twilight2000-digest Wednesday, July 5 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 152 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: air rules Re: Kalisz, almost there. The Red Baron & Perth,Australia New attack helicopters Re: The Red Baron & Perth,Australia Add On Armor RE: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Kalisz Map RE: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Kalisz Map RE: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Add On Armor Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Add On Armor Re: Add On Armor HEAT and spacing Re: Add On Armor Re: Add On Armor Re: Add On Armor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 14:29:54 PDT From: "Benjamin Borseth" Subject: Re: air rules I got the strike commander handbook and it is qiute good. Otherwise I got EF2000 Super which has some good stuff in it! I can maybe scan some in and send it to who ever want's it but it could take quite some time before i got my own comp up again. ________________________________________________________________________ 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, 03 Jul 2000 17:27:51 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. At 09:50 AM 7/3/00 -0700, graebarde wrote: >> > 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 Yes. >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. > This is a common misconception (and one I used to share until it was explained to me), but no, it doesn't really do this: you use the same amount of metal either way to get a given thickness against horizontal shots against a given target area, whether the metal is straight or sloped. Let's imagine that in the pictures below, each "-" is 15mm of armor, 30mm high (if you think in terms of calculus, we could go down to an infinitely small height, but ASCII won't show that :). Now, we could arrange this armor two different ways: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Obviously, the amount of metal is the same either way. Less obviously, the picture on the right is actually a longer but thinner sheet of metal that's set at a slope--it's thinner by exactly the same proportion as it is longer, meaning the amount of metal is exactly the same to achieve a given thickness against horizontal impacts. The reason I questioned the armor on that M113 variant is that I've never seen armor that slopes back and forth like that, rather than having one long slope, and I'm not sure what difference that makes. I wonder if it might be more effective against HEAT rounds (by breaking up the jet) than against AP rounds. 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 20:33:07 CDT From: "OVH \(Paul\)" Subject: The Red Baron & Perth,Australia Hey Ballistix, I thought the Red Baron was shot down by Snoopy! hahaha. I must have my facts wrong. Or maybe it WAS the second gunman on the grassy knoll like you mentioned,hehehe. :-) Sorry, who was it on this list who is from Perth? I am looking at my PerthCam and all I see is gray from all the rain! Paul ________________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:52:58 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: New attack helicopters This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BFE5BF.29A8B620 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all,=20 I've added some new attack helicopters for Frank Frey's Air Module. = Both can be found at:=20 http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/6480/T2K.html=20 Enjoy!=20 - ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BFE5BF.29A8B620 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,

I’ve added some new attack helicopters for = Frank Frey’s=20 Air Module. Both can be found at:

http://www= .geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/6480/T2K.html=20

Enjoy!
- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BFE5BF.29A8B620-- *************************************************************************** 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 22:00:12 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: The Red Baron & Perth,Australia Well it is winter here you know. Ballistix - ----- Original Message ----- From: "OVH (Paul)" To: Sent: Tuesday, 4 July 2000 09:33 Subject: The Red Baron & Perth,Australia > Hey Ballistix, I thought the Red Baron was shot down by Snoopy! hahaha. I > must have my facts wrong. Or maybe it WAS the second gunman on the grassy > knoll like you mentioned,hehehe. :-) > > Sorry, who was it on this list who is from Perth? I am looking at my > PerthCam and all I see is gray from all the rain! > > Paul > ________________________________________________________________________ > 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. > > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 10:16:33 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: Add On Armor > From: Stephen Dragoo > > >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. > Why would you think that the armor shouldn't be increased some in effectiveness? That's what I was meaning. The cover is already talked about in the rules, and the skill difficulty using RCN is completely up to the referee anyway. I was thinking about a +10% to +30% modifier for the armor value if hit from the front while in a hull down position would be reasonable. > > 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 little bit of steel and air is probably much less important than the difference in focal point. Remember that it's the focus that makes a HE round into a HEAT round. Old HEAT rounds detonated a cylinder of explosive to create a jet. It started diverging as soon as it was formed. Modern ones create a jet which is a converging cone so the energy per cross-sectional area is higher. Thats the reason you need the standoff nose. And