twilight2000-digest Monday, July 3 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 151 The following topics are covered in this digest: Old Half Dead Vehicles (was: Re: Kalisz, almost there.) hardware Re: Red Baron Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Old Half Dead Vehicles (was: Re: Kalisz, almost there.) SP AA (was Re: Light Tanks) Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Kalisz, almost there. RE: Kalisz, almost there. RE: Kalisz, almost there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 16:03:42 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: Old Half Dead Vehicles (was: Re: Kalisz, almost there.) > From: graebarde > > As I recall from time lines, there has not > been much in the way of logistical support from CONUS for > over a year. What does this mean in terms of vehicles? No > repair parts for one. Yes cannibalization is the first > thought, BUT historically it's ususally the same parts on > all the vehicle that break. Also the electronic equipment > will degrade, for which there is no ready quick fix. > > Also the use of alcohol in diesel engines is detrimental to > their health. This was addressed in the past on this and > other lists/forums. So IMO most of the wheeled vehicles > would be inoperational due to major powertrain failures, ie > injectors and pumps.. you can rob Peter to pay Paul only so > long. We even canabalized a couple helicopters while in Saudi during the Gulf War. It wasn't really public info, but neither was it classified. A lot of times one stupid little thing would break, that would techinically mean the bird was 'unfit' to fly. It still worked fine, but the safety regs said you weren't supposed to fly it that way. So they had to ground it. Well, we had to report how many helicopters were usable as a percentage, so they made sure that all the bad parts were moved to the same couple copters to keep the percentage as low as possible. Otherwise we would have had a lower operational rating and wouldn't have looked as good. The majority of the officers in our unit were primarily concerned with appearance over substance. Luckily the NCO's had their heads screwed on right most of the time. > I personally liked Jims list, and appreciate his time and > effort that went into it. Accurracy? Well noone but the > HOG of a game can decide what is what in Twilight 2000. > Each has a different view of the world then because we have > no actual history to rely on for "facts". > It seems to me that there ought to be more civilian vehicles in use than the encounter tables would suggest. When your truck breaks, and you need another one, you requestion one from the locals. Of course, the thought of having a character roll a Fiat 2 ton civilian truck for their vehicle is pretty funny to me. Yeah, your Special Forces Airborne Navy Seal Kill Everything character is driving a dumpy little Fiat truck. Ha Ha. It also seems to me that hoses, radiators, water pumps, oil and fuel filters, and most importantly engine oil would be in high demand. Maybe there should be a table like the following developed: Roll Vehicle Mod 01-25 Normal vehicle roll for Wear Value 26-50 Wear Value 10 51-75 WV 10, with 1 sub-system jerry-rigged back together 76-90 WV 10, with 1-6 sub-systems jerry-rigged into working 91-98 WV 10, it only looks like the vehicle you rolled, inside it has a rebuilt VW bug motor, a homemade 2 speed tranny, and will fall apart if you spit on it. 99-00 Normal vehicle roll for WV. It only looks like the vehicle you rolled, but it's been overhauled with different parts and runs differently, but maybe like new. I just pulled that out of my butt, so I'm not really ready to defend any of it. Just an idea. For jerry-rigged systems change the performance somewhat. Maybe something like this: Cooling: Maybe put the radiator on the back with an rebuilt irrigation pump attached to an old lawnmower engine running it. Any hit on the rear could kill the cooling system. Or if you hit too a pot hole too hard, the stap holding it on could break and you start dragging your cooling system by a couple old garden hoses that you rigged to get the water back to the engine area. Suspension: Leaf spring? Wwhat do you mean leaf spring? It's an old .50 Cal barrel welded to the axle. 50% chance every 5 minutes to break if driven over 1/2 rated speed, and -30% to any task that would be hindered by a horrible jarring ride. Under 10% rated speed on a road it drives normally. Fire Control: Yeah, the turrent doesn't turn normally anymore. Now the loaders real job is to crank that hand wheel! 5 degrees of turret traversing limit per combat round. Most of the coarse aiming will be done by steering the vehicle. Oh crap, the loader just broke the hand wheel! How can you critically fail something that easy you idiot! You know, junk like that. Does anybody do anything like that in their game? A friend of mine (who is almost 80 years old now) used to have a Model T Ford. Many years ago, the fuel pump went out and he was dirt poor at the time, so he dismounted the fuel tank and mounted it on the roof. Now it was a gravity feed fuel system. Supposedly worked great and living off in the country like he did, no one even hassled him about it. Apparently it was a pain in the butt when you drove up to a gas station though ... Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 19:34:23 -0400 From: "Clayton A. Oliver" Subject: hardware De-lurking for a moment to interject something (apologies if someone posted this recently and I missed it): God's own military hardware resource is located at: http://www.fas.org/man/index.html It's the Federation of American Scientists' Military Analysis Network. Intel includes current global hot spots. Equipment focuses primarily on current and near-past American hardware but also includes capsule summaries of other nations' vehicle assets. Lots of photos and statistics which the enterprising GM can easily translate into game numbers. - - C. - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clayton A. Oliver bad_karma@mindspring.com WWGS freelance hack http://www.mindspring.com/~bad_karma/ "Tell me something... are there people who find you charming?" "Well, they pretend because I try so hard." - Pushing Tin *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 15:24:54 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Red Baron The Red Baron committed suicide ask anyone :) and if he didn't it was the guy on the grssy knoll that shot him. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 15:35:51 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. > >The other thing is how survivable are the light tanks compared with the M1? > > > Yes, that's a big issue--it had occurred to me, though I hadn't brought it > up yet. The thing about survivability also is the ability to repair and maintain remember. While an M1 is more survivable in a combat environment is it easier to service find the parts for etc. can parts be scavanged of other vehicles for example, normal cars in the 1960's GM made some car parts interchangable, between oldmobiles chevs and such. > That doesn't sound very substantial at all. I'm sure they're useful for > infantry AT support, but in an environment where most of the heavies are > supposed to have evaporated already, I can't see them having survived very > well. Being light and mobile is an asset in itself. It adds to the survivablility factor. > >As some 'infantry light AT/HEAT weapons' can probably threaten the larger > >main battle tanks I guess light tanks can handle early model RPG-7s and M72 > >LAWs, etc. It also begs the question as to how survivable APCs such as the > >M113 and IFVs such as the M2 Bradley and Warrior are? The M113 is supposedly > >armoured against 7.62mm small arms fire. The original Bradley/Warrior armour > >requirement is still classified but was probably the BTR-60PBs 12.7mm MG. > >Later both were upgraded to handle the BMP-2 30mm (again the probable > >threat). > > > Those things are probably toast in a really hot environment--but vehicles > before the M2 were never intended for direct combat (though M113's were > used for things like convoy escort in Vietnam). I suppose M2's (and other > IFV's) are intended to be used in combat, but they would likely take even > heavier losses than tanks, and commanders eventually would likely pull them > back and use their offensive capabilities only in critical situations. You have to remember that some of the lighter LAV's etc are less likely to be crippled by AT wepons hitting areas such as tracks (due to the tyre factor). From a players perspective one well placed shot could ruin your whole day. > For the _players_, I can easily justify any kind of vehicle (and I love to > do so), but I don't want to describe an entire unit as having dozens of a > rare type. > If it's gonna be new construction, though, I'd think they'd go with the > M1--more expensive but probably more survivable too. Ahh your first mistake ;) Remember Murphy's Laws of Combat????. Remember you equipment is made by the lowest bidder... So if the vehicles needed were required en masse quickly then the cheaper option may have prevailed, when the more expensive one didn't. So this gives you as GM a free reign to make up a unit as you see fit really. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 14:15:49 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. At 11:53 PM 7/2/00 +1000, Peter wrote: > >Level I: 14.5mm Heavy MG frontal arc (this is also the Bradley & Warrior >requirement not 12.7mm), 7.62mm AP from sides Doesn't the M2HB actually have better penetration than a 14.5mm? That's esp. true with SLAP ammo. >To be fair the M113 was never designed to survive the high intensity battlefield. Well yes, that's what I said. :) >More pics including uparmoured M113: >http://storm.webvis.net/album1.html Peculiar armor--do you think that angled stuff really works? >Russia is making noises about the T-95 again, but this has been happening >since the late 1980s. > My impression is that Russia often makes noises about thing that don't exist, or that have undergone a bit of development but aren't really feasible, just to try to scare the West, and just as importantly, to try to convince them people and everyone else of their contined technological prowess. >> >Looking at the US Army Vehicle Guide (1st ed) and American Combat Vehicle >> >Handbook (2nd ed) pretty much all the pre-war compositions had a mix of >> >105mm & 120mm Abrams. A 105mm round would not have been much use against >a >> >Soviet late model T-72/80..... >> > >> Do you think these mixes were supposed to be the result of original >> composition or of casualty replacements? > >Both books say they are September 1994 holdings, so I guess they mean >pre-war compositions. > Ahh...I thought you were referring to the current holdings. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 14:43:52 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. At 08:03 AM 7/2/00 -0700, graebarde wrote: >Has anyone ever run a campaign where all vehicles are rare? > Where the foot soldier is primary fighting power, and the >quadraped is the primary motive power? The fight for >horses would make more sense than trying to capture a >vehicle that doesn't run, or wont for long on the fuels >being used. > I think this is _already_ the assumption in the game--maybe not to the extent you'd have it, of course. > >And again, with degregaded firepowewr, I find it hard to >swallow the "big push" scenario depicted. Survival is the >name of the game in 2000. Maybe operations ot consolidate >the containment areas, and rid the surrounds of marauders, >or localized fights with neighboring forces over key >terrain and resources, but a push to cut Poland in half, >with ONE division, understrength as well, is a bit far >fetched IMO. But this is a fantisy science fiction game, >one I enjoy playing and tinkering with, so all input is >appreciated. Remember no one is WRONG in their views about >Twilight 2000, it's a game, and the HOG makes the world. > Actually, it was a whole corps, with the 5th just being the spearhead--but I too have often wondered what possible practical objective it could have had. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 01:43:37 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. At 03:35 PM 7/2/00 +0800, Ballistix wrote: > >The thing about survivability also is the ability to repair and maintain >remember. >While an M1 is more survivable in a combat environment is it easier to >service >find the parts for etc. can parts be scavanged of other vehicles for >example, >normal cars in the 1960's GM made some car parts interchangable, between >oldmobiles chevs and such. > True--this of course also favors standard vehicles (and those available since the beginning of the war) over rare ones. >> That doesn't sound very substantial at all. I'm sure they're useful for >> infantry AT support, but in an environment where most of the heavies are >> supposed to have evaporated already, I can't see them having survived very >> well. > >Being light and mobile is an asset in itself. It adds to the survivablility >factor. Yes, it does--but not as much as heavy armor does. If it did, the armies of the world would build light tanks instead of MBT's, and we know that nowadays light tanks are very scarce. >> Those things are probably toast in a really hot environment--but vehicles >> before the M2 were never intended for direct combat (though M113's were >> used for things like convoy escort in Vietnam). I suppose M2's (and other >> IFV's) are intended to be used in combat, but they would likely take even >> heavier losses than tanks, and commanders eventually would likely pull >them >> back and use their offensive capabilities only in critical situations. > >You have to remember that some of the lighter LAV's etc are less likely to >be >crippled by AT wepons hitting areas such as tracks (due to the tyre factor). >From >a players perspective one well placed shot could ruin your whole day. > I'm not sure I agree with this: track hits are in principle just as easy to fix as wheel hits, though of course they require heavier equipment to do so; they're also less vulnerable to small arms fire. >> For the _players_, I can easily justify any kind of vehicle (and I love to >> do so), but I don't want to describe an entire unit as having dozens of a >> rare type. > >> If it's gonna be new construction, though, I'd think they'd go with the >> M1--more expensive but probably more survivable too. > >Ahh your first mistake ;) >Remember Murphy's Laws of Combat????. >Remember you equipment is made by the lowest bidder... > I don't see what that has to do with anything--it applies to both the expensive and cheap types. >So if the vehicles needed were required en masse quickly then the cheaper >option >may have prevailed, when the more expensive one didn't. So this gives you as >GM >a free reign to make up a unit as you see fit really. > The problem I think is that the more expensive type in this case packs more bang for the buck. In the area of tanks, we're talking about replacing MBT's with light tanks, rather than a high-quality MBT with a low-quality one (which is what you more often see in this kinds of situations). I don't know that the former substitution would be as easy as the latter. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:35:09 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. - ----- Original Message ----- From: graebarde To: Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 1:03 AM Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. > I personally liked Jims list, and appreciate his time and > effort that went into it. Accurracy? Well noone but the > HOG of a game can decide what is what in Twilight 2000. > Each has a different view of the world then because we have > no actual history to rely on for "facts". I apologise to Jim if he was insulted by my posts. My comments were more general and not aimed at Jim's excellent list. Peter Grining *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:11:29 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. >> I personally liked Jims list, and appreciate his time and >> effort that went into it. Accurracy? Well noone but the >> HOG of a game can decide what is what in Twilight 2000. >> Each has a different view of the world then because we have >> no actual history to rely on for "facts". > > >I apologise to Jim if he was insulted by my posts. My comments were more >general and not aimed at Jim's excellent list. > >Peter Grining Nah, not in the least ! I've just scanned my 1:500K map for my PBEM and it came down to 860k, I was wondering if anyone would like a copy of the area around Kalisz as we're on the subject. If imagineonline has a file area I could put it there or I can put it in the file area on the e-groups site. I can put in the Pact units in as well as the last locations of the 5th's units *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 16:45:18 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. > Yes, it does--but not as much as heavy armor does. If it did, the armies > of the world would build light tanks instead of MBT's, and we know that > nowadays light tanks are very scarce. In the current situation yes. In Australia we use the LAV's as a support to mounted infantry in APC's. I tend to picture Australia as a model for most of the units and their assets in my TW2K (v2) campaigns. IMO the fact that there would be a scarcity of parts along with the heavy casualties to heavy armor on both sides makes me think that the lighter and move vesatile LAV's ans such would become more proliferant. I use the larger heavy tanks in more of a defensive role or an assault role. A rare and unique resource that can turn the tide of a battle or add that extra twist to a PC raid on an area. Just the threat of a main battle tank makes PC's think twice, unless they are twinked to the max of course. > I'm not sure I agree with this: track hits are in principle just as easy > to fix as wheel hits, though of course they require heavier equipment to do > so; they're also less vulnerable to small arms fire. This is true, but speed and the fact that the LAV will continue to move with the loss of one or two tyres. Tracked vehicles however would be in for the long haul if they have a track hit. The other thing is that LAV's would be easier to scavange tyres for. You could if you have to with some tinkering adapt truck wheels for the LAV. > >> If it's gonna be new construction, though, I'd think they'd go with the > >> M1--more expensive but probably more survivable too. > > > >Ahh your first mistake ;) > >Remember Murphy's Laws of Combat????. > >Remember you equipment is made by the lowest bidder... > > > I don't see what that has to do with anything--it applies to both the > expensive and cheap types. *lol* it's not the tyres it's the type of equipment that a country will produce if it enters a war situation. The US of course has it's production machine in full swing and would continue with what it has. If the impact of the strikes was greater they too would be forced to implement the cheaper vehicles. Speed of deployment as well as the cost would be determining factors. > In the area of tanks, we're talking about replacing MBT's with light tanks, > rather than a high-quality MBT with a low-quality one (which is what you > more often see in this kinds of situations). I don't know that the former > substitution would be as easy as the latter. Again I think it depends on the depth of the strikes against most countries. MBT production centers would have to be targets, as would any major military production center. I think realistically we should be looking at what would be produced in the european region (I'm assuming v2 of course). Would you be more likely to see the appearance of European MBT's then?. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 16:46:14 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. It's ok Jim is used to it, besides he lives on the wrong side of the best continent in the world ;) Ballistix - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter" To: Sent: Monday, 3 July 2000 13:35 Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: graebarde > To: > Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 1:03 AM > Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. > > > > > I personally liked Jims list, and appreciate his time and > > effort that went into it. Accurracy? Well noone but the > > HOG of a game can decide what is what in Twilight 2000. > > Each has a different view of the world then because we have > > no actual history to rely on for "facts". > > > I apologise to Jim if he was insulted by my posts. My comments were more > general and not aimed at Jim's excellent list. > > Peter Grining > > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 16:57:13 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. OOOOERRR FREE STUFF YES PLEASE *LOL* Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:44:31 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott David Orr To: Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 4:15 AM Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. > At 11:53 PM 7/2/00 +1000, Peter wrote: > > > >Level I: 14.5mm Heavy MG frontal arc (this is also the Bradley & Warrior > >requirement not 12.7mm), 7.62mm AP from sides > > Doesn't the M2HB actually have better penetration than a 14.5mm? That's > esp. true with SLAP ammo Looking at the incomplete info below, I'd say the M2HB has penetration than the KPV. Also depends on what strength the steel plate is, target range, and is meant by penetration (some countries call a round with 50% energy left, some any penetration), but: 12.7 x 99mm (0.50 Browning MG) US M2 round (1939-1946): 19mm@500 m US M33 round (1947-1993): 21mm@500 m US M903 SLAP (1994 on): 34mm@500 m, 19mm@1370 m 14.5 x 114mm (KPV) Russian B-32 API: 38mm@100 m. > >More pics including uparmoured M113: > >http://storm.webvis.net/album1.html > > Peculiar armor--do you think that angled stuff really works? The armour upgrade package is probably Rafael's Enhanced Applique Armor Kit (EAAK) first used on Israeli M113 from 1996. Also used on USMC LVTP7s? Also used on Italian M113? No idea how effective EAAK is. Possibly the best, cheapest armour upgrade I've seen is one by a Russian company. It consists of steam beams/bars welded onto a cage and placed on the vehicle. HEAT weapons hit the bars and detonate the warhead. As the jet is formed earlier the effect is lessened (same way spaced armour works). Easy to add to those Twilight:2000 light tanks .... :-) Peter Grining *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:22:37 +0200 (MET DST) From: Bjorn Nilsson Subject: Re: Old Half Dead Vehicles (was: Re: Kalisz, almost there.) On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Walter Rebsch wrote: > The majority of the > officers in our unit were primarily concerned with appearance over > substance. Luckily the NCO's had their heads screwed on right most of the > time. He heh Do you know the difference between good and bad officers? Bad officers try to run their units, good officers have the sense not to mess with what the NCOs probably already have running like clockwork! > A friend of mine (who is almost 80 years old now) used to have a Model T > Ford. Many years ago, the fuel pump went out and he was dirt poor at the > time, so he dismounted the fuel tank and mounted it on the roof. Now it was > a gravity feed fuel system. Supposedly worked great and living off in the > country like he did, no one even hassled him about it. Apparently it was a > pain in the butt when you drove up to a gas station though ... Great way to have burning gas/alcohol pouring over you in the game though! :-) /Bjorn *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 09:02:00 EDT From: "A Scruffy Drummer" Subject: SP AA (was Re: Light Tanks) This is kind of off the train of thought but... I just recently saw an article about the LAV-25 mod that the USMC is getting. It mounts 4 stinger launchers and a gatling gun. I don't know how effective it is, but it looked cool on the firing range. This one would probably fit in a Merc campaign better than Twilight. - ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Peter" The only other issue is SP AA defence vehicle. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 09:50:31 -0700 (PDT) From: graebarde Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. > > Peculiar armor--do you think that angled stuff really > works? Slope armor is always better than flat for two reasons. 1) causes deflection of rounds 2) increases the amount of armor to be penetrated 25mm becomes about 35mm on a 45 degree slope (check my math somebody. these numbers came from the gray computer) at any rate the armor is thicker on the slope. >> Possibly the best, cheapest armour upgrade I've seen is one by a Russian company. It consists of steam beams/bars welded onto a cage and placed on the vehicle. HEAT weapons hit the bars and detonate the warhead. As the jet is formed earlier the effect is lessened (same way spaced armour works). Easy to add to those Twilight:2000 light tanks .... :-) Bar armor is the same concept the USN used on riverine LCM's in the 60's. Not 100% effective, but a damn site better than NO armor. daFORD __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 