Destruction of Weapons.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Well said Stainless.

But there is something fun about arguing back and forth on the bigger picture. :P

Well yes, I tend to not think of that aspect, I suppose I'm a bit stale in the brain at times.


As for getting more information on particular units to use them as enemies for the pc group, any good book could supply that information, it isn't necessary for the game company to supply that information

[copeab]

As for getting more information on particular units to use them as enemies for the pc group, any good book could supply that information, it isn't necessary for the game company to supply that information

Admittedly, though, certain information from Merc 2000 would have been useful in T2K (such as squad and platoon TO&E of selected nations),

[jester]

My all time favourite two sessions in my last T2K campaign were when Major Po and his original small band of hard core killers snuck into Lublin, planted their tac nuke and, as they withdrew, were pursued by a Spetznaz group which had been hunting them for several months. The level of suspense was awesome, not least due to the knowledge by both sides that had they engaged in a final, pitched battle it would be brutal and absolutely no quarter would be given.

In the end the deciding factor was about 2.5 kilometers. That was how much closer to the nuke blast the Spetznaz were when it went off. Also the Spetznaz were in the open while Po's group were hiding in a ditch.

Thats brutal! I love it!

I have a team of Naval Spetzies chase the PC's throughout their campaign even when they slipped into France with the local Mil Gov contact and safe house. LOL!!! The PCs had accepted a woman into their ranks who turned out to be a Spetzie officer, they "rescued" her and then she became the girlfreind of one of the units leaders. In the end she let loose with the diplomate with a HK CAW and then ran out the back door of the not so safe house to a waiting car. From that point, the PCs were a bit more paranoid of ALL people including those they rescued.

LOL, I had the chick kill her 2nd in command and act like she was in the process of being violated when the PCs stormed their house. And they bought it

[Legbreaker]

Absolutely true. Not all enemy a PC group encounters are going to be disorganised rabble, and it's a bit more work than most of us want to do in the middle of a game to research the proper composition.

Still, we all struggled through this far.

Of course by 2000, even regular professional units may no longer even superficially resemble their prewar makeup. A section/squad of 9-12 men which used to include one, maybe two light machineguns plus a grenade launcher or two is likely to number about half a dozen with a heavier emphasis on firepower. Some of those members might also be non-combat troops, or at least were in their last assignment, and sent into infantry units as replacements once their role as cook, clerk, band member, etc becomes irrelevant.

Regardless of nationality, I would expect a commander would want approximately half his infantry with automatic weapons capable of sustained fire (ie belt fed or extended mags) and the other half armed with grenade launchers or similar explosive type weapons. This would go some way towards countering the lack of personell, but the loss of even a simgle soldier would significantly downgrade the units effectiveness. Unfortunately smaller units also mean less flexability - less able to split into teams and attack a position for several angles, etc...

[Targan]

LOL, I had the chick kill her 2nd in command and act like she was in the process of being violated when the PCs stormed their house. And they bought it

Wow, she sounds like a truly cold, hard bitch. I love it!

[copeab]

Wow, she sounds like a truly cold, hard bitch. I love it!

The worst I've done was inflict Lilith on a party.

Yes, that Lilith.

[Raellus]

Of course by 2000, even regular professional units may no longer even superficially resemble their prewar makeup. A section/squad of 9-12 men which used to include one, maybe two light machineguns plus a grenade launcher or two is likely to number about half a dozen with a heavier emphasis on firepower. Some of those members might also be non-combat troops, or at least were in their last assignment, and sent into infantry units as replacements once their role as cook, clerk, band member, etc becomes irrelevant.

Very good assessment.

Regardless of nationality, I would expect a commander would want approximately half his infantry with automatic weapons capable of sustained fire (ie belt fed or extended mags) and the other half armed with grenade launchers or similar explosive type weapons. This would go some way towards countering the lack of personell, but the loss of even a simgle soldier would significantly downgrade the units effectiveness. Unfortunately smaller units also mean less flexability - less able to split into teams and attack a position for several angles, etc...

Although I agree in principle, I'm not sure this would work since ammo would be a lot harder to come by in later years (at least good ammo*). I think there would be a greater emphasis on fire discipline and marksmanship than on high volume of fire. Having three SAWs, two M203s, and two GMPGs in a 9-man squad wouldn't be very practical with ammo limited. No longer could a unit expend a few thousand rounds of ammo to kill a single enemy soldier (I've read in a couple of places that in the Vietnam War, the Americans expended something like 10,0000 rounds per enemy KIA).

This is where picking up enemy weapons and ammo might become SOP. I'd think that the RPK and PKM series would become very popular with NATO units.

*In quite a few T2K games I've seen or been involved with, ammo produced after '97 is sub par- causing more frequent misfires, jams, fouling, etc. This seems realistic to me.

[chico20854]

Regardless of nationality, I would expect a commander would want approximately half his infantry with automatic weapons capable of sustained fire (ie belt fed or extended mags) and the other half armed with grenade launchers or similar explosive type weapons. This would go some way towards countering the lack of personell, but the loss of even a single soldier would significantly downgrade the units effectiveness.

