Canon Germany to RDF tank transfer

[Olefin]

Just posted this on another thread but figured this deserves its own thread

If you look at the US vehicle guide versus the RDF guide you can see that tanks and helos must have been transferred from Germany to the RDF during the Omega evac - and since Omega said no tanks or heavy vehicles were loaded it proves a seperate evac

Here are the numbers

24th Mech
July 1, 2000 - 2000 men, 9 M1A2
Jan 1, 2001 - 4000 men, 18 AFV

101st

July 1, 2000 - 4000 men 4 AH-64
Jan 1, 2001 - 4000 men, 4 AH-64, 12 UH-60

9th ID

July 1, 2000 - 1500 men, 12 LAV-75
Jan 1, 2001 - 3000 men, 16 AFV

82nd
July 1, 2000 -3000 men, 7 AFV
Jan 1, 2001 - 3000 men 12 AFV

6th ACCB
July 1, 2000 - 600 men 12 AH-64
Jan 1, 2001 - 1100 men, 6 OH-58, 12 AH-64

1st Marine
July 1, 2000 - 3000 men, 6 M1
Jan 1, 2001 - 3000 men 16 AFV
3rd Marine
July 1, 2000 - 4000 men 5 M1
Jan 1, 2001 - 4000 men, 12 AFV

Add up the difference and what do you get

4000 men
35 AFV's
12 UH-60 helos
6 OH-58 helos

meaning 2000 men havent been accounted for yet in the formations or they took losses in men and AFV's between June and Jan and they were made up

So that makes a possible 3rd Armored Division transfer even more likely along with possibly the other 1000 men being assigned with the 18 helos

they had 5000 men and 54 AFV after all and that definitely would give the RDF the reinforcements seen above

and the remaining 2000 men and AFV's may not have arrived yet - its says the first of 6000 reinforcements arrived in Dec of 2000 - it doesnt say that they had all arrived

And dont say it was repaired tanks - they only had 39 in the whole theater in June and suddenly another 35 show up from repairs with no spare parts and no shipments from the US?

The only convoy that arrived in the time period per canon was from Europe per canon

So that proves that there was a canon evac of tanks and helos from Europe (and most likely artillery and other heavy weapons) that had nothing to do with the Omega evac

[Webstral]

Interesting! I haven't done anything with CENTCOM, so I never crunched any of the relevant numbers. Which source gives the Jan 1, 2001 numbers? (Sorry, I don't have any of my materials in front of me.)

[Webstral]

The fact is that some of the accounting has gaps. I’ve never really sweated it. The GDW guys had a big job, and this was before the Internet. I have always seen my job in regards to the Twilight: 2000 universe as deputy to the guys who created it. When the sheriff misses something, I do my best to catch it, smooth it over, or act in keeping with his philosophy to put things right.

Okay, so I said elsewhere that I was going to try to demonstrate how we used to do things here. Here goes:

The most important point I want to make is that I appreciate that you’re looking into the numbers, Olefin. I like the idea of some allowances being made for shipment of materiel from Europe to the Middle East in the wake of the failure of the Summer 2000 offensive. I’m not sure the argument in favor of an alternative Operation Omega is ironclad, though. There are some items that deserve consideration.

I’ve always wondered about the AFV v Tanks notation. I don’t agree that AFV numbers automatically means tanks. Not all AFV are tanks. I have wondered if GDW switched to giving AFV numbers because players weren’t assigning APC and IFV to the divisions listed in US Army Vehicle Guide because the notation didn’t strongly enough suggest their presence. I know that in at least one location in the v1 rules the authors state that numbers of tanks are given so that the referee will have some idea of how many lighter fighting vehicles should be assigned. Nonetheless, the creative team made the switch from listing strength in tanks to listing strength in AFV. I have operated under the assumption that giving a unit’s strength in AFV gives the referee more latitude to decide what kind of AFV are still in operation. The apparent increase in numbers of fighting vehicles in CENTCOM could simply be the inclusion of M2, M3, and M113 in the totals for the division.

Originally Posted by Olefin

… repaired tanks - they only had 39 in the whole theater in June and suddenly another 35 show up from repairs with no spare parts and no shipments from the US?

I have always believed that the US Army and the USMC would make every effort to recover damaged tanks. 24th ID likely has a depot with disabled vehicles that are cannibalized for parts. Every division probably has their own arrangement for storing nonoperational vehicles for salvage and for putting back into operation if parts become available. We should remember that most tank losses are the results of breakdowns. Under ideal conditions, almost all of these tanks are repaired and put back into action, though not always in the battle towards which they were moving when they broke down. After the Exchange, however, some types of breakdowns will permanently sideline the track. I’m no tanker, so I don’t know which types of breakdowns are the most common among the M1. I do know that even (or especially) a well-maintained tank unit experiences certain types of breakdowns more commonly than others. Some parts wear out more quickly than others. Lack of those parts can deadline otherwise mission capable tracks.

We know that Operation Omega didn’t allow room for much in the way of heavy equipment. I do remember from either RDF Sourcebook or King’s Ransom that 6,000 troops find their way from Europe to the Gulf. It’s possible that operational tracks in Germany were cannibalized for parts most needed in the Gulf. Even if we assume that AFV translates into MBT or LAV-75, we’re only talking about a battalion of tanks. The power plants for 35 tanks would be much easier to transport than the tanks themselves. If the problem parts were even smaller, they’d be even easier to transport.

Of course, what I’m suggesting might be interpreted to really annoy the Germans. We know they aren’t keen on having all those AFV moving off the front lines. If the Americans pull vital parts out and leave the tanks in a park at Bremerhaven, the Germans might take that pretty poorly. On the other hand, their ability to keep M1s in good repair isn’t promising. If the parts the Americans want to take are all mobility related, the M1s can be redistributed and dug in, just as the defense force of Krakow does with its immobile tanks. Whether they are running or not, the M1s almost certainly are going to go back to the front on tank carriers, not under their own power. So the Germans might not have an issue (to whatever degree the opinion of the Germans matters) with the Americans yanking the power plants, tracks, or other mobility assemblies for shipment to the Gulf.