10:47:58 PDT From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. > > > Peculiar armor--do you think that angled stuff really > > works? > >Slope armor is always better than flat for two reasons. >1) causes deflection of rounds >2) increases the amount of armor to be penetrated > 25mm becomes about 35mm on a 45 degree slope (check my >math somebody. these numbers came from the gray computer) >at any rate the armor is thicker on the slope. Almost exactly correct. Actual amount is 35.355 mm ;) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 13:42:40 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Kalisz, almost there. > > > >Slope armor is always better than flat for two reasons. > >1) causes deflection of rounds > >2) increases the amount of armor to be penetrated > > 25mm becomes about 35mm on a 45 degree slope (check my > >math somebody. these numbers came from the gray computer) > >at any rate the armor is thicker on the slope. > Another reason that it's good to put armored vehicles in a hull down position. It increases the slope of the frontal armor (as well as providing cover for the lower hull). I haven't seen any rules for implementing a game advantage for such a position (other than for the cover), but there probably ought to be. >> Possibly the best, cheapest armour upgrade I've seen is >> one by a Russian company. It consists of steam beams/bars >> welded onto a cage and placed on the vehicle. HEAT weapons >> hit the bars and detonate the warhead. As the jet is formed >> earlier the effect is lessened (same way spaced armour >> works). Easy to add to those Twilight:2000 light >> tanks .... :-) Actually, the plasma jet formed from HEAT weapons is most optimal at a small standoff. That standoff is of course dependant on the exact design of the weapon. Most HEAT rounds have some sort of standoff built into them. There was a particular version of the TOW missle that this was very obvious on, since it had a long skinny nose at the front of the missle, but I don't remember which one it was anymore. Of course, trying to figure out which rounds would be more susceptiable to this than others would probably be a hopeless task for us, since we don't have access to detailed performance specs of these warheads. But, who ever originally said the above quote is correct, IF the distance is far enough. It works almost like focusing a light thruogh a lense. Every HEAT shaped charge has a optimal focal point where the energy intensity is greatest. The further you get from that, the lower the energy cross-section will get. If you could cause the HEAT round to detonate several feet away from the armor, then its armor penetration capacity would be greatly reduced. My point is that adding a thin amount of rather light duty armor to cause predetonation could potentially backfire and cause the weapons effectiveness to be increased (probably only very slightly however). But all the effort put into adding the armor and the extra fuel expense of lugging it around would be the biggest detrement. Especially since whatever increase in the weapons potential penetration would probably be offset by the additional armor, which means you did a lot of work for little or no gain. Of course, I could be entirely missing the point of the additional armor that was actually refered to above. The bars could actually be meant to be a non-symetric obstruction to try to mess up the focus of the HEAT jet. But unless you were privy to info from the designer it would be hard to tell what exactly they were trying to do. I've heard people have tried imbedding ultra-hard steel bars in soft aluminum in a pattern to attempt to break an incomming SABOT round into pieces, so maybe someone has tried something similiar to that to disrupt a HEAT plasma jet... Hmmm, I wish we had a nice test range and a warehouse full of this stuff so we could just go test it and find out, instead of speculating. But then HEAT rounds aren't the only thing flying around out there ... so maybe it is a good idea after all. Who knows ... modern armor is a secret art-form in which we are privy to only little pieces of info ... and then usually only once that info is obsolete. Oh well. Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 13:32:58 PDT From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: RE: Kalisz, almost there. >Another reason that it's good to put armored vehicles in a hull down >position. It increases the slope of the frontal armor (as well as >providing >cover for the lower hull). I haven't seen any rules for implementing a >game >advantage for such a position (other than for the cover), but there >probably >ought to be. Probably would need to be modifiers to locate the hull-down tank, as well as penalties to hit it with your weapons. > >> Possibly the best, cheapest armour upgrade I've seen is > >> one by a Russian company. It consists of steam beams/bars > >> welded onto a cage and placed on the vehicle. HEAT weapons > >> hit the bars and detonate the warhead. As the jet is formed > >> earlier the effect is lessened (same