Canon Germany to RDF tank transfer

[95th Rifleman]

The problem or me, as far as canon goes, is it's just not written.

All these theories about transfers to RDF are just that, theories.

It was NEVER written in any sourcebook that these elements where trasferred, thus it can not be considered canon.

As a theory that can be used in games to include that equipment I'm all for it. However it can not be considered canon, because it's not, if it was there would be a source book with pages we could quote from that says X equipment was transferred to Y battlefront on Z date.
Now, for the love of whatevr is considered holy by all participants, can we drop the canon crap and just focus on discuss things rationaly.

Personaly I don't see why the Americans would go to all the trouble to send that kit to a backwater front when the war was for all intents and purposes over with a potential civil war brewing in the USA. However that's just my view.

[Olefin]

The sections that Kate is posting are

SOVIET 74TH KGB MOTORIZED RIFLE REGIMENT

Weapons: Standard Soviet small arms. Artillery support is provided by a battery of 120mm mortars and two self-propelled
122mm howitzers. AFVs are T-72s and T-80s; APCs are
BTR-70s and BMPs. The unit uses the BRDM-3 armored car.

also

SOVIET 19TH MOTORIZED RIFLE DIVISION
Weapons: Standard Soviet small arms. The 119th Tank Regiment
consists of 32 AFVs, mostly T-55s with 6 SU-130 assault
guns for long-range fire support. The divisional artillery assets
are comprised mainly of 120mm mortars, SAU-122s and
SAU-1 52s. There is also a mixed battery of BM21 and BM14
self-propelled multiple rocket launchers.

also notice that the in the below section the armored cars are not referred to as AFVs


US DETACHMENT 14, 619TH COMBAT SECURITY GROUP

The unit also has two Peacekeeper armored cars and two Commando

and also this

THE TUDEH POPULAR MOBILIZATION ARMY (PMA)

Weapons: Soviet-made small arms (mostly AKMRs) with a
few NATO weapons mixed in. AFVs are a mixture of third line
Soviet tanks (mainly T-55s) with a few captured NATO tanks
(M60A4s and Chieftains). APCs are scarce, with the infantry
either walking or riding in trucks. What few exist are usually
BTR-70s or OT-64s. The BRDM-3 is the standard armored car.
Artillery consists of 82mm and 120mm mortarsarmored cars.


Clearly Frank Frey is saying that an AFV is a tank

he makes the designation repeatedly - and he wrote the RDF as well

so that should put to rest that an AFV - for Kings Ransom and the RDF at this point as written which means they are canon as written - is a tank

that means the US Army from June of 2000 to January of 2001 received at least 35 tanks if not more to make up for any losses in that period

you can disagree if you like - but if you do then you need to treat the RDF and Kings Ransom as non-canon for saying that the US got a reinforcement of tanks - he clearly means tank with all the refernces to AFV's as tanks in Kings Ransom

not trying to force this down anyone's throat - either you believe what Frank wrote or you have to say that the module isnt canon

there arent many other choices - its one thing if he said it once - but he said it over and over and over

[95th Rifleman]

By the way, Im not going to feel myself obliged to perpetuate GDWs 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 wont 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 jurys still out on SP guns, though.

SPGs should be classed as AFVs because they can (while it's not recomended) be used in the direct battle role, many nations kept a reserve of anti-tank shells for their SPGs (The American M109 was one such SPG).

However there is allot of debate on the use of mobile artillery and it's classification as an AFV.

[95th Rifleman]

The sections that Kate is posting are

SOVIET 74TH KGB MOTORIZED RIFLE REGIMENT

Weapons: Standard Soviet small arms. Artillery support is provided by a battery of 120mm mortars and two self-propelled
122mm howitzers. AFVs are T-72s and T-80s; APCs are
BTR-70s and BMPs. The unit uses the BRDM-3 armored car.

also

SOVIET 19TH MOTORIZED RIFLE DIVISION
Weapons: Standard Soviet small arms. The 119th Tank Regiment
consists of 32 AFVs, mostly T-55s with 6 SU-130 assault
guns for long-range fire support. The divisional artillery assets
are comprised mainly of 120mm mortars, SAU-122s and
SAU-1 52s. There is also a mixed battery of BM21 and BM14
self-propelled multiple rocket launchers.