An even simpler explanation is that the Americans set up in Germany an assembly line for making some of the parts most commonly needed by M1. The Germans have the right labor force and the right equipment base for this sort of thing. Production probably would not be at all impressive. However, the Americans might insist on having all of the stocks go with them before turning the facility over to the Germans. In this case, the Germans might be able to provide some maintenance for the M1s they inherit.

The helicopter discrepancies are harder to explain, although again the arrival of parts from Europe for grounded birds offers an option.

None of the foregoing is meant to imply that there can’t be a major shipment of machines to the Gulf. I am, however, saying that there are ways to explain the apparent discrepancies in the numbers between mid-2000 and the beginning of 2001 that don’t involve shipping large numbers of MBT from Germany to the Gulf.

[Panther Al]

Web, I would lean to the V2 vs. V1 as far as tanks/AFV's go to still mean tanks. I looked at the V2 USVG, and they break out only MBT's in the listings, so saying that its still a yard stick to measure how well equipped a unit is (1 tank usually means, say, 3 IFV's for example).

At least thats how I read it.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I’ve always wondered about the AFV v Tanks notation. I don’t agree that AFV numbers automatically means tanks.

A quick comparison between The V1 Sov Vehicle Guide and the V1 Rdf SourceBook shows the same counts for AFVs and Tanks. I would think the terms are interchangeable from that observation (as the manpower counts remain exactly the same for the 10 units I checked).

This is odd given they are 6 months apart, but is does show that US units grew while Soviet Units were static in terms of Heavy Vehicles.

[Legbreaker]

Thanks for the initial numbers Olefin, however there's some MASSIVE holes in your argument.

Firstly, both editions of the US Vehicle Guide only state number of tanks. The RDF Sourcebook lists numbers of AFVs.
The definition of an AFV, or as they are properly known, Armoured Fighting Vehicle is basically any vehicle with a weapon and armour of some kind. Technically, an armoured Humvee is considered an AFV - a far cry from being a tank...
Note also that OPORD OMEGA specifically states in the "mission" section that "Vehicles and heavy equipment will be transferred to FRG prior to departure."
Therefore, there is absolutely no inconsistency between the two books to justify transfer of tanks from Europe to the Middle East, and canon clearly states this was not to happen.

Secondly, the US Vehicle Guide only shows combat aircraft - those specifically tasked with direct combat roles such as the AH-64 Apache.
The RDF Sourcebook includes transport aircraft such as the UH-60 Blackhawk and also shows the OH-58 Kiowa, which is nothing more than a scout and observation helicopter. Both of these latter two can be armed, but they cannot possibly be described as an attack helicopter.
We can therefore apply the same tank/AFV logic.

The next point is even more obvious.
According to page 17 of the RDF Sourcebook, General MacLean "made it known to all the troops of CENTCOM that if they wished to return to America, arrangements would be made to get them there". Now admittedly only "a few hundred wanted to go home," but that is just the start of accounting for the allocation of the 6,000 bodies from Europe.

The US Vehicle Guide lists manpower as of the 01JUL00, six months before the RDF Sourcebook. According to the RDF Sourcebook, US units (specifically the 24th ID) were engaged in offensive operations after this date and could be expected to suffer losses from the 2,000 of 01JUL00. These losses could be just a handful, but since the smaller Iranian 44th Infantry Brigade replaced them after only a few months, and the 44th isn't included in the OOB of 01JAN01 (potentially destroyed with survivors reallocated), it's very possible the 24th ID suffered badly. The 24th is therefore a probable recipient for a large portion of Army replacements (more than the 2,000 difference between July and January).

Furthermore, there has been no attention given to anything besides the US Army.
What about reinforcements for the Navy, or the Air Force? Ignoring shore based personnel and looking only at the the ships in TF76, they require crews totalling 3,828 officers and men. Are we to believe that years of combat have left those crew numbers unchanged? Shouldn't we also apply a similar ratio of losses as faced by ground forces which is roughly 70-80%? Doesn't the Last Sub trilogy bear out the belief that replacements have been few and far between, even though Omega arrived approximately five weeks earlier? (only a skeleton crew could be found from all the Milgov controlled areas to crew the Corpus Christi).
Applying a modest 66% loss to the Naval forces (which is much lower than I'd honestly believe) that means they need 2,500 warm bodies (which may explain why there were few suitable naval specialists to be found in the US in January 2001).

And what about the Air Force? According to the RDF Sourcebook, Aviation units have a manpower on 01JAN01 of 3,050 - note some of the listed units in the books did not have a manpower number attached. How many of them are replacements from Europe?

Given the last major fleet in being was destroyed off the coast of Norway way back in 1997, it's very possible that a significant proportion of the 6,000 are survivors of those actions. With the lack of aviation fuel, parts and ammo in Europe, it's also likely a sizeable number of pilots and ground crew volunteered to go to the Middle East just for the chance to fly or work on aircraft again.

It is my belief that roughly one third of the 6,000 probably came from navy or air force origins.

Where the RDF Sourcebook shows an increase in AFVs which cannot be explained by any of the above, there is another solutions - captured vehicles. We already know enemy vehicles were used by both sides, and we know the US 2nd Marines actually increased their numbers in both manpower and tanks - what's to say a small (company sized) Pact mechanised unit wasn't wiped out/routed and their vehicles captured? We are after all only talking about a handful of AFVs (which as mentioned earlier could be nothing more than scout cars).

[95th Rifleman]

I have to agree with legbreaker

All tanks are AFVs, however not all AFVs are tanks.

[simonmark6]

Olefin, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to do, but if your intention is to cause acrimony and dissent amongst this forum, well done you have achieved this.

I have enjoyed the majority of the game based inputs of everyone on this forum and I thank them for enhancing a game I love. Your belligerent tone however and the obvious combativeness of tour posts has soured it for me.

This will be my last post on this forum. Goodbye and thank you everyone.

