to bring that type of equipment back into action. This is pretty much fantasy novel artistic license reigning here as almost nothing is known about Soviet deep mobilization plans including spare parts in depots or the tools to produce them. It could be these divisions would have been available with a somewhat unified TOE after a year or so or one would see Studebakers, BTR-40s and T-34s in homeopathic dosages next to Mosin Nagants, PPSh-41 and VAZ-2101 Zhigulis for transport.
__________________
Liber et infractus |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
By the way I always like Cuba as a place Mexico could have gotten armor for their army from - i.e. Cuba needs oil, Mexico needs armor (keep in mind they were still operating Stuart tanks in the 90's) - T34-85's and IS-2M's would be a pretty good buy for them (considering that a lot of Central American and South American countries at the time were operating old WWII and early Cold War armor) in exchange for oil for Cuba Last edited by Olefin; 12-09-2021 at 06:35 AM. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Well if it can shoot it can kill.
__________________
| Alternate Timelines.com | |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Could a post Twilight War Cuba, Mexico or Soviet remnant state field a couple of them? Yes, sure, why not. But it's not going to be a sizeable and likely only a company in total, divided into platoons or even single tanks over a wider area. But hey, it's a mobile 122 mm gun, so it will likely make an impression by 2000.
__________________
Liber et infractus |
#114
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Something to remember with Soviet legacy vehicles is that the sights, periscopes and so on tended to be smaller in the armour penetration than earlier versions. This means you can generally cannibalise a periscope off a T-72 and jam it into a T-10 with a simple adaptor plate.
What I'm getting at is that GMs shouldn't assume that the old vehicles have old radios, periscopes and attendant night vision systems, gunnery sights, subsidiary weapons, smoke launchers and all that junk. That all might be pretty modern because it makes more sense to drop that into a hull you're getting ready to refurbish than try and sources parts for old stuff. Also the older stuff tended to be fairly thick in the armour department, thick enough to take substantial ERA packages. As to engines, keeping an old clapped-out clunker from the 1950s makes little sense if you have spares from more modern vehicles in store. Not only are they more powerful but they are also lighter. Swapping an engine isn't as difficult as many people might think. When I put these vehicles into play I like to make whole new vehicles out of them rather than use some old nostalgia vehicle. Not only is it a fun exercise and really they only turn up rarely but also it keeps the players guessing. Especially when the T-43/85 has a radar sight ![]() |
#115
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Being as Sweden is a featured setting of v4, you might want to check out the Terrängbil m/42D SKP (aka the KP-bil).
Technically, this AFV wasn't mothballed yet in the 1990s (IRL), but this ugly beast was originally fielded in 1943 (!), so I think it qualifies. It's essentially an armored truck based-APC. Later versions fielded in the 1990s had MG mounts, armored tops, smoke grenade launchers, and firing ports for passengers. https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/w..._m-42D_SKP.php -
__________________
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 Last edited by Raellus; 12-12-2021 at 05:12 PM. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On that note, the Dominican Republic had Landsverk L-60 "light" tanks in service until 2002. The model was contemporary to other light tanks of early World War Two, like the German Panzerkampfwagen II, Panzerkampfwagen 35(t), US M2, Polish 7TP or Soviet T-26.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsverk_L-60
__________________
Liber et infractus |
#118
|
||||
|
||||
![]() 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 |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
"The most-thinly documented incident is a reported exchange of fire between a massively outgunned L-60 and a Marine Patton tank. The eight-ton L-60, armed with a 37-millimeter gun, could hardly have dented the armor of the 50-ton Patton. The same cannot be said for the Patton’s 90-millimeter cannon, which “disintegrated” the smaller vehicle. Another L-60 was knocked out by a Marine M-50 Ontos anti-tank vehicle. These unique vehicles bristled with six heavy 106-millimeter recoilless rifles —each had to be individually reloaded after taking a shot. The Ontos was definitely a “shoot-and-scoot” vehicle — it was so thinly armored that an L-60 might actually have damaged one. An Ontos is also credited with blowing the turret off a rebel AMX-13. This was the first combat employment for both the Ontos and M-48 — they went on to see extensive use in Vietnam — and the only time the Ontos was used in the role it was designed for, fighting enemy tanks" - https://warisboring.com/in-1965-u-s-...nt-skirmishes/ Last edited by Olefin; 12-13-2021 at 11:27 AM. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Pre-war tank models were worlds apart from what was fielded at the end of WW2. The Dominicans also fielded about a company of Pansarbil m/39 "Lynx" armored cars and French AMX-13 light tanks each, the latter of which were rather state of the art by 1965. On a side note, I think there were actually three L60 destroyed by US Marines and members of the 82nd Airborne Division. One by a M40 recoilless rifle, one by a M50 Ontos and one by a M48 Patton.
__________________
Liber et infractus |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests) | |
|
|