way spaced armour > >> works). Easy to add to those Twilight:2000 light > >> tanks .... :-) > >Actually, the plasma jet formed from HEAT weapons is most optimal at a >small >standoff. That standoff is of course dependant on the exact design of the >weapon. Most HEAT rounds have some sort of standoff built into them. >There >was a particular version of the TOW missle that this was very obvious on, >since it had a long skinny nose at the front of the missle, but I don't >remember which one it was anymore. Of course, trying to figure out which >rounds would be more susceptiable to this than others would probably be a >hopeless task for us, since we don't have access to detailed performance >specs of these warheads. The I-TOW and TOW 2 both have the extended probe. In essence, the probe length on it is already meant to provide the optimum distance for formation of the plasma jet from the HEAT warhead. If one of these TOW missiles hit those steel bars, it would be enough to make them less effective. >But, who ever originally said the above quote is correct, IF the distance >is >far enough. It works almost like focusing a light thruogh a lense. Every >HEAT shaped charge has a optimal focal point where the energy intensity is >greatest. The further you get from that, the lower the energy >cross-section >will get. If you could cause the HEAT round to detonate several feet away >from the armor, then its armor penetration capacity would be greatly >reduced. Actually, it's not so much that the extra plates make the jet less effective, it's that it makes the jet have to penetrate more steel and air before hitting the real armor. The other problem, too, is if that extra armor is of the reactive kind, as the explosion from the reactive armor tends to mess up the plasma jet. >My point is that adding a thin amount of rather light duty armor to cause >predetonation could potentially backfire and cause the weapons >effectiveness >to be increased (probably only very slightly however). But all the effort >put into adding the armor and the extra fuel expense of lugging it around >would be the biggest detrement. Especially since whatever increase in the >weapons potential penetration would probably be offset by the additional >armor, which means you did a lot of work for little or no gain. I imagine the only weapons to gain any extra effectiveness would be the older, less capable types anyway (maybe even the old Dragon ATGM). As far as any penalties from the additional armor, well, speed would be affected by aerodynamics and engine power. I can't see the aerodynamics on an MBT being made any worse than they already are, so that shouldn't be a factor. As for engine power, I think that most of this extra armor tends to be placed on older tank models which are already somewhat slow (ie. the 30 mph M60 MBT), and therefore aren't as adversely affected by a slight drop in speed. Besides, if I remember right, upgrading the armor on the M1 to use the depleted uranium in conjunction with the Chobham only increased the weight by about 5 metric tons or so, and definitely no more than 10 tons. Even at 10 tons, though, you're still only talking about a 7-8% drop in top speed and range. Considering the speed of HEAT shells and ATGM's, that speed drop shouldn't be too significant, and even the range penalty isn't too severe. >Of course, I could be entirely missing the point of the additional armor >that was actually refered to above. The bars could actually be meant to be >a non-symetric obstruction to try to mess up the focus of the HEAT jet. >But >unless you were privy to info from the designer it would be hard to tell >what exactly they were trying to do. I've heard people have tried >imbedding >ultra-hard steel bars in soft aluminum in a pattern to attempt to break an >incomming SABOT round into pieces, so maybe someone has tried something >similiar to that to disrupt a HEAT plasma jet... It's probably the old idea of sandbagging your tank, as used in WWII and by the Israelis in recent time. I can't remember the site I saw it at, but they've discovered in the field that a layer of 3 or 4 sandbags significantly reduces the effectiveness of HEAT warheads (I'm thinking they said something like 50% effectiveness or less). As far as that anti-SABOT armor, it sounds like a full-metal version of Chobham, in that combining layers of different materials with different shear strengths and that react differently to SABOT-style shells is meant to either break up the sabot or even "bounce" it off. >Hmmm, I wish we had a nice test range and a warehouse full of this stuff so >we could just go test it and find out, instead of speculating. > >But then HEAT rounds aren't the only thing flying around out there ... so >maybe it is a good idea after all. Who knows ... modern armor is a secret >art-form in which we are privy to only little pieces of info ... and then >usually only once that info is obsolete. Oh well. All too true. I know I'd love to take an MBT for a spin... ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #151 *************************************