[Fusilier]

Ah hell...

Please don't go Mark.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Ah hell...

Please don't go Mark.

What Fuse said...

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

What Fuse said...

And what they said...

[B.T.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

And what they said...

Yes, exactly what I think about that!

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Olefin that was way over the line.

Yes, I think everyone should play a T2k they're happy with.

Yes, I think there are big holes in the canon continuity.

But driving people off of a niche community by your need to be right is just...well, wrong.

Mark please don't go.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Sorry guys - thanks for playing but you need to look at all three guides and you havent.

You poor deluded fool. Do you really think I and others don't THOROUGHLY research ALL the materials before posting? Of course the Soviet numbers haven't changed - the game focus is squarely on the US troops and GDW simply didn't have the time available to update every little insignificant detail the PCs were unlikely to encounter before their deadline! They were publishing something like 3 titles a week at the time which isn't bad for a small company like they were! Of course they had to focus on what the players were most likely to encounter!

Originally Posted by Olefin

The Soviet Vehicle Guide that has the strengths of the Soviet Units in Iran as of July 1, 2000 show the same numbers of men and tanks that are in the RDF guide for Jan 1, 2001

if it says a unit has 18 tanks in the Soviet Guide for July 1, 2000 it shows that same unit with 18 AFV in the Jan 1, 2001 entry for the same unit in the RDF

We know from the RDF Sourcebook that the US I Amphibious Corps, supported by elements of the Iranian Army (specifically their 44th IB) carried out an offensive operation from June 2000. There is no date when this was concluded besides the US 24th ID being relieved in October 2000. Are you trying to tell us the Soviets facing them didn't loose a single man or machine!?
Have you even once considered that if the US can get reinforced, the Soviets will too? That they've had six months to repair vehicles, for men to heal, or new recruits drafted, trained and sent to the front?
Also, looking at a map shows that many of the Soviet units are quite a distance from the front - are they supposed to suffer battle damage?

Originally Posted by Olefin

Thus an AFV, as defined by Frank, is a tank, not an armored car, not a Bradley, a tank.[/B]

As you seem so keen to point out when it suits you, the designers make the occasional mistake. The world wide accepted definition of AFV is anything with armour and a weapon and is not ONLY tanks.

Originally Posted by Olefin

Thus we have CONCLUSIVE CANON PROOF OF A SHIPMENT OF TANKS AND HELOS TO THE RDF FROM GERMANY.

Only in your mind. As I have proven in my last post, there is NO evidence of such an occurence and OPORD OMEGA clearly states this was NOT to happen. Or is this a piece of evidence you'd like to ignore also?
I have also shown that OH-58's and UH-60's were not included in the earlier OOB. Exclude them and the numbers work perfectly. Now tell me there's irrefutable evidence helicopters were taken...

Originally Posted by Olefin

Thus there was a second convoy, that took men, heavy equipment and aircraft from the Germany to the RDF.

There is NO evidence of a second convoy. There was no fuel for them AND the US had to borrow German ships for Omega in the first place. Is it reasonable to assume the Germans are going to allow the US to go back on their word and send tanks and aircraft they'd paid for using yet more ships and fuel which belonged to the Germans?

Originally Posted by Olefin

Oh and the ships may have gone thru the Med and docked in Israel if the canal is closed. Those ships woudl thus not be in the RDF area of operations. The men and equipment then could have gone to a Jordanian or Israeli Red Sea port and gone around the peninsula or come overland - and used a lot less oil for the ships.

Yes, that is possible, but it's easier to sail the whole way, and since your proposal that anything beyond personal equipment has been blown out of the water, it's also a LOT quicker and more likely everyone will survive. Walking across deserts isn't my idea of fun.
Catching more ships from the Red Sea is also very unlikely. Remember that even the Tarawa class can only carry about 1,900 men - where are the ships coming from? Does Israel really want 6,000 foreign troops marching through, eating their food and using up their limited supplies (even if they are allies)? I think not. Imagine the massive logistical challenges an overland route would face. Imagine the challenges of organising a second fleet of transports and the fuel for them!
Simple logic dictates that as extremely improbable - possible sure, but very, very improbable and certainly very impractical.

Originally Posted by Olefin

Sorry - but its canon guys.

So you say, yet, once again, you've got holes in your argument large enough to drive a truck through. Every point you've made has been disproved, or at least been proved as unlikely.

Originally Posted by Olefin

So either you change canon and reduced those units or acknowledge we were right - the second convoy wasnt part of Omega, in fact it may have even left earlier (i.e. the V Corps units that were already in Bremerhaven when Omega started)

WHAT SECOND CONVOY!? Where are you getting that idea from? It simply does not exist in the books!

Originally Posted by Olefin

You have to wonder - if the order had just been issued what was the V Corps doing already in Bremerhaven -

Answer: They were being shipped to the RDF.

Better answer - they were held in reserve for the Spring Offensive. You should read the various threads on it, it's been exhaustively written about and discussed.
Also, if the US had to borrow ships from the Germans, AND didn't have the fuel in the first place, why, how could they plan to send an entire Division to what throughout the war was considered a third grade backwater of a front (see how little importance was given to deploying units there in the first place - unit histories). Additionally, why would they send a strong Division out of the area when the Spring offensive was aimed at taking control of virtually all of northern Poland (at least the coastal area anyway)? Wouldn't they be needed as a follow on force to shore up the line for the expected Pact counter attacks?

Now nobody is saying you can't do what you like in your own game with your own group, but to come here and try to convince this global community that you are "RIGHT" with such obvious drivel and combative attitude...

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by simonmark6

Olefin, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to do, but if your intention is to cause acrimony and dissent amongst this forum, well done you have achieved this.

I have enjoyed the majority of the game based inputs of everyone on this forum and I thank them for enhancing a game I love. Your belligerent tone however and the obvious combativeness of tour posts has soured it for me.

This will be my last post on this forum. Goodbye and thank you everyone.

Leave the forum and, and, I'll kidnap all the sheep in wales!