also notice that the in the below section the armored cars are not referred to as AFVs


US DETACHMENT 14, 619TH COMBAT SECURITY GROUP

The unit also has two Peacekeeper armored cars and two Commando

and also this

THE TUDEH POPULAR MOBILIZATION ARMY (PMA)

Weapons: Soviet-made small arms (mostly AKMRs) with a
few NATO weapons mixed in. AFVs are a mixture of third line
Soviet tanks (mainly T-55s) with a few captured NATO tanks
(M60A4s and Chieftains). APCs are scarce, with the infantry
either walking or riding in trucks. What few exist are usually
BTR-70s or OT-64s. The BRDM-3 is the standard armored car.
Artillery consists of 82mm and 120mm mortarsarmored cars.


Clearly Frank Frey is saying that an AFV is a tank

he makes the designation repeatedly - and he wrote the RDF as well

so that should put to rest that an AFV - for Kings Ransom and the RDF at this point as written which means they are canon as written - is a tank

that means the US Army from June of 2000 to January of 2001 received at least 35 tanks if not more to make up for any losses in that period

you can disagree if you like - but if you do then you need to treat the RDF and Kings Ransom as non-canon for saying that the US got a reinforcement of tanks - he clearly means tank with all the refernces to AFV's as tanks in Kings Ransom

not trying to force this down anyone's throat - either you believe what Frank wrote or you have to say that the module isnt canon

there arent many other choices - its one thing if he said it once - but he said it over and over and over

Put down the whip and step away from the dead horse.

I think, thanks to kato, we can safely say that GDW misused the term AFV and in this context it means MBT.

That being said, there is still no black and white evidence in canon that the extra tanks came from Germany. They could of come from America or they could of come from the Saudis or UAE (nations that used Chieftens).

I'm nopt saying they didn't come from Germany, it's just not canon.

[Tegyrius]

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

http://forum.juhlin.com/member.phpu=414

- C.

[Olefin]

but it is there Rifleman - not in black and white saying the 3rd AD or took there tanks with them

but where I come from 2+2=4

and when a= b and b=c then a=c - i.e. symbolic logic

the only reinforcment that arrived in the RDF in 2000 was the 6000 men from Europe

the number of tanks in the RDF went up by 35 tanks from June of 2000 to January of 2001

and there was no other reinforcment mentioned at all

a= b

the only reinforcment during that period was from Europe of 6000 men and it is a fact that the units in question who saw combat had a net increase of 4000 men

b= c

the number of AFV's went up by 35 total tanks from June 2000 to Jan 2001 and as established per Frank Frey an AFV is a tank per Kings Ransom which he wrote

thus a=c

the reinforcement of 6000 men also included at least 35 tanks and most likely more since the US most likely lost tanks during that time period

and since the men came from Europe the tanks came from Europe


either way - the men and the tanks are there in the RDF - and not APC's or armored cars, they are tanks (and that we do have written proof of in Frank Frey's own module Kings Ransom)

so a question then- why does it seem so many people are apparently so dead set on such a small reinforcement of vehicles when so many other details of the canon WWIII are also not filled in and are acceptable as such

not picking a fight at all - to me, its pure logic that is what Frank had in mind - and I dont go on faith or supposition when it comes to logic

thats what symbolic logic is for to fill in the gaps in the record and show what occurred even if not implicitly stated

its the same as saying that you are walking thru a huge crater and you find your rad detector is going off - there is no one to tell you a nuke burst happened there but a nuke leaves a huge crater, a nuke has rad contaminaton - thus a crater plus rad contamination equals a nuke burst there - even if no one is there to tell you when it happened or how the nuke got there

[95th Rifleman]

The more I think about it, the more likely I believe that the extra tanks came from the Saudis.

They had no interest in the soviets winning and, for political reasons, wouldn't want to get dragged too deeply into the mess. Supplying the US army with tanks and equipment would of been a great (and relatively easy) way of providing material support without getting too involved and would explain a few grey areas.