As long as you didn't have to clear a building... if I had a squad with RPKs, GPMGs/M-60s and M-203s I'd be real reluctant to have them trying to pop around corners real quick! (And much of the battlefield late in the war would be in urban/ruins). Add in the burden of pulling endless guard mounts with a GPMG. While there are firepower arguments for going real heavy, there are "soldiering" concerns for doing otherwise. Of course, there might be enough excess weapons to go both ways... when I was in Bosnia I carried a M-9 around the base, a M-4 or M-16 on most trips outside the wire, unless we were "hunting for bear" and went out with 3 SAWs, 3 M-9s and a M-16/203 per HMMWV.

[Webstral]

There's a reason the M16A2 and later models have a BURST function instead of an AUTO function.

Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

There's a reason the M16A2 and later models have a BURST function instead of an AUTO function.

Webstral

I agree. The Mad Minute philosophy died a proper death (at least when I was in; I don't know if it's come back today). And I would think that as ammo supplies dwindle, there would be an even bigger accent on marksmanship over volume of fire.

[Legbreaker]

All vaild points.

Note however that I doubt 9+ man sections/squads would be possible in most cases with a more likely number of 5-6 being the norm. This means 2 maybe 3 LSW's (M249, RPK, perhaps an M60 or MAG, etc) and the rest with an M16/M203, AK/BG-15, etc type weapons.

Yes, there may be a shortage of grenades, but small arms ammo should, at least in larger units, be in relatively plentiful supply. It might not be top quality, but I've personally had no problems with reloaded ammo over the years, even brass that's been reused half a dozen or more times.

I also agree that "buckets of bullets" is NOT the way to go - anything that is not equiped with at least a bippod should be firing single, well aimed (hopefully) shots and any burst or full auto feature should only be used in very close quarters (buildings, etc) or in the intial moments of a contact by the scout/pointman.

These lighter weapons (excluding SMGs obviously) simply aren't designed for high volumes of accurate fire, something I think the V2 rules show rather well for a very simplified system.

[Targan]

I also agree that "buckets of bullets" is NOT the way to go - anything that is not equiped with at least a bippod should be firing single, well aimed (hopefully) shots and any burst or full auto feature should only be used in very close quarters (buildings, etc) or in the intial moments of a contact by the scout/pointman.

From my personal POV I couldn't agree more. Of course, most of my trigger time was with the SLR so for me aiming was everything. And you only need one hit with 7.62mmN to send your target off to the Big Sleep.

[Abbott Shaull]

I think by 2000, while troop were at their base many of them would carry Assault Rifle/Carbine/SMG/Pistol for personal protection. The Machine gun and heavier equipment would be secured for safety reason, even though there would be location in the area where heavy weapons would be emplace and staff for security reasons.

Remember before the war, when units went to to the rifle range, everyone had assault rifle of their own to use. I am sure it will not be much different after the fighting start. One thing that both Persian Gulf conflicts, operations in Afghanistan, and other conflicts of the last 60 years have shown. There is no Front line. It more of region where enemy troops can show up at any time, much like the famous SAS raids they pulled off in Africa in WWII.

By 2000 for Squad/Platoon element I don't see maybe 1 Automatic Rifle per squad and 1 Machine Gun per platoon due to the reduction of size of many Squads/Platoon. Even I can see some Automatic Rifle being pressed into service as the Platoon Machine Gun role. While some Company would consolidate the Machine Guns into MG platoons. Especially light units that are in static situations. As for when in firefights I wouldn't think many troops would be using full auto option, and those on Machine guns and Sub Machine guns would use burst. Only time they would do rock and roll auto would be if a unit was in position where they would be overrun.

As for units with the means to being mobile they seemed to always have a lot more toys than the standard Light Infantry unit. If IIRC the Mechanized Platoons had access to M-60 later M240s and other weapons that were stored on their vehicles. It one of the advantages when you don't have to carry all your equipment.

Even Motorized units will be able to carry more weapons with to use if they were needed. I seem to remember reading something about MP units operating in HMMWV. How a six man unit was expected to operate out one. Also US Special Forces and SAS have mobile units that use HMMWV/Land Rovers that are used to transport other units to the field.

I also see to some extent Submachine Guns making their way back down to squad level, especially unit operating in urban area/ruins. These would be easier for urban combat. As well as various shotguns which when I was in we never used unless were were on guard duty at the Battalion Motor Pool when the Battalion was DRF-1.

[Webstral]

I also see to some extent Submachine Guns making their way back down to squad level, especially unit operating in urban area/ruins. These would be easier for urban combat. As well as various shotguns which when I was in we never used unless were were on guard duty at the Battalion Motor Pool when the Battalion was DRF-1.

Easily-manufactured and -maintained SMG like the Soviet PPsh-41 would predominate. Overall, I think post-Exchange small arms would tend towards weapons like the PPsh-41 SMG, the Mossberg 500 12-gauge shotgun, the Winchester 1873 rifle, and Springfield 1903 rifle. Obviously, these weapons are examples of the types of weapons that post-Exchange manufacturers might favor over the more complex M16 variety. Perhaps MilGov or someone else opens an SKS or Ak-47 line. Certainly any cantonment with the ability to mass-produce any type of small arms will want to manufacture its own rifles for long-range duty, plus shotguns and SMG for short-range work.

Webstral

[StainlessSteelCynic]

You'd want to find a place like Suhl in eastern Germany, a town with a history of metal processing and firearms manufacture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suhl
Hopefully you could find tools and even people with the right skills there.