Think of your countrymen, stay and don't subject them to lonely nights!

Seriously mate, don't let one bloke drive you away.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Olefin

No I am not trying to drive anyone off by a need to prove I am right...

But you are. And that's the point. It doesn't matter what you think you are trying to do, or whether you have a stronger or weaker argument than anyone else... the product of your actions speaks differently.

And that is in black and white.

[James1978]

Originally Posted by simonmark6

This will be my last post on this forum. Goodbye and thank you everyone.

Please reconsider.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Sorry guys - thanks for playing but you need to look at all three guides and you havent.

The Soviet Vehicle Guide that has the strengths of the Soviet Units in Iran as of July 1, 2000 show the same numbers of men and tanks that are in the RDF guide for Jan 1, 2001

if it says a unit has 18 tanks in the Soviet Guide for July 1, 2000 it shows that same unit with 18 AFV in the Jan 1, 2001 entry for the same unit in the RDF

Thus an AFV, as defined by Frank, is a tank, not an armored car, not a Bradley, a tank.

The Soviet numbers in the July 2000 guide match man for man, AFV for tank to the Jan 1, 2001 numbers in the RDF

That is conclusive proof that what Frank Frey is saying is an AFV is what the author of the Soviet Vehicle Guide and the US Vehicle Guide is saying is a tank.

And there is no reduction of Soviet tank numbers to match the 35 tanks as to captured tanks.


Thus we have CONCLUSIVE CANON PROOF OF A SHIPMENT OF TANKS AND HELOS TO THE RDF FROM GERMANY.

You can spin it all you want but its right there, clear as crystal, black and white in the three guides

If you put them together you have 35 tanks and 18 helos show up with the 6000 men from Germany.

Thus there was a second convoy, that took men, heavy equipment and aircraft from the Germany to the RDF.

Oh and the ships may have gone thru the Med and docked in Israel if the canal is closed. Those ships woudl thus not be in the RDF area of operations. The men and equipment then could have gone to a Jordanian or Israeli Red Sea port and gone around the peninsula or come overland - and used a lot less oil for the ships.

Sorry - but its canon guys.

So either you change canon and reduced those units or acknowledge we were right - the second convoy wasnt part of Omega, in fact it may have even left earlier (i.e. the V Corps units that were already in Bremerhaven when Omega started)

You have to wonder - if the order had just been issued what was the V Corps doing already in Bremerhaven -

Answer: They were being shipped to the RDF.

Now you can argue if you want - but the fact is that such a shipment or men and equipment occurred and its canon

So Leg - are you saying that we should ignore or change canon because it doesnt fit your view of the timeline?

This is exactly the opposite of what I was talking about, Olefin. "Thanks for playing..." I understand that Internet land encourages us to develop bad habits in terms of our communication with fellow posters. We don't do that here, with the exception of one or two in whom we're still trying to encourage development.

Everyone appreciates a newcomer with new information, a new outlook, and new work to share. Very few appreciate a newcomer with attitude, which is why you may have read others remarking about breaking into a tight-knit group. Try soft-shoeing a bit more, Olefin. Presentation really does matter. Your ideas will be just as good and just as salable presented under the banner of "I have a counterargument" as "Thanks for playing."

If you want another example, look at Kato's reply: brief, factual, and neutral.

You did good work by identifying some room for playing with the numbers in the RDF and cross-referencing other sources. That is commendable, and that is why I accepted your friend request. The flipness and the representation of raised voices, etc. are offputting.

You have a good point about the way some posters cling to canon. Again, your use of the reference materials is praiseworthy. I strongly recommend that you not use few posters who rigidly cling to canon or who prefer a rougher and more confrontational style of interaction act as your role models. Kato and Raellus are good models for how the majority of us prefer to do business. People listen to them. People don't listen so much to those posters who prefer a style of interaction resembling barstool philosophy. That latter group may post frequently, but their arguments are given short shrift compared to the arguments put forth by guys like Kato and Raellus, or Targan.

Give it some thought. I'm not discussing the merit of your argument here. I'm discussing how ideas are presented--particularly rebuttals to the rebuttals of others. There's a reason why folks wear suits when they appear in court or give a dissertation.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Olefin

well then this isnt a forum to present any new ideas at all - its just a place to regurgitate acceptable pablum and mush

the way I read it from the new members guide and from posts I read when I lurked for several weeks, it was to expand the Twilight 2000 world and offer information and ideas on how to support the game and keep it going for its fans

so which forum is this?

is it one where any new ideas that dont fit a few members rigid guidelines are seen as divisive and must be squashed at all costs?

or is it where everyone can be free to share what they have come up with for the betterment and enjoyment of all concerned and if you dont like it, then read it and move on to another thread and leave your negative comments to yourself?

is this a free exchange of ideas or is it the equivalent of Pravda?

love to know one way or another

oh and choose wisely - because the last I heard creativity and repression dont work together very well

It's one thing to share ideas, discuss alternatives.

However it's quite another to demand a certain interpretation of events is canon and to denigrate those who disagree in an insulting fashion.

The most negative comments have come from Olefin on this forum in responce to calm and construcive criticism. An irrational, almost fanatical, interpretation of words and abbreviations that goes contrary to how such things are supposed to be used.

A prime example is AFV, when the whole world knows that AFV is used to describe any and all military vehicles with a combat role. All tanks are classed as AFVs but also all APCs, IFVs, SPGs and mobile AAA/SAM units are also classed a AFVs.

Hell i have my issues with legbreaker sometimes but while he can come across badly, in this forum Olefin had behaed in a fashion I have never seen legbreaker sink to.

[Medic]

Olefin, in the beginning I was considering about coming to your defense because I believe, everyone has the right to present their ideas for discussion and receive honest, constructive criticism on them. However, your way of putting things, you are not even looking for that constructive criticism - you are putting others down and telling them, you are the new encyclopedia Twilight on this matter.

