US Army AAA in T2K

[rcaf_777]

Something to remember about Phalanx/Goalkeeper, is that during the time period we are talking about, both systems were in very short supply with the Navies, for the USN they were actually RV with a home-bound ship, transferring the Phalanx to the out-going ship. SO as far as them being available for a US Army unit to "borrow"...I'd have to say that it would be a R roll!

This is a peacetime problem (HA HA we at peace why did'nt I get the memo) in theory a full out shooting war more equipment is release from stockpiles and production ramps up to meet production goals set by the production broads, in theory, but then agian in theory communism works too

[dragoon500ly]

This is a peacetime problem (HA HA we at peace why did'nt I get the memo) in theory a full out shooting war more equipment is release from stockpiles and production ramps up to meet production goals set by the production broads, in theory, but then agian in theory communism works too

Well, the whole reason behind the at-sea-swaps is that there were no stockpiles to draw from.

While the Regan-era Navy was rushing to field 300+ warships and build naval bases in every state that had a sea coast, there was a lack of support to build supply ships as well as the necessary weapon systems needed for the fleet. There were shortfalls in the Mk45 127mm gun, the Mk75 76mm gun and the Mk15 Phalanx not to mention in the Tomahawk and Harpoon launchers. Hell, there were Perry-class "figs" that went to sea with no gun armaments beyond a pair of .50-calibers!!!

A former Marine buddy of mine stationed at the Pentagon during this period swears that certain Marine Generals were ready to use rusty bayonets on certain Navy admirals unless funds were released for new amphibious ships.

And then you toss in having the Navy release one of their badly needed weapons systems to the Army....World War Three would have broken out in the E-Ring of the Pentagon!!!

With a looming war threat, I can see the NATO powers accelerating current production as much as possible, stuff already in the pipeline. But wasting resources, money and above all else, precious time to build, test and field new systems....I wouldn't have a warm, fuzzy feeling about that taking place. Even in the canon material, the US military was "seizing" equipment destined for allies in order to equip US formations.

[Legbreaker]

This lack of basic weapon systems goes a long way towards explaining why the Soviet fleet(s) were able to so comprehensively destroy the Nato fleets.

[dragoon500ly]

This lack of basic weapon systems goes a long way towards explaining why the Soviet fleet(s) were able to so comprehensively destroy the Nato fleets.

True, to an extent...but please remember that as bad as it was for NATO, the Ren Banner Fleets had it even worse. Just think about some yokel that doesn't speak Russian, hasn't been to school since the sixth grade, drafted for three years, pulling maintenance on your ship.

For example, on May 13, 1984, the Soviet Northern Fleet's Stednaya ammunition depot at Severomorsk suffered a major explosion. The blast was so large that it triggered the US nuclear warning satellites. While no nukes were lost, the Soviets suffered the loss of over one third of their large antiship missiles, SS-N-3, SS-N-12, AS-4, AS-6 etc. as well as surface-to-air missiles,along with the facilities that maintained the missiles as well as several hundred skilled personnel. The fires burned for over five days.

[Legbreaker]

While that state of very poor affairs was true IRL, T2K is a game based on "what if".
In the alternate reality that is T2K, the Soviets were competent, dangerous and not crippled by regular political purges of their best and brightest. Their military actually got paid on time, trained to a decent standard and their equipment was maintained according to the manufacturers recommendations.

It's this "what if" factor that seems to be missing in a lot of peoples posts. Reality is great, but it can only go so far in producing a world ripe for roleplaying as we know it.

[dragoon500ly]

While that state of very poor affairs was true IRL, T2K is a game based on "what if".
In the alternate reality that is T2K, the Soviets were competent, dangerous and not crippled by regular political purges of their best and brightest. Their military actually got paid on time, trained to a decent standard and their equipment was maintained according to the manufacturers recommendations.

It's this "what if" factor that seems to be missing in a lot of peoples posts. Reality is great, but it can only go so far in producing a world ripe for roleplaying as we know it.

But isn't a knowledgeable GM a boon to the game Sure the Soviets tanks were crap when taken on an individual basis, but it wasn't going to be one-on-one engagements was it

US battalion exercises of the period always started with the assumption that it would be taking on at least a Soviet Regiment. Troops in the Fulda and Hof Gaps could look over the Iron Curtin and see the division that was going to assault through the gap. NATO in the '70s and '80s was not in a good position, the US troops had the most supplies (30 days) and there were grave doubts about how heavy the usage for the supplies (above all ammo) would be. Some of the NATO partners had supplies for as little as 7 days. This was part of the reason that tactical nuclear weapons were always such a part of NATO pre-war planning.

BUT, it all boils down to two massive militaries going ball out for each other. And on the scale of the fighting...no matter how compentent or not the militaries were, it was going to be a blood-letting on a massive scale.

[Legbreaker]

But isn't a knowledgeable GM a boon to the game

Boon No. Vital Absolutely!
BUT a GM has to be flexible enough to know that the Real World Situation isn't even close to the Game World Situation. Sure doctrine and tactics are basically the same, by in T2K Nato essentially got hammered by a much better Pact. Pact soldiers in T2K are on average a cut above what they were/are IRL.

The GM has to appreciate and apply this difference, otherwise the war would have been over and done with in the first few months, and there would be no world wide disruption and devastation so necessary to create a rich roleplaying environment.

Even if you believe that early war Pact soldiers were little more than unskilled cannon fodder, it has to be understood that by 2000 the vast majority have plenty of combat experience, and if their commanders have any sense at all, months of military training and retraining during quiet times.

