Twilight 2000 Anti-tank Missile Gap?

[ToughOmbres]

Copperhead and M-72 volley fire

Would anyone care to speculate what would become of the Copperhead artillery projectile during the Twilight War/ Ramped up production or used until the inventory is depleted and then dropped

Doctrine called for volley fire when possible with the M-72 LAW (4 -5 preferred IIRC). Increases the likelihood of hits but would expend more precious ordnance. Do you think this would have an impact during the Twilight War or doctrine (as it do often is) would simply be abandoned for battlefield reality

[Homer]

Here's what I know-

Copperhead ended its production run in 1990 due to budget cuts with about 20000, but was used successfully in ODS, OIF, and by the Lebanese Army. Used within its parameters and properly planned for, copperhead was effective against stationary or moving point targets using a properly planned shoot. Production could probably be restarted since much of the Copperhead's form factor was the starting point for the 155mm LRLAP, but it'd have to ramp up. One thing in it favor is a lack of any other artillery delivered PGM at this time; copperhead shoots were frequently pre-planned to support SEAD or defensive operations by targeting ADA or breaching systems.

There's multiple engagement techniques with LAWs and their kin, in ascending order of effectiveness: single fire, individual sequence fire, firing as a pair using seeing and adjustment, and volley fire (usually a fire team engagement with the team leader giving range). Munition conservation will play a part in determining method of engagement, but at the end of the day, neutralizing the threat is going to be paramount. After all, if your AT4 is stopping the tank, a lot of other things have failed!

What may happen is that engagement ranges will get closer as infantry learn to stalk tanks and use obstacles, mines, and deception to fix the enemy. Reducing engagement ranges will also help offset the lack of training of some late war replacements (ex-USAF ground crew for example). In this case, pair or volley fire may help maximize the effect of the AT fires by placing them under central control. Alternatively, a skilled gunner may engage with individual sequence fire, while the rest of the team/squad provides spotting and suppressive fires, like the chechens did in Grozny. If it all goes pear shaped, there's always sticky bombs!

[swaghauler]

Heres what I know-

Copperhead ended its production run in 1990 due to budget cuts with about 20000, but was used successfully in ODS, OIF, and by the Lebanese Army. Used within its parameters and properly planned for, copperhead was effective against stationary or moving point targets using a properly planned shoot. Production could probably be restarted since much of the Copperheads form factor was the starting point for the 155mm LRLAP, but itd have to ramp up. One thing in it favor is a lack of any other artillery delivered PGM at this time; copperhead shoots were frequently pre-planned to support SEAD or defensive operations by targeting ADA or breaching systems.

Theres multiple engagement techniques with LAWs and their kin, in ascending order of effectiveness: single fire, individual sequence fire, firing as a pair using seeing and adjustment, and volley fire (usually a fire team engagement with the team leader giving range). Munition conservation will play a part in determining method of engagement, but at the end of the day, neutralizing the threat is going to be paramount. After all, if your AT4 is stopping the tank, a lot of other things have failed!

What may happen is that engagement ranges will get closer as infantry learn to stalk tanks and use obstacles, mines, and deception to fix the enemy. Reducing engagement ranges will also help offset the lack of training of some late war replacements (ex-USAF ground crew for example). In this case, pair or volley fire may help maximize the effect of the AT fires by placing them under central control. Alternatively, a skilled gunner may engage with individual sequence fire, while the rest of the team/squad provides spotting and suppressive fires, like the chechens did in Grozny. If it all goes pear shaped, theres always sticky bombs!

I'll add my knowledge to yours.