Had you stopped to listen to the others in this matter, had you listened to their thoughts instead of trying to prove you have the biggest virtual dick in the whole lot, then and only then would I have supported you. You try to make it sound like Legbreaker was an evil tyrant, who doesn't listen to the others, but in fact, it is you and thus, for the good of everyone and especially the few fans of Twilight-universe left, I ask you kindly to stop this useless bickering. It doesn't do anything else than piss people off and diminish our ranks even further.

You complain about how the forum isn't apparently a place for new ideas. I sincerily still believe it is, but it is more about how you present those ideas to the public. And when you talk about Pravda (The Truth translated, by the way), you fail to realize, you succumb to that same line of thinking yourself.

Thank you, sorry and please, for the good of everyone, let it rest.

Originally Posted by Olefin

well then this isnt a forum to present any new ideas at all - its just a place to regurgitate acceptable pablum and mush

the way I read it from the new members guide and from posts I read when I lurked for several weeks, it was to expand the Twilight 2000 world and offer information and ideas on how to support the game and keep it going for its fans

so which forum is this?

is it one where any new ideas that dont fit a few members rigid guidelines are seen as divisive and must be squashed at all costs?

or is it where everyone can be free to share what they have come up with for the betterment and enjoyment of all concerned and if you dont like it, then read it and move on to another thread and leave your negative comments to yourself?

is this a free exchange of ideas or is it the equivalent of Pravda?

love to know one way or another

oh and choose wisely - because the last I heard creativity and repression dont work together very well

[Fusilier]

You are completely missing the point.

This isn't about new ideas at all. James1978, myself, and a few others have repeatedly made this very clear. The fact that you are still acting oblivious to the real issue suggests to me that you're either aware of this and are just being argumentative for spite - or you aren't reading anyone's replies unless it contains the words 'canon' or 'convoy' in it.

Simonmark said he was leaving and I am absolutely certain it isn't because you suggested there was a second convoy or any other of your fresh ideas. He's one of the nicest guys on this forum and he isn't one to participate in arguments over who's interpretation of the game is canon or not.

Your comments are loaded with value words, are spiteful, argumentative, blunt, and condescending. The problem isn't your ideas... frankly I don't give a shit about a second convoy or not. The problem is how you showed up and immediately started creating friction and conflict, by how you continue to present your ideas and engage with anyone who disagrees.

[Olefin]

frankly after a few days here I wish I had never found those modules at a collectors store a few weeks ago and gotten back into the game after that long absence -

and after all the personal attacks here in the past few hours I can see why Chico and a bunch of others have left

its just not worth the aggravation

frankly I am 20 pages into a Kenyan module and could care less about it or anything else to do with the game right now and as for getting up a new campaign that is the last thing on my mind after today

goodbye

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Web, I would lean to the V2 vs. V1 as far as tanks/AFV's go to still mean tanks. I looked at the V2 USVG, and they break out only MBT's in the listings, so saying that its still a yard stick to measure how well equipped a unit is (1 tank usually means, say, 3 IFV's for example).

At least thats how I read it.

Fair enough. I don’t have any of the v2 materials, so I am willing to take your word on the content. I should be in the habit of qualifying my observations by letting readers know that I’m referring to v1.

Originally Posted by kato13

A quick comparison between The V1 Sov Vehicle Guide and the V1 Rdf SourceBook shows the same counts for AFVs and Tanks. I would think the terms are interchangeable from that observation (as the manpower counts remain exactly the same for the 10 units I checked).

This is odd given they are 6 months apart, but is does show that US units grew while Soviet Units were static in terms of Heavy Vehicles.

Thanks for doing some independent legwork, Kato.

It seems that the heart of the conflict is the accounting system used in US Army Vehicle Guide, Soviet Vehicle Guide, and RDF Sourcebook. Some of the figures change, and others do not. The unit listings switch from Tanks to AFV. The increase in manpower and the arguable increase in track counts are presented as evidence of a shipment of tanks to the Middle East above and beyond the 6,000 troops mentioned at the end of the chronology given in RDF Sourcebook. Let’s be systematic and give all of these factors some study. If Olefin is right, then he deserves credit and support. Whether he’s right or not, we need to model the behavior we want from our newcomers.

I want to make it clear that this is not an effort to debunk the idea of a CENTCOM reinforcing mission involving tanks and choppers. This is an effort to debunk the idea that the reference materials available to us offer incontrovertible evidence that such a mission took place. I invite creative ventures. I discourage my comrades from writing as though they possess special and invulnerable insight into the world of Twilight: 2000 based on materials that often (and possibly deliberately) have a degree of ambiguity.

I will list the measures of strength by unit and group them by command, just as they are given in the RDF Sourcebook. I’ll post two figures: the strength in the Soviet Vehicle Guide, then the strength in the RDF Sourcebook. I’ve underlined the formations for which one or more figures have changed. I haven’t included the aviation units because the Tank v AFV issue doesn’t apply to them.

Soviet Transcaucasus Front HQ
212th Air Assault Bde (800 men)
212th Guards Air Assault Bde (800 men)

104th Guards Air Assault Division (1800 men, 16 tanks)
104th Guards Air Assault Division (1200 men, 16 AFV)

Seventh Soviet Guards Army
24th Guards Motorized Rifle Division (400 men)
24th GMRD(C) (400 cav)

75th Motorized Rifle Division (2000 men, 18 AFV)
75th MRD (2000 men, AFV)

164th Motorized Rifle Division (2000 men, 12 tanks)
164th MRD (2000 men, 12 AFV)

261st Motorized Rifle Division (400 men, 3 tanks)
261st MRD (400 men, 3 AFV)

Fourth Soviet Army
26th Motorized Rifle Division (200 men)
26th MRD (2000 men)

31st Guards Motorized Rifle Division (1000 men, 9 tanks)
31st GMRD (1000 men, 9 AFV)

146th Motorized Rifle Division (2000 men, 16 tanks)
146th MRD (2000 men, 16 AFV)

Forty-Fifth Soviet Army
10th Motorized Rifle Division (4000 men, 4 tanks)
10th MRD (4000 men, 4 AFV)