the reason its so obvious on the TOW missles would be simply because the charge they use has a long focal length. It's probably a closely guarded secret where to make it focus on the armor your trying to penetrate for best effect. Exactly on the surface would seem an intuitive spot, but is high energy plasma intuitive? I'd guess it would be best about 1/2 way through the armor of the heaviest vehicle it's designed to go against, but that's just a guess. > > I imagine the only weapons to gain any extra effectiveness would be the > older, less capable types anyway (maybe even the old Dragon > ATGM). If I had to bet on one, I'd bet the original TOW would be helped by a standoff of a reasonable amount. Or any other HEAT round that used a focusing charge without a standoff probe (as opposed to the older straight jet). In the context of blowing up a light tank with an ATGM (where this originally started), the armor is so incredibly weak compared to the penetraing power of the missle that, what we are discussing really only amounts to how far the molten metal splatters out the other side of the vehicle as it blows up. So will be characters be at -200 hits or at -500 hits when they are vaporized? > 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. > There is no way that you could armor a light tank into working like an MBT in any field expedient sense and still have it function properly. The biggest problems would probably lay in the suspension. Remember that dynamic loading is many times higher than static loading. It would not be uncommon to see 10 times the weight of the vehicle applied to the suspension regularly during hard driving. Ever wonder why a lot of trailer hitchs only have a 500 lb tongue load limit? Even though it could probably hold 5000 no problem? Because when you hit a pot hole at 70 mph, that 500 lbs hits the hitch with a 20 G shock, making it momentarily take 10k lbs of force. If you put 'only' 10 extra tons on a suspension designed for 40 tons, sure top speed (a function of mechanical rolling resistance and air drag) isn't affected much. But take it off road and see if you don't start bending axles, blowing shocks, and breaking brackets when you start to push it. These things break occasionally on non-overloaded vehicles. Now if your only going to drive is like a grandma on nice smooth pavment, it'll probably work great. If you treat it like a tank, it'll be broken very quickly. But then you have a really cool stationary pillbox (or death trap) ... :) > >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). > Can you imagine some dude welding brackets and bars strong enough to carry a 3 sandbag thick wall all over a tank. That would be funny. Hey buddy, look at that rolling pile of sandbags! If anything, I think I'd try wooden logs before sandbags. You could make it lighter and it MIGHT not completely come apart after the first hit. Granted, it wouldn't protect quite as much, but if you gotta add something it would seem and easier choice. And even then, one guy with a grenade launcher could remove half your sandbags (or splinter a log) in about 5 seconds ... 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: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 10:16:34 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Kalisz, almost there. > From: Scott David Orr > > > At 09:50 AM 7/3/00 -0700, graebarde wrote: > >> > 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 > > Yes. > > >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. > > > This is a common misconception (and one I used to share until it was > explained to me), but no, it doesn't really do this: you use the same > amount of metal either way to get a given thickness against horizontal > shots against a given target area, whether the metal is straight > or sloped. > > Let's imagine that in the pictures below, each "-" is 15mm of armor, 30mm > high (if you think in terms of calculus, we could go down to an infinitely > small height, but ASCII won't show that :). Now, we could arrange this > armor two different ways: > > - - > - - > - - > - - > - - > > Obviously, the amount of metal is the same either way. Less > obviously, the > picture on the right is actually a longer but thinner sheet of > metal that's > set at a slope--it's thinner by exactly the same proportion as it is > longer, meaning the amount of metal is exactly the same to achieve a given > thickness against horizontal impacts. > > The reason I questioned the armor on that M113 variant is that I've never > seen armor that slopes back and forth like that, rather than having one > long slope, and I'm not sure what difference that makes. I wonder if it > might be more effective against HEAT rounds (by breaking up the jet) than > against AP rounds. > > Scott Orr I think Scott seems to have missed graebarde's point. graebarde's statement that given a specific thickness, armor is more effective at a slope is true. It's is also true that the increased effectiveness amount is accurately predicted by calculating the thickness as seen by the incoming round from it's angle. Scott Orr's statement implies that armor designers reduce the thickness to increase the slope using the same total amount of metal. Then if hit by a horizontal round the armor functions as if it was the original thickness. True, it would probably work like that, but a field expedient solution in T2K would probably not have the ability to re-roll the steel into a different thickness. I think the primary reason the armor on that M113 variant slopes back and forth is because they wanted a high degree of slope, over a large area. So unless they wanted the armor to stick out 5 feet, they had to accordian fold it. I think Scott was on to the right idea by speculating that the slope would be most helpful against HEAT rounds. The high degree of slope presents an asymetric target for the plasma jet formed by the HEAT warhead. The more asymetric the target is, the more disrupted the focus will be on the jet. 