[Olefin]

thanks Tegyrius - do you now if he still actively participates here

and I agree with you Rifleman - AFV here clearly means MBT

unfortunately what would have solved the issue was if a US unit with tanks had been in Kings Ransom

but lets see if Frank can weigh in on this - and who knows maybe it will help fill in a hole in the canon as to where they came from and what MBT's they are

[Tegyrius]

Last Activity: 06-30-2010 01:01 PM

I thought I'd seen a post from him more recently, but his most recent is here. Still, if he has email notifications of PMs turned on, you might get a response that way.

- C.

[Raellus]

Hi folks.

As a forum moderator, I feel the need to step in here. My cautionary posts have been ignored and what I feared is coming to pass. Although most of you are approaching the current canon debate in a more or less responsible, respectful, and constructive manner, a couple of you are clearly not. As a result, I am seriously considering closing this and all other "canon discussion" threads. I will also be discussing this issue with my fellow moderators.

As a community, I really don't think we can afford the kind of drama and acrimony that chases off members. Please, everyone just chill out.

Please take a look at our forum guidelines. If you can't or won't abide by them, this is probably not the place for you.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.phpt=2961

Raellus

[kato13]

The sections that Kate is posting are

I don't generally remark about typos but my Y chromosome is having a little trouble with this one.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The more I think about it, the more likely I believe that the extra tanks came from the Saudis.

They had no interest in the soviets winning and, for political reasons, wouldn't want to get dragged too deeply into the mess. Supplying the US army with tanks and equipment would of been a great (and relatively easy) way of providing material support without getting too involved and would explain a few grey areas.

If GW1 (or 2 depending on your point of view) fits into Canon then if the Saudis did provide those tanks they may well have been M1A2s. Although (unless there's a vehicle-specific breakdown!) M60A3s are far more likely...

as much as I hate to lean on Wackypedia for stuff, this is to my knowledge pretty accurate:

The army's main equipment consists of a combination of French- and U.S.-made armored vehicles: 315 M–1A2 Abrams, 290 AMX–30, and 450 M60A3 main battle tanks; 300 reconnaissance vehicles; 570+ AMX–10P and 400 M–2 Bradley armored infantry fighting vehicles; 3,000+ M113 and 100 Al-Fahd armored personnel carriers, produced in Saudi Arabia; 200+ towed artillery pieces; 110 self-propelled artillery pieces; 60 multiple rocket launchers; 400 mortars; 10 surface-to-surface missiles; about 2,000 antitank guided weapons; about 200 rocket launchers; 450 recoilless launchers; 12 attack helicopters; 50+ transport helicopters; and 1,000 surface-to-air missiles.[3] In 2011, the Saudi-Arabian army has furthermore ordered 200+ German Leopard 2A7+ main battle tanks to extend their fleet.

The Saudis are, as of 2012 in our reality literally drowning in armor. Even in the T2k setting I'd wager they could shave off some wallowed out M60s and M113s to their US friends.

[Olefin]

And Kato I want to give you a huge credit for findign the applicable sections in Kings Ransom - I never thought of looking there to see if Frank used the same terminology.

Thas was a great find and deserves a very heart felt well done.

Go ahead and take a few boxes of grenades out of petty cash for your character to use on the maruader formation oh his choice.

[95th Rifleman]

The sticking point for me is this.

Yes, the numbers increased by 6000 in one source

Yes, they got 35 extra AFVs in another source

However one does not automaticly lead to the other. It's a grey area in which the gaps are filled with opinion and supposition.

Transporting men is one thing, transporting an MBT is another entirely which requires allot of effort, specialist equipment and the right kind of ship. You can transport infantry on anything (look at Dunkirk for examples).

At the end of the day if you or your group goes with the idea that the tanks came from Germany then fair play and all the best.

That being said the idea tat they came from America in a seperate reinforcement or the tanks came from the Saudis or other Arab states is equaly plausible.

[Olefin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin
The sections that Kate is posting are

I don't generally remark about typos but my Y chromosome is having a little trouble with this one.

Whoops sorry there Kato

ok thats three hits for me on the body location of your choice