A GM who applies Real World capabilities to either side is doing the game as a whole a major disservice by disrupting the delicate balance the writers strove to create.

[schnickelfritz]

I think I will end up either using the M757 Blazer as shown in the V1 US Vehicle Guide or just end up doing pretty much what the Army did in real life, keeping the PIVAD in the field. Most of the machines will be tracked PIVAD platforms, with the rest being truck borne, and a few LAV versions added for flavor.

The easiest thing to do probably would have been to update the sensors, add a box launcher for 4 Stingers and slap it on a modified Bradley hull, especially those with wiped out turrets.

LOL, if I only had the time to build a 1/35 model of the thing!

Thanks!
Dave

[madmikechoi]

Well, thats the thing:

NATO on the whole doesn't go for networked defense. Thats a Russian thing.

Russians (Or Soviets to be accurate)

Correction, that was a Soviet/Russian holy mantra but the US picked it up for different reasons. In order to provide ballistic missile defense you need everybody's radars and satellites working as one big happy family. That requires the BIG BOARD (or at least a fair amount of computing power and powerpoint) and BIG BOARDS REQUIRE BIG TENTS. AND IN BIG TENTS THERE'S SHINY BRASS WHOSE JOBS ARE DEPENDENT ON SHIT WORKING .

Even during the Cold War the HAWK and Nike Hercules belts did require something pretty akin to a multinational air defense network and had to- especially when the Luftwaffe and RNLAF bought the Patriot to replace the Nike systems. And even back then they were eyeing something to replace the HAWKs (which never happened or maybe they just accept MEADS will replace both HAWK and Patriot).

While tactical air defense is supposed to different but since much of so called tactical air defense requires low altitude point/near point coverage of large static targets such as airfields/airbases, corps/army assembly areas, ports, rail depots, and theater HQ needs to be networked so BLUE AIR doesn't get turned into spare parts there was a reason why by the late 80s Chaparral battalions were paired w/ HAWK and Patriot units in Germoney and garrisoned in kasernes suspiciously close to places like Bitburg, Rhein Main, etc

IOW Tw2K- we could expect to see networked systems in the West w/ divisional ADA battalions tied into a larger sensor network (plug and pray) besides the batteries bringing their own MPQ-64s and/or aerostats along w/ setting GP tents or Hummvees and 5 tons w/ expandable shelters providing power and HVAC to a whole bunch of folding tables and chairs and laptops

Mad Mike c

[Targan]

That is some impressive thread resurrection.

[Olefin]

That is some impressive thread resurrection.

Nine years! Is that a record

[Legbreaker]

IMO thread necro is ALWAYS better than having a dozen new ones all on the same topic.

So what I'm getting is that AA in western militaries would rely, or at least lean heavily on the internet and existing communications infrastructure to optimise performance

[Louied]

Found this in my archives..........

[Vespers War]

Found this in my archives..........

In retrospect, ADATS was a less than ideal weapon. SALH has problems tracking high-speed targets, so many fixed-wing attack aircraft will be difficult to hit. The combined shaped-charge/frag warhead is similar to the M830A1 MPAT, which had trouble neutralizing infantry in the open, so its proximity-kill capability is questionable. There's also the question of over-tasking the vehicle crew, since they're now expected to be both anti-air defense and anti-ground combat, and need to both be trained for each type of engagement and prepared for either type. And making a missile capable of engaging both ground and air targets with a complex warhead meant each round was more expensive than comparable single-purpose missiles of either type.

In real life, the ADATS missile only entered service with Canada (mounted on M113 APCs) and Thailand (as a fixed emplacement). The US Army went with Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicles (Bradleys with Stinger dismounts) and later the M6 Linebacker (Bradleys with a 4-shot Stinger box launcher replacing the 2-shot TOW launcher, with 6 reloads in the vehicle). The Linebacker wasn't available until the late 90s, but the alternate timeline could have the Army realize ADATS was a bridge too far earlier and develop the Linebacker sooner.

[madmikechoi]

IMO thread necro is ALWAYS better than having a dozen new ones all on the same topic.

So what I'm getting is that AA in western militaries would rely, or at least lean heavily on the internet and existing communications infrastructure to optimise performance

Well seeing how the Internet was originally a DoD/ARPA creations to link various learning/research institutions to begin w/.

So even in Twilight we can expect Western ADA units to be reliant on modems and internet type protocols so you can get a reasonable early warning picture as well as their radars- being able to get a ballistic missile launch from a spacebird and then tracked by various stations until your unit can do something, anything is better than trying to scan your tiny piece of the sky and hope for the best. This goes double or triple for corps based ADA brigades which will often have stress anti-ballistic defense over dealing w/ conventional air breathing threats.

Tactical which is to say divisional and below they're gonna be concerned about attack helos, UAVs, and fast jets stupid enough to fly that low even if they wanna go fast. Maybe add the occasional prop COIN bird since they offer a lot of bang for the buck and employed w/ one's own forward line of troops (FLOT). Still expect a div ADA battalion's HHQ battalion to bring their own radar coverage and relay equipment along w/ ground work stations and everything that goes with that- big shiny mess trailers, gensets running 24-7-365, tents galore, air conditioning units, etc. The shooting batteries of anything from 8 launchers to often more have to set up their equivalent to FDCs w/ networked systems at higher food chains b/c if nothing else sharing is caring or more likely if nothing's happening; battalion TF org isn't that permanent when dealing with the exigencies of war

Mad Mikec