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: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 13:54:06 -0500 From: Al Behnke Subject: Re: Kalisz Map I've put Jim's map up on my site. The direct link is http://members.xoom.com/rochkano/sourcemap.htm The link to my site is http://members.xoom.com/rochkano/ Al Behnke *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 14:07:43 PDT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: RE: Kalisz, almost there. >From: "Stephen Dragoo" > >>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. Perhaps when you roll on hit location chart, ignore (and do not reroll) hull or track/wheel hits? Or increase the to-hit difficulty by one level. >>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. IIRC, the probes were there to detonate reactive armor so it wouldn't interfere with the HEAT warhead. A generous and sadistic GM, Brandon Cope ________________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 17:03:10 -0500 From: Craig Gulledge Subject: Re: Kalisz Map Al Behnke wrote: > I've put Jim's map up on my site. > This is a sweet map, where did you get it? - -- Craig S. Gulledge "If you hear a redneck exclaim, "Hey, y'all, watch this!" Stay out of his way. These are likely the last words he will ever say." - - Rule #8 from "Advice for Moving to Texas"- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 18:26:05 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Kalisz, almost there. > From: Brandon Cope > > > IIRC, the probes were there to detonate reactive armor so it wouldn't > interfere with the HEAT warhead. > > > A generous and sadistic GM, > Brandon Cope > According to here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/tow.htm the probe was to enhance penetration. Apparently, it wasn't until the 2A that reactive armor was defeated. However, by most T2K Timelines I doubt that anything earlier than the TOW 2A would be found anywhere since the US apparently switched over to this version in the late 80's. So by the time 2000 rolls around, there probably aren't any of the earlier versions left. Especially after we sent so much aid to China to help them (in the v1 timeline anyway). I'd like to know how they made the TOW 2A able to defeat reactive armor. I'm thinking it's probably a 2 stage warhead, but I'm only blindly guessing. It's a pretty nice write up on the TOW, you guys ought to check it out. Thanks to Clayton for the link to that site. 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: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 20:19:57 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Add On Armor At 10:16 AM 7/4/00 -0500, Walter Rebsch wrote: > >The little bit of steel and air is probably much less important than the >difference in focal point. Remember that it's the focus that makes a HE >round into a HEAT round. Old HEAT rounds detonated a cylinder of explosive >to create a jet. It started diverging as soon as it was formed. Modern >ones create a jet which is a converging cone so the energy per >cross-sectional area is higher. Thats the reason you need the standoff >nose. And the reason its so obvious on the TOW missles would be simply >because the charge they use has a long focal length. It's probably a >closely guarded secret where to make it focus on the armor your trying to >penetrate for best effect. Exactly on the surface would seem an intuitive >spot, but is high energy plasma intuitive? I'd guess it would be best about >1/2 way through the armor of the heaviest vehicle it's designed to go >against, but that's just a guess. > For those who know less about the subject, you should add here that actual "jet" is formed from a sheet of metal that lines the top of the warhead. The jet then erodes (literally) the armor (like water erodes a rock, but way faster). 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: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:35:34 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Walter Rebsch To: Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 9:26 AM Subject: RE: Kalisz, almost there. > However, by most T2K Timelines I doubt that anything earlier than the TOW 2A > would be found anywhere since the US apparently switched over to this > version in the late 80's. So by the time 2000 rolls around, there probably > aren't any of the earlier versions left. Especially after we sent so much > aid to China to help them (in the v1 timeline anyway). > > I'd like to know how they made the TOW 2A able to defeat reactive armor. > I'm thinking it's probably a 2 stage warhead, but I'm only blindly guessing. > > It's a pretty nice write up on the TOW, you guys ought to check it out. > Thanks to Clayton for the link to that site. > > Walter As of a couple of years ago: BGM-71A TOW. 314,000 total produced. BGM-71C ITOW (first with the standoff probe). 60,000 produced. BGM-71D TOW 2. 77,000. BGM-71E TOW 2A. 34,000. BGM-71F TOW 2B (the overfly with two warheads shooting down or 'top attack') 37,000. These are total production so uncertain on how many would ahve been available to US forces, considering useage before the war, exports etc. TOW 2A has a thicker probe with a 38mm(?) precusor warhead along with the main 152mm warhead. 