Canon Germany to RDF tank transfer

[Fusilier]

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

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

And that is in black and white.

[James1978]

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

Please reconsider.

[Webstral]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Sorry - but its canon guys.

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

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

Answer: They were being shipped to the RDF.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[95th Rifleman]

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

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

so which forum is this

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

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

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

love to know one way or another

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Medic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

so which forum is this

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

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

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

love to know one way or another

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

[Fusilier]

You are completely missing the point.

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

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

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

[Olefin]

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

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

its just not worth the aggravation

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

goodbye

[Webstral]

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

At least thats how I read it.

Fair enough. I dont have any of the v2 materials, so I am willing to take your word on the content. I should be in the habit of qualifying my observations by letting readers know that Im referring to v1.

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

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

Thanks for doing some independent legwork, Kato.

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

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

I will list the measures of strength by unit and group them by command, just as they are given in the RDF Sourcebook. Ill post two figures: the strength in the Soviet Vehicle Guide, then the strength in the RDF Sourcebook. Ive underlined the formations for which one or more figures have changed. I havent included the aviation units because the Tank v AFV issue doesnt apply to them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The glaring oddity, though, is that 16 of the 19 formations have exactly the same number of men on 1/1/01 as they do on 7/1/00. A single formation having the same number of men in July 2000 and January 2001 would be a statistical anomaly. Sixteen such formations, representing 84% of the divisions and separate brigades (again, non-aviation) under Transcaucasus Front, would be unable to achieve such a feat under peacetime conditions. For us to accept that such a thing could happen during the second half of 2000, we would have to believe that either the formations in question suffered no losses of any sort and gained no new troops of any sort or that the rate of loss exactly equals the combined rates of recruitment and replacement. Ill go a fair distance with suspension of disbelief to make ideas work, but even I cant go that far.

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

In fairness, the list of Soviet units doesnt support the argument that AFV means tanks, IFV, and APC, either. We might imagine that a given Soviet division has 12 tanks in July 2000, then loses some by January 2001. Hypothetically, when armor strength starts being listed as AFV instead of tanks, that division might have 4 surviving tanks and 8 surviving APC such that the AFV listing for 1/1/01 would match the Tanks listing for 7/1/00. If this happened once, we could accept it as a statistical anomaly. When it happens a dozen times over a mere 19 examples, something is wrong. The only reasonable conclusion is that GDW dropped the ball here.

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

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

104th Guards Air Assault Division is listed in Soviet Vehicle Guide as having 16 tanks. This is odd, because tanks arent a part of an air assault divisions TO&E. The same formation is listed in RDF Sourcebook as having 16 AFV. This is more credible because BMD count as AFV and are part of the TO&E for Soviet airmobile troops. Its also entirely possible, though, that the Soviets decided the 104th should change roles and reinforced the division with some tanks along the way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kato13]

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

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


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

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


second edit
BINGO

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

[Webstral]

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

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

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

[kato13]

Web. Did you see my edit.

[Webstral]

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

[kato13]

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

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


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

[Olefin]

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

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

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

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

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

and Kings Ransom puts the nail in the coffin

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

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

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

And Frank Frey is who wrote all of those canon modules

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Webstral]

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

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


second edit
BINGO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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