19th Motorized Rifle Division (4000 men, 32 tanks)
19th MRD (4000 men, 32 AFV)

147th Guards Motorized Rifle Division (100 men)
147th MRD (100 men)

First Soviet Army
8th Motorized Rifle Division (4000 men, 36 tanks)
8th MRD (4000 men, 36 AFV)

150th Motorized Rifle Division (1000 men, 2 tanks)
150th MRD (1000 men)

346th Motorized Rifle Division (200 men)
346th MRD (200 men)

Fortieth Soviet Army
15th Tank Division (4000 men, 8 tanks)
15th TD (4000 men, 8 AFV)

66th Motorized Rifle Division (1000 men, 4 tanks)
66th MRD (1000 men, 4 AFV)

84th Motorized Rifle Division (2000 men)
84th MRD (2000 men)

360th Motorized Rifle Division (3000 men, 15 tanks)
360th MRD (3000 men, 15 AFV)

My first question is why the GDW writers make the transition from a more precise term, tanks, to a less precise term—AFV—if the intent was to talk about tanks? These guys knew the difference between the terms as well as any of us. These guys knew that a reader with any knowledge of things Army would also recognize that AFV is a less precise term than tanks. I must confess that I’m flummoxed by the change if it’s supposed to mean the same thing as the original and more precise term.

There are nineteen Soviet Army formations of brigade size or greater (excepting aviation brigades) listed as belonging to Transcaucasus Front that also have entries in Soviet Vehicle Guide. Soviet Vehicle Guide gives strength as of 7/1/00. RDF Sourcebook gives strength as of 1/1/01, or thereabouts. Of these 19 formations, only 3 show any change in strength during the last six months of 2000. Before trying to look at the bigger pattern, I’ll look at the three formations that see a change in their strength.

104th Guards Air Assault Division goes from 1800 men and 16 tanks to 1200 men and 16 AFV. The losses in manpower are easily explained, although why there are no corresponding tank losses (if AFV is supposed to equal tanks) is tougher to explain. Still, anything can happen when we’re talking about a single division. 26th Motorized Rifle Division goes from 200 men in July 2000 to 2000 men in January 2001. Taken in isolation, we might see this as an example of a cadre being used as the basis for building a fresh regiment. However, we are obliged to take the division in context with the rest of the front. 150th Motorized Rifle Division has 1000 men and 2 tanks on 7/1/00 and 1000 men on 1/1/01. The two tanks are gone. It’s odd that the tanks have been lost, but the manpower is the same.

The glaring oddity, though, is that 16 of the 19 formations have exactly the same number of men on 1/1/01 as they do on 7/1/00. A single formation having the same number of men in July 2000 and January 2001 would be a statistical anomaly. Sixteen such formations, representing 84% of the divisions and separate brigades (again, non-aviation) under Transcaucasus Front, would be unable to achieve such a feat under peacetime conditions. For us to accept that such a thing could happen during the second half of 2000, we would have to believe that either the formations in question suffered no losses of any sort and gained no new troops of any sort or that the rate of loss exactly equals the combined rates of recruitment and replacement. I’ll go a fair distance with suspension of disbelief to make ideas work, but even I can’t go that far.

Unfortunately, the most obvious explanation for the statistical improbability is an uncomfortable one. The obvious explanation is that the GDW guys dropped the ball on this part of the RDF Sourcebook. Personally, that doesn’t bother me. They did a great job with just about everything else. I’m willing to live with the idea that whoever was responsible for getting the Soviet Army units listed failed to take into account the changes that would have occurred during the six month gap between July 2000 and January 2001. However, this lack of attention to detail has serious ramifications. As applied to the argument about Tanks v AFV, the numbers given for the Soviet units are at best highly suspect because in every case but one the exact same number of tanks would be available in January 2001 as in July 2000. As applied to canon as a whole, it’s clear that not everything printed by GDW passes the common sense test or is consistent with its internal logic.

In fairness, the list of Soviet units doesn’t support the argument that AFV means tanks, IFV, and APC, either. We might imagine that a given Soviet division has 12 tanks in July 2000, then loses some by January 2001. Hypothetically, when armor strength starts being listed as AFV instead of tanks, that division might have 4 surviving tanks and 8 surviving APC such that the AFV listing for 1/1/01 would match the Tanks listing for 7/1/00. If this happened once, we could accept it as a statistical anomaly. When it happens a dozen times over a mere 19 examples, something is wrong. The only reasonable conclusion is that GDW dropped the ball here.

I have a couple of other nitpicks with the RDF Sourcebook roster of Soviet units:

212th Air Assault Brigade (Soviet Vehicle Guide) becomes 212th Guards Air Assault Brigade (RDF Sourcebook). It’s entirely within the realm of possibility that someone up the chain with the authority to bestow the “Guards” moniker on a formation has done so between 7/1/00 and 12/31/00. Nonetheless, it’s an irregularity.

104th Guards Air Assault Division is listed in Soviet Vehicle Guide as having 16 tanks. This is odd, because tanks aren’t a part of an air assault division’s TO&E. The same formation is listed in RDF Sourcebook as having 16 AFV. This is more credible because BMD count as AFV and are part of the TO&E for Soviet airmobile troops. It’s also entirely possible, though, that the Soviets decided the 104th should change roles and reinforced the division with some tanks along the way.

26th Motorized Rifle Division is listed in Soviet Vehicle Guide as having 200 men. Six months later, the division has 2000 men. The most reasonable explanation for this is a typo.

147th Motorized Division is listed in Soviet Vehicle Guide as being in Alaska. 147th Guards Motorized Division is listed as being in Iran. In RDF Sourcebook, the formation in Iran is given as 147th MRD. Again, an obvious editing error.

15th Tank Division is listed as belonging to 40th Army in Soviet Vehicle Guide, but it’s in Turkmenistan as of 7/1/00. The division was moved there to put down a revolt. As of 1/1/01, the division is in southeastern Iran. Obviously, this is not impossible; however, even if we agree that the rebellion in Turkmenistan no longer was causing 15th Tank Division losses as of July 2000, it seems odd that the division completed a long road march to southeastern Iran without any losses.