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: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:27:34 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Brandon Cope To: Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 7:07 AM Subject: RE: Kalisz, almost there. > >From: "Stephen Dragoo" > >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. > > IIRC, the probes were there to detonate reactive armor so it wouldn't > interfere with the HEAT warhead. > > Brandon Cope TOW-2A has a precusor warhead on the probe to detonate ERA. Hellfire has a tandem warhead. The differences are a precusor is easy to refit to existing missiles, a tandem is usually the same size of close to the main warhead. The latest generation of ERA from Russia, called KAKTUS, will supposedly not be detonated by precusor tip warheads. The probes were originally fitted for the reasons above. Early HEAT warheads were short and could penetrate 2-4 x warhead diametre. 150mm warhead = 300-600 mm pen Later warheads 6-7 x or 900 -1050mm. The very recent types (Trigat-MR) supposedly does 10x or 1500mm! However there is every reason to believe these figures are the manufactors sales quotes. That is test warheads suspended next to the armour plate, detonated at the correct standoff distance. A HOT 3 missile with quoted 1300mm was tested and achieved 1050mm. Part of the move from 2-4 to 6-7 x warhead diametre was the probe and some the warhead design. Bottom line is that less or more standoff distance will affect the actual penetration. Peter G *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 14:11:34 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Add On Armor - ----- Original Message ----- From: Walter Rebsch To: Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 1:16 AM Subject: Add On Armor > > From: Stephen Dragoo > > > > >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. > > > > Why would you think that the armor shouldn't be increased some in > effectiveness? That's what I was meaning. The cover is already talked > about in the rules, and the skill difficulty using RCN is completely up to > the referee anyway. I was thinking about a +10% to +30% modifier for the > armor value if hit from the front while in a hull down position would be > reasonable. Tanks with accurate well maintained fire control have had little problem in hitting hull down targets. Before the Gulf war Britush troops set up a representitive 'tank' target in a hull down position and fired a Milan ATGM at it. The Milan had no problem in hitting. In game terms most of the vehicles fire control should probably be degraded or backup manual, possibly a small modifier for intact FC and a larger one for manual. > In the context of blowing up a light tank with an ATGM (where this > originally started), the armor is so incredibly weak compared to the > penetraing power of the missle that, what we are discussing really only > amounts to how far the molten metal splatters out the other side of the > vehicle as it blows up. So will be characters be at -200 hits or at -500 > hits when they are vaporized? :-) > > There is no way that you could armor a light tank into working like an MBT > in any field expedient sense and still have it function properly. The > biggest problems would probably lay in the suspension. True. The Leopard 2 was designed with the suspension beefed up so that if more armour was piled on it wouldn't be a problem, likewise the M8 AGS suspension was probably designed with the Level III armour in mind: Level I, 18052 kg Level II, 19958 kg Level III, 23586 kg. Just on the another note, I added up the US tanks given in the US Army Vehicle Book (v1) and came up with 431: 9 Stingrays, 2% total 35 LAV-75, 8% 62 M60A4, 14% 128 M1, 30% 131 M1A1, 30% 66 M1A2, 15% Depending on your campaign the LAV-75 might be replaced with the M8. The Stingrays were said to have been a Pakistani order taken over in February 1997. The 8th Infantry (Mech) division has all 9 BTW. If most tanks have reverted to manual FC surely light tanks would be surviveable? Use speed as a form of armour like the Leopard 1 & AMX-30. Peter G *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:04:11 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Add On Armor Well, rules talk here. You're allowed 10% of total vehicle weight as external load. In my old campaign my PC had an M551 (surprise!). We allowed welded on applique armour (similiar to what was fitted to Shermans in Europe, but you need a TIG welder to fit applique to aluminium hulls), ERA blocks (the Russians also use French SNIPE ERA, supposedly the best in the world with a long rod shearing capacity and probe resistance) and 'Drape Armour'. This is essentially anything that may better your chances, but is often better for morale than survivability. Old favourites include logs wired to the sides, sandbags in frames and track links draped over the sides. (I went the track links). Thus, starting with a bog-stock Sheridan we managed to increase the survivability to where it should be able to withstand RPGs and some light cannon without too much damage. Unfortunately, I use the cyberpunk vehicle rules which do not translate well to standard T2K so I can't use my formula for armour addition (each extra layer should cost more in weight though). The light tank, APC, IFV or even a truck wrapped in all this garbage looks *very* T2K. It's individualised by it's crews task rolls which is always a big plus for roleplayers as it makes the thing 'theirs'. (As an end note, I rarely allow missiles in my T2K game. The most common AT weapons IMC are cannon or recoiless rifles, both of which are hard to make decent shells for nowadays. You may want to rule that many shells are less effective now because the materials required to make them are unavailable, like the situation the Germans had in '43 after they ran out of wolfram for their tungsten. A TOW missile round would be like a +10 Vorpal Sword!) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:32:09 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: HEAT and spacing >TOW 2A has a thicker probe with a 38mm(?) precusor warhead along with the >main 152mm warhead. > >Peter Grining In WW2 the russians and germans used the inner springs from burnt matresses on the exterior of their armour as a field expediency to create an extended standoff zone against infantry rocket attack. The WW2 panzerfaust had a decent penetration and would in fact wreck any APC/IFV around today, so this may still be valid. Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 09:50:56 +0200 (MET DST) From: Bjorn Nilsson Subject: Re: Add On Armor On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Walter Rebsch wrote: > > There is no way that you could armor a light tank into working like an MBT > in any field expedient sense and still have it function properly. Well, expecting any vehicle in the 20-30ton range (which is about what most Light tanks or IFV weigh) to be able to confront a 50-70ton MBT head on is pretty stupid IMO. Light tanks CAN fight against MBTs in a crunch but that is not their main purpose, and comanders who regularly expose them to that should have to retake their tactics classes (and expect heavy losses). The only way i see it that you can design a ligther vehicle to stand up to MBTs is to build a tank destroyer, though that is hardly "field expident". However i would find it very likely in a T2000 like scenario that some or all the combatants would have tank destroyers in their arsenal for various economic and infrastructure reasons. My guess is that you could probably fit a 105mm or even 120mm main gun into a roughly Bradley sized vehicle if you were willing to sacrifice such niceties such as turrets, 4 man crew, heavy armor (espesially side and rear armor) and to some extent range and ammo capacity. I would guess that many factories that for various reasons would have trouble retooling to the particularly heavy duty manufacturing of MBTs could much easier be made to produce lighter vehicles such as IFVs, Light tanks or Tank destroyers. (Civilian car and truck factories would be the obvious case.) > If you put 'only' 10 extra tons on a suspension designed for 40 tons, > sure top speed (a function of mechanical rolling resistance and air drag) isn't > affected much. But take it off road and see if you don't start bending > axles, blowing shocks, and breaking brackets when you start to push it. Yeah, i think the 10% of vehicle weight allowed as external cargo allowed in T2K is about right, anything more than that you have to strengthen the suspension making it "stiffer" and thereby of course reducing the (practical) speed and of-road caracteristics that is the whole point of a light tank. Personally i'd rather use a light tank for what it's for than going to all that trouble to make a very poor MBT of it. Besides their is a pretty big "gap" in armor penetration between IFV and infantry weapons (which most Light tanks already are protected from, at least from frontal aspects) and MBT main guns and ATGWs which you'd have to apply a whole Fucking lot of armor to defeat. It just aint worth it! /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, 3 Jul 2000 04:18:23 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Add On Armor > However i would find it very likely in a T2000 like scenario that some or > all the combatants would have tank destroyers in their arsenal for various > economic and infrastructure reasons. My guess is that you could probably > fit a 105mm or even 120mm main gun into a roughly Bradley sized vehicle if > you were willing to sacrifice such niceties such as turrets, 4 man crew, > heavy armor (espesially side and rear armor) and to some extent range and > ammo capacity. On this note the Australian Mechanised Infantry units used to have a 106mm (from memory) recoiless rifle mounted upon a land rover. This was used as in an AT role, basically HIT & RUN then send someone is to see what damage you did. 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: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 18:11:35 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Add On Armor - ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim & Peta Lawrie To: Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 4:04 PM Subject: Re: Add On Armor > The light tank, APC, IFV or even a truck wrapped in all this garbage > looks *very* T2K. It's individualised by it's crews task rolls which is > always a big plus for roleplayers as it makes the thing 'theirs'. > (As an end note, I rarely allow missiles in my T2K game. The most common > AT weapons IMC are cannon or recoiless rifles, both of which are hard to > make decent shells for nowadays. You may want to rule that many shells are > less effective now because the materials required to make them are > unavailable, like the situation the Germans had in '43 after they ran out of > wolfram for their tungsten. A TOW missile round would be like a +10 Vorpal > Sword!) > >Jim A local newspapers from a couple of days back ran a photo of a 'makeshift armoured vehicle', as used by the Malaita Eagles in the Solomons. The vehicle is based on a bulldozer with armour plating around the cab, a built up 'conning tower' over the can with what looks like a 0.50 cal. It has an tray on the back with armoured sides for carrying troops. ISTR some trucks in the former Yugoslav states also had metal sheets welded on and used as makeshift vehicles. Sure both meat for any anti-tank weapon but it does happen. ISTR reading somewhere that Western ATGM, artillery shells, etc has a dud rate of around 5%, some Russian stuff up to 30%. Shelf life of Western missiles kept in good conditions is around 10 years, so as Jim says definitely room for iffy rounds. Peter G *************************************************************************** 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 #152 *************************************