The US Army currently has 12K COPPERHEADS in storage (all functional) and the Marine Corps has 3K functional and 1,500 nonfunctional units in inventory. Nonfunctional COPPERHEADS have issues with their sensors not working or failing intermittently. You can test the sensors in the field. When I served, the Special Weapons van of our battery would carry 3 COPPERHEADS and a laser designator for targeting. We were trained to test & maintain the round's sensor in the field. Each round cost $30K in 1989. I'm sure that pricing has dropped as the technology was dispersed among the US military

The COPPERHEAD pioneered the discriminated laser designation system. A discriminated laser homing head allows the user to select one of SEVERAL infrared spectrums that the seeker will home in on. The modern APK "Precision Kill Kit" for the 70mm Hydra rocket and the early JADAM kits both use a nearly identical system. There are 3 screws, each with several settings, on the warhead. By turning the individual screws to various numbers, you set the IR frequency/wavelength that the seeker can "see." This allows you to use multiple designators to paint multiple targets without confusing the rounds. Our most commonly used wavelength was 850nm, compared with 680nm for visible lasers.

Our Laser Designators were large clunky boxes weighing between 4kg and 6kg and emitting an INVISIBLE beam (850nm requires NVGs to see). We would use an optical sight (X25) mounted on the Designator to ensure we were "painting the target." The whole contraption was mounted on a free-moving camera tripod so you could "track" a target. In the 90s, those box designators got a LOT smaller thanks to digital upgrades. If you want to see a clunky 80s-era Designator, just watch the movie BATTLE LOS ANGELES. That's an 80s-vintage Designator that they are using to paint the alien command ship. I was laughing hard when I saw that. Modern Designators are the same size and weight as a modern laser rangefinder sold by sporting goods stores and can be carried in your pocket.

The effective range of a Gen I Designator was around 5km. The upgraded GEN II (digitally enhanced) Designator could reach out to 10km. The "Sniper Pod" the Air Force uses is rumored to be able to designate a target 50km away, but I'm not sure if this is really true. It must be able to do at least 25km since Gen I MAVERICK Missiles could hit targets that far away. In addition, these Designators can be adversely affected by bad weather (such as rain, fog, or snow), smoke (especially HOT smoke from WP or oil/fuel fires), and dust. I give a ONE DIFFICULTY SHIFT down under each of these conditions. Other conditions can completely block the IR laser beam. The Shorta's aerosol grenades (which are clear to normal video and human vision), Dual-Spectrum Smoke Grenades (which block ALL line-of-sight, unlike HC which is transparent to thermal imagers), and certain types of reflective Chaff fall into this category.

[swaghauler]

The question of how quickly stocks of ATGMs would run low/out in a Twilight War scenario has been discussed in a few threads here over the years, but the question has come up again based on recent developments in the IRL Ukraine War, which, in itself, might offer up some clues to help answer that question more accurately.

On 60 Minutes last night, the subject of a potential PRC invasion of Taiwan was examined. A former head of the Taiwanese armed forces complained that they had ordered Javelin ATGMs months before the February Russian invasion of Ukraine, but has yet to receive any because orders were preempted and the completed weapons were sent as aide to the UAF instead. AFAIK, Javelin production has been increased to full capacity (without opening new production lines) but supply can hardly keep up with demand, just for Ukraine and NATO. New production has been earmarked to replace US/NATO stock (sent to Ukraine) or sent directly to the UAF. Poor Taiwan is still waiting for the Javelins that they ordered and paid for a couple of years ago! And all of this is in the case of a limited regional war. What would happen in a total/world war

I imagine that in a v1 timeline scenario, a lot of older systems (TOW I, Dragon, early iterations of the M72 LAW, and equivalent NATO models) would be sent as military aid to China, depleting legacy stocks. At the same time, the USA and others would begin increasing production of current and next gen models as the perceived threat of global war begins to grow. So, NATO ATGM stocks would probably be about the same or smaller as they were prior to the USSR's invasion of the PRC.

I think the net effect, however, would be similar to what we're seeing with the Ukraine War. Supply would barely be able to keep up with demand in the first year of the general war (including NATO engagement in Europe and elsewhere). I imagine that, even with full mobilization/total war economies, supply would lag behind demand in year 2 and, after the nuclear genie is let out the bottle, remaining supply would be more or less exhausted by the end of that year.

Does this seem reasonable Am I missing factors that would effect the numbers

-

Once again, this is why I have ALWAYS espoused a "come as you are war" for Twilight2000 and set my timeline up much more compactly.