In summary, the idea that Tank strength in July 2000 (which covers US Army Vehicle Guide and Soviet Vehicle Guide) automatically translates into AFV in January 2001 receives no support from the fact that Tank and AFV numbers are the same for Soviet units in Iran, since it’s obvious that GDW copied and pasted the information for the overwhelming majority of the maneuver units listed in both Soviet Vehicle Guide and RDF Sourcebook, despite the fact that 6 months have elapsed between the two. In order for the assertion that AFV strength in 1/01 refers to the same fighting vehicles as Tank strength in 7/00 to stand on its own, said assertion will need corroboration aside from the units strengths of Soviet Army formations listed in RDF Sourcebook. Otherwise, common sense tells us that AFV must refer to all armored fighting vehicles, not just tanks.

If someone knows how to reach any of the GDW team, I’d very much be in favor of them settling the matter one way or the other.

Leg, I offer my explanation regarding the transfer of power plants or other parts as a way around the apparent conundrum of leaving all AFV in Germany while supporting CENTCOM. The Germans get stiffed a bit, but the Americans can do so while meeting the terms of the agreement. Also, one or two ships can be diverted from the Omega fleet with power plants and other parts that can be loaded and unloaded without special equipment.

Now I like the idea of having Tarawa do the delivering. We can explain the increase in the number of operational helicopters with a combination of lifts for entire and intact birds and cannibalizing for spare parts. More importantly, using Tarawa to move power plants and other critical parts would not require us to get entire tracks aboard her. She isn’t nuclear powered, so we’ll have to think of a way to get her the fuel. Nonetheless, I think Olefin has a good idea having Tarawa make the trip from Germany to the Gulf. She can carry cargo and troops, so she’s a natural if she can be made to have the fuel.

Getting back to the big picture of canon, we’re faced with the same choice as people of faith. The books obviously make mistakes. If we are to play the faithful, then we have to believe certain things that are nonsensical—like the idea that 16 of 19 Soviet units in Iran could get from 7/1/00 to 1/1/01 with the exact same headcount. On the other hand, if we allow ourselves the luxury of using common sense here, then the floodgates open. We then open everything up to questioning. Each option has its associated problems. I prefer the latter approach, if only because it allows us to use our brains instead of hoping that the GDW crew used theirs perfectly while they were hurriedly producing material for a fickle market against publishing deadlines.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Webstral

since it’s obvious that GDW copied and pasted the information for the overwhelming majority of the maneuver units listed in both Soviet Vehicle Guide and RDF Sourcebook

But they did not just cut and paste. They cut and pasted and then changed "Tanks" to "AFVs". Someone made that decision of equivalence. Your analysis increases my belief that the words are interchangeable in this situation.


Edit
Kings Ransom refers to the 19th Motorized Rifle Division as having
"119th Tank Regiment 32 AFVs Mostly t-55 with 6 SU-130 assault guns"
If also mentions additional SAU-122s and SAU-152s being in that artillery assets.

Ignoring the question of "are SU-130s tanks". If self Propelled artillery are technically AFVs, then the GDW AFV count does not include them.


second edit
BINGO

KINGS RANSOM page 17
Description of Soviet 74th KGB Motorized Rifle Regiment
"AFVs are T-72 and T-80; APCs are BTR-70s and BMPs"

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by kato13

But they did not just cut and paste. They cut and pasted and then changed "Tanks" to "AFVs". Someone made that decision of equivalence.

Obviously, someone deliberately made the change from Tanks to AFV; that AFV means tanks and only tanks in defiance of all common sense usage of the term “AFV” is not supported by the evidence of comparing CENTCOM tank counts in the US Army Vehicle Guide to AFV counts in RDF Sourcebook. Olefin points out that the number of AFV given in RDF Sourcebook exceeds the number of tanks listed in US Army Vehicle Guide. Either CENTCOM has more tanks in January 2001 (by whatever means) or AFV is broader category than Tanks, such that operational M2, M3, and M113 (among others) boost the count of AFV in January 2001 above the count of Tanks in July 2000. In order to determine which idea holds true, we need corroboration. I support your looking at the Soviet vehicles 100%, since we can compare Soviet tank counts in July 2000 with Soviet AFV counts in January 2001. The problem is that there is a clear editorial breakdown in the RDF Sourcebook regarding the Soviet formations. Someone doing copyediting—perhaps an intern or other peon—was told to turn all entries of “Tanks” to “AFV”. This was done. For whatever reason, the headcounts and fighting vehicle counts for the Soviet formations were not updated, with the possible exceptions of 104th Guards Air Assault Brigade and 150th Motorized Rifle Division. Therefore, it’s impossible to say whether Tanks and AFV are interchangeable numbers or distinct counts based solely on the evidence at hand.

Of course, each of us is free to believe whatever we see fit. My point is that the evidence is inconclusive and therefore not incontrovertible. If incontrovertibility is a requirement for the story of a shipment of MBT to the Gulf during the last quarter of 2000, then story is unsupported. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I like the idea, albeit with some modification. I just don’t believe that the reference materials already mentioned make it inevitable.

[kato13]

Web. Did you see my edit.

[Webstral]

Kato, your edit popped up after I posted. We must be working at the same time. I just went to the shed to get my copy of "King's Ransom". I'll need a few minutes to assemble my reply. Good attention to detail, though--very good!

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Kato, your edit popped up after I posted. We must be working at the same time. I just went to the shed to get my copy of "King's Ransom". I'll need a few minutes to assemble my reply. Good attention to detail, though--very good!

As someone who has taken literally hours to craft a response at times, I fully understand.


Look i think it is completely inaccurate, but my reading of the evidence is that for GDW "AFVs" meant "tanks".

[Olefin]

Webstral, the one fact we have here is that what Kato and I have presented shows that AFV's are tanks as far as the author of Kings Ransom, the Soviet Vehicle Guide and the RDF is concerned - ie. Frank Frey

now that might not hold for all the authors - but apparently it was that way for him

as for the cut and paste numbers brought up before keep in mind that the Soviet Vehicle Guide and the RDF are both by Frank Frey so you can see him cutting and pasting - and what he may be saying is that the Soviets kept their tank strength constant while the US increased - and for the US the only place they had to get tanks was either captured Soviet ones - in which case their numbers should have gone down, or the Israelis sold them to them (but I dont see them selling that many tanks) or the French sold them (again why do that) or that the US brought them from Europe along with the men (the most likely reason I can see based on the canon)

and remember he issued the RDF a long time before the Soviet Vehicle Guide and that the US vehicle guide was issued before that

So while the Soviet guide is July 1, 2000 it was released long after the RDF in real life - so the fact that its timeline is earlier in game time is not a significant - obviously Frank had the US vehicle guide and the RDF when he did the Soviet guide

and Kings Ransom puts the nail in the coffin

Frank Frey released that as well - and he referred in there directly that an AFV is a tank, not an APC - at least in his mind

so when its says that AFV's are tanks in Kings Ransom, written by the same man who wrote the RDF covering much of the same material and some of the same units then that answer is plain

To Frank Frey an AFV is a tank, not an APC - and when he said AFV in the RDF he meant tank

And Frank Frey is who wrote all of those canon modules

clearly Frank added the 6000 men, tanks and helos for a reason to the RDF - it appears his intention may have been to have a reinforcement from Europe of tanks and helos (and also APC's and howitzers) to the RDF as part of his story and that explains the increase in numbers of men and tanks

so while to many of us an AFV could be a tank or an APC to to Frank - who wrote those three canon modules that the history of the Twilight War is part of - an AFV is a tank based on the quote from Kings Ransom

The only supposition that can be drawn is that he intended to show an overall increase in US tank strength, most likely from European evacuated material that wasnt part of Omega and may have left earlier than Nov 15 - or that may have been part of Omega but where the tanks could have been bought and paid for with promises of Saudi or other Middle East oil and that is why the Germans were ok with the shipment

does anyone know how to contact Frank and ask him - he wrote the three modules and he is really the only man who can directly answer the questions

as for canon - the tanks (i.e. AFV's that Frank calls tanks) are there in Jan of 2001 after Omega - and that means US tank strength went up - unless we get something from Frank otherwise contradicting Kings Ransom, what he wrote there clearly shows he means tanks when he says AFV's

Hopefully Frank is still around and reads this forum and we can get a hold of him

Oh and I have heard the criticisms and I removed some of the posts that were too insistent by me

And I am not going anywhere - but I also I am not going to take the blame if someone decides to leave the forum over any discussion of one of my posts, nor will I sit there and take another concentrated attack on me by a bunch of guys who are clearly not commenting on what I have posted but how I have posted it - in that case I will bring that up to the moderators as a possible breech of the forum rules and let them handle it

but I also will do my best to change my posting style to avoid what happened earlier today

And if people dont like what I post - then they are free to read something else - from emails I have received asking me to stay at least some people have enjoyed my stuff and have asked me to stay and contribute - and so I will

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by kato13

Edit
Kings Ransom refers to the 19th Motorized Rifle Division as having
"119th Tank Regiment 32 AFVs Mostly t-55 with 6 SU-130 assault guns"
If also mentions additional SAU-122s and SAU-152s being in that artillery assets.

Ignoring the question of "are SU-130s tanks". If self Propelled artillery are technically AFVs, then the GDW AFV count does not include them.


second edit
BINGO

KINGS RANSOM page 17
Description of Soviet 74th KGB Motorized Rifle Regiment
"AFVs are T-72 and T-80; APCs are BTR-70s and BMPs"

First of all we’ve got a new piece of evidence from a source not mentioned so far. Hopefully, all the newcomers see why we hold Kato in such high regard. The man has splendid attention to detail and a gratifying lack of rubbing-your-nose-in-it.

Looking at the second edit and the original material, I agree that this quote supports the idea that AFV refers to tanks. Looking at some of the other listings under the “Organization” section, we see that GDW’s use of AFV to mean tanks is corroborated on p. 16 under the Tudeh PMA: “AFVs are a mixture of third-line Soviet tanks… with a few captured NATO tanks… APCs are scarce… usually BTR-70s or OT-64s.”

Reluctantly, I’m forced to admit that GDW probably meant for AFV to refer to tanks and assault guns, which is how tank strength was listed in the v1 boxed set. Etymologically, it doesn’t make sense; but “King’s Ransom” sure does seem to show that GDW intends for AFV to mean MBT and assault guns. This doesn’t forgive the obvious editorial error in RDF Sourcebook regarding Soviet strength, but Kato has made his point about GDW intending for “AFV” to mean “Tanks”. Olefin, you should think about sending Kato a thank-you-gram. Well done, Kato.

Getting back to the subject of shipping tanks, some of the original obstacles to shipping 35 MBT from Germany to the Middle East remain. While it now seems clear that GDW intended for CENTCOM to gain in tank strength between 7/1/00 and 1/1/01, the details behind how this happened are at best murky. While I’m not reflexively opposed to an OMEGA-style shipment, alternative explanations for how CENTCOM picks up a battalion of tanks without making significant changes to the established chronology exist.

By the way, I’m not going to feel myself obliged to perpetuate GDW’s misapplication of terminology. I feel the point has been settled regarding how GDW intended for the term to be used from RDF Sourcebook onwards—and again, good job Kato. However, the fact remains that GDW misused the term. I won’t follow in their footsteps. When I refer to AFV in any sense but in a direct quote of the published material, I will be referring to MBT, light tanks, assault guns, IFV, APC, armored cars, maybe gun trucks, and possibly SP artillery. The jury’s still out on SP guns, though.

Also, Olefin I'm not snubbing you by crediting Kato with the clarification. He's the one who brought in quotes from "King's Ransom", and that was the definitive evidence.