Fair Warning: If you are a hardcore Disciple of Cannon, stop reading NOW! You may have a stroke if you read any further...

I have an "uprising" in Poland by a bunch of Russian-supported Communists who kick things off in 96. After the 96 US elections, the US begins supporting the Democratic government of Poland against the rebels (who are armed and supported by Russian SF). Germany and the Uk also step it. Things go hot in the summer of 97 after Poland attacks the rebels on Belarusian soil and Russia and Belarus then advance into Poland. NATO begins "picking sides" as do the non-aligned former PACT members. The war escalates in the fall of 99 as Russia is driven back into Belarus and limited nukes and large numbers of NON-PERSISTENT Chemical weapons begin flying. The US has JUST announced the DRAFT in the US and US industry hasn't even "spun up" to wartime production yet. Thus, to fill the gaps in equipment required, EVERYONE begins to dig out their older tech from the back of the closet. Thankfully, the US has REALLY DEEP closets! After the EXCHANGE (what I call my Thanksgiving day nuclear attack on the US), the US begins to break up. The players pick up in the fall of 2000, just 10 months after the EXCHANGE. I do these things because...

= There is no massive buildup of economic production to support the war. There simply wasn't enough time to mobilize the country.

= There is no massive mobilization of US & Canadian troops to Europe. NATO has what it has, and Russia has the advantage of being able to move troops (who were mobilized for China) into Europe to counter the multiple NATO countries with military commitments to Poland.

= The short timeline fits with modern military operations.

= The short timeline and less than a year since the EXCHANGE means that the CHARACTERS are still learning to "live off the land" just like the PLAYERS are!

I would also mention that I did this timeline in 1996.

[Homer]

ATGM use may well become tightly controlled even before TDM. Heavy ATGMs like TOW, HOT, and Spandrel generally provided a higher probability of hit and an similar probability of kill to tank main guns at longer optimal point target engagement ranges throughout the 90s. Once a controlled supply rate gets put on ammo (and it's usually early for missiles), there will likely be some fairly strict engagement criteria put in. Typical target priorities for TOWs under a CSR include ADA systems, engineer equipment, Artillery OP vehicles, ATGM vehicles, and C2 vehicles. By removing those early you open the way for other systems to operate with lower threat levels and disrupt key elements of the enemy formation.

If you want to have fun with wire guided missiles, remember the artillery or mortar splash call should fall just after or simultaneously with the first volley of TOWs and PGMs hitting so the rounds land just after. Prevents cut wires, interference with lasers, and fratricide of the missile while giving the enemy something to worry about instead of orienting on the AT units.

[swaghauler]

T34s in WWIII

This video says it all...

https://youtube.com/watchv=kT_ljkO3adY&feature=

Swag

[ToughOmbres]

Once again, this is why I have ALWAYS espoused a "come as you are war" for Twilight2000 and set my timeline up much more compactly.

Fair Warning: If you are a hardcore Disciple of Cannon, stop reading NOW! You may have a stroke if you read any further...

I have an "uprising" in Poland by a bunch of Russian-supported Communists who kick things off in 96. After the 96 US elections, the US begins supporting the Democratic government of Poland against the rebels (who are armed and supported by Russian SF). Germany and the Uk also step it. Things go hot in the summer of 97 after Poland attacks the rebels on Belarusian soil and Russia and Belarus then advance into Poland. NATO begins "picking sides" as do the non-aligned former PACT members. The war escalates in the fall of 99 as Russia is driven back into Belarus and limited nukes and large numbers of NON-PERSISTENT Chemical weapons begin flying. The US has JUST announced the DRAFT in the US and US industry hasn't even "spun up" to wartime production yet. Thus, to fill the gaps in equipment required, EVERYONE begins to dig out their older tech from the back of the closet. Thankfully, the US has REALLY DEEP closets! After the EXCHANGE (what I call my Thanksgiving day nuclear attack on the US), the US begins to break up. The players pick up in the fall of 2000, just 10 months after the EXCHANGE. I do these things because...

= There is no massive buildup of economic production to support the war. There simply wasn't enough time to mobilize the country.

= There is no massive mobilization of US & Canadian troops to Europe. NATO has what it has, and Russia has the advantage of being able to move troops (who were mobilized for China) into Europe to counter the multiple NATO countries with military commitments to Poland.

= The short timeline fits with modern military operations.

= The short timeline and less than a year since the EXCHANGE means that the CHARACTERS are still learning to "live off the land" just like the PLAYERS are!

I would also mention that I did this timeline in 1996.

I believe that in both our real time line and in the Twilight War it would be or have been very much a "come as you are conflict" with the pre-war estimates of ordnance expenditures woefully inadequate. The industrial output would ramp up as much as possible but not nearly enough to meet the staggering needs. Just my 02 cents.

[bash]

I believe that in both our real time line and in the Twilight War it would be or have been very much a "come as you are conflict" with the pre-war estimates of ordnance expenditures woefully inadequate. The industrial output would ramp up as much as possible but not nearly enough to meet the staggering needs. Just my 02 cents.

A nice game-y aspect of a come-as-you-are war would be that industrial production of weapons would have started to ramp up before TDM. The post-TDM collapse/destruction of infrastructure would have stopped that industrial output.

However PCs could end up finding ISO containers full of fresh high tech weapons delivered before TDM. A truck in the woods full of Javelins could change the local balance of power or be a MacGuffin the PCs are sent to retrieve or investigate. That container wasn't going to tilt the balance of the war but in the post-TDM environment would be pretty valuable.

[LoneCollector1987]

Logistics

I would like to add my thoughts.

Yes, you can ramp up production, but to do so, you need the resources (metal, computer chips etc) and of course the technicians and machinery to build the missiles.

Considering that you are at a high state of stress (war has broken out between two nuclear powers) I think that there would be a problem acquiring the necessary resources.
After all, if one side suspects or knows that you will supply the enemy what is going to stop him from meddling with your production
And that can range from asking people who sympathize with you staging protests like blockading lorries etc, sending sabotage troops up to sinking ships that carry those missiles.
I dont remember, but is ist possible to fire SAMs from submarines to hit a plane at standard flight height

And another thought:
What is the production time difference between a normal missile (TOW 1) to the most advanced form (TOW 2A)
And what is the difference in resources

Example:
What if you can produce 2 TOW1 in the same time you produce 1 TOW-2A
And what if you need the resources for 1,5 TOW1 to build 1 TOW-2A
That should be taken into account too.

[shrike6]

Example:
What if you can produce 2 TOW1 in the same time you produce 1 TOW-2A
And what if you need the resources for 1,5 TOW1 to build 1 TOW-2A
That should be taken into account too.

While this is interesting, youre forgetting one possible variable here. That is (using your example) if the manufacturer is building TOW-2As. Is the manufacturer still capable of making TOW-1 (ie are the components still available to manufacture it.) The manufacturer and its suppliers may have moved on and no longer making a key component(s) for the TOW-1.

[Vespers War]

While this is interesting, youre forgetting one possible variable here. That is (using your example) if the manufacturer is building TOW-2As. Is the manufacturer still capable of making TOW-1 (ie are the components still available to manufacture it.) The manufacturer and its suppliers may have moved on and no longer making a key component(s) for the TOW-1.

Of note, the US is currently running into this with the AIM-120 AMRAAM. Firing tests are underway for the AIM-120D3, which replaces obsolete components from the earlier AIM-120D variants with parts that are still in production.

[LoneCollector1987]

While this is interesting, youre forgetting one possible variable here. That is (using your example) if the manufacturer is building TOW-2As. Is the manufacturer still capable of making TOW-1 (ie are the components still available to manufacture it.) The manufacturer and its suppliers may have moved on and no longer making a key component(s) for the TOW-1.

On the one hand I agree with you.
Why still produce an outdated missile

The answer:Maybe you want the country you support not have the latest technology (maybe you dont trust them or have another problem with them) and maybe you dont want your latest technology fall into the hands of the enemy so that he can copy your technology which means that he catches up with you technology-wise and if there is a war between you then you will have more casualties.