Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Guns a GoGo and the Twilight War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Legbreaker
    The prime year 2000 helicopter example has to be Krakows.

    It's in virtually mint condition, more weapons and ammo than it can carry, but never flies because it's just too valuable to risk ANYTHING happening to it.
    That sort of makes it like a nuclear weapon today -- simultaneously extremely valuable and profoundly worthless.
    I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes

    Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com

    Comment


    • #17
      Yep, ain't life in 2000 grand! You've got what everyone wants and fears but can't use it just in case your mechanic forgot to tighten that one critical nut properly.

      :/
      If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

      Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

      Mors ante pudorem

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Legbreaker
        Yep, ain't life in 2000 grand! You've got what everyone wants and fears but can't use it just in case your mechanic forgot to tighten that one critical nut properly.
        You almost inspired me to change my sig to "Always be sure that your critical nuts are tight".
        sigpic "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Raellus
          I think Chinooks would be particularly vulnerable. They are rather big targets and not quite as fast and/or manouverable as an Apache or a Hokum. Using a Chinook as a gunship against modestly-armed insurgents might work OK, but they would be easy pickings on a battlefield with modern ADW.
          I don't think modern ADWs would be any more common than operational aircraft in 2000. Most would be guns, which have a secondary role against ground targets, but are inferior to SAMs against flying things.

          (I'll note that I see the supply situation as being worse than canon generally suggests)
          A generous and sadistic GM,
          Brandon Cope

          http://copeab.tripod.com

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Targan
            You almost inspired me to change my sig to "Always be sure that your critical nuts are tight".
            I don't even know if my critical nuts are tight -- they haven't had any screwing in a while...
            I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes

            Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by copeab
              I don't think modern ADWs would be any more common than operational aircraft in 2000. Most would be guns, which have a secondary role against ground targets, but are inferior to SAMs against flying things.

              (I'll note that I see the supply situation as being worse than canon generally suggests)
              SAMs (at least man portable ones) will require a lot less maintenance than any aircraft. The are also more numerable to start with. Add to that the fact that many Apaches brought down in Iraq were taken down by RPGs and I still feel ground fire will come out with a serious advantage.

              Comment


              • #22
                Well, in my opinion, one point commonly forgotten in the T2K background is the availability of light civilian aircraft. I know that I'm going a little off thread here...but taking as example old and proven planes like the Cessna 152 or 172, series etc. we'll have less electronic devices and less mechanical complexity than in our present-day cars. Airports availability will be a minor problem for this type of planes (one only needs to see some of the air strips used in South America or Africa) and some of them, depending of their prewar role, could be equipped with floating devices or skies.


                They would be worth its weight in gold and their owners would use them accordingly, keeping the risks at minimum. That's specially true if taking into account their extreme vulnerability to small arms fire at low altitude. These type of planes, for example, would be key pieces in large territories with low density of military units and isolated population areas. Of course, fuel would be still a problem. But they have a low fuel consumption and less maintenance requirements (and less electronics) than other heavier aircraft. And the basics of flying are easy to learn with these planes, being easier for a pilot to instruct an apprentice. Good reasons to try to keep them flying in the Twilight world.


                Among their normal roles, and depending of their load capacity, we could find: the light transport of critical materials (spare parts, medicines...) or people (technicians, doctors, an injured or sick person...), air mail, observation (location of marauder bands or refugees, monitoring the direction of a dangerous forest fire). Although their vulnerability, other, more dangerous roles are possible. Forward observer, target signalling with rockets...the Cessna Skymaster is a good example of these types of mission (do you remember "BAT 21") .
                L'Argonauta, rol en català

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Marc
                  Well, in my opinion, one point commonly forgotten in the T2K background is the availability of light civilian aircraft.
                  Headquarters said the same thing in a post earlier in this thread.
                  sigpic "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by kato13
                    SAMs (at least man portable ones) will require a lot less maintenance than any aircraft. The are also more numerable to start with.
                    The problem is that man-portable SAMs, unlike man-portable ATGMs, have no useful secondary role. I can't see soldiers carrying a Stinger when so few aircraft are flying when they could be carrying something far more useful.

                    Bases, which don't have to worry about having the things around, would be more likely to have SAMs, but they are still one-trick ponies waiting for an unlikely show, so I don't see them being that well maintained even by units that do have still have them.
                    A generous and sadistic GM,
                    Brandon Cope

                    http://copeab.tripod.com

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I always thought the game was badly supported by GDW in terms of aircraft - why did we need stats for a Galaxy and a Starlifter in the Nautical Aviation book - surely players in both T2K and Merc are more likely to run into a cessna than them I'd the same issue with the US vehicle guide in particular - surely they could have given stats for something more useful than a laser AA gun that there were only ever a handful of in the game world. Paul, I can't remember, have you civvy light aircraft stats on your site
                      Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by TiggerCCW UK
                        I always thought the game was badly supported by GDW in terms of aircraft - why did we need stats for a Galaxy and a Starlifter in the Nautical Aviation book - surely players in both T2K and Merc are more likely to run into a cessna than them I'd the same issue with the US vehicle guide in particular - surely they could have given stats for something more useful than a laser AA gun that there were only ever a handful of in the game world. Paul, I can't remember, have you civvy light aircraft stats on your site
                        I used to have some civilian cars, but I've never had civilian aircraft. And the T2K rules for aircraft and seacraft both suck -- the versions in Challenge magazine (the Air Modules) were the best, but they were still not that good. T2K doesn't really lend itself to aircraft very well, unfortunately, and I don't know enough about seacraft to do any real justice to them.
                        I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes

                        Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Brian S
                          Isn't that true about any helicopter So your saying MH-47s are a bad idea too
                          Yes, unfortunately, it's true of any helicopter or low-flying aircraft. That's why you use them carefully -- special ops helicopters fly mostly at night, and if you have it, you fly helicopters and aircraft with plenty of SEAD and support on the ground to kill those shoulder-launched missiles and light AAA.
                          I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes

                          Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by copeab
                            The problem is that man-portable SAMs, unlike man-portable ATGMs, have no useful secondary role. I can't see soldiers carrying a Stinger when so few aircraft are flying when they could be carrying something far more useful.
                            In "Cardnal and the Kremlin" they were used against heated guard towers. I bet in real life that would be a possibility. The also would be somewhere, In a vehicle, back at base, somewhere. If they are functional I cannot see a commander abandoning them.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by kato13
                              In "Cardnal and the Kremlin" they were used against heated guard towers. I bet in real life that would be a possibility. The also would be somewhere, In a vehicle, back at base, somewhere. If they are functional I cannot see a commander abandoning them.
                              During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, some Blowpipes (British-built shoulder-launched SAMs) were sent down the pipe to the Mujaheddin. The Mujaheddin found them to be poor SAMs -- but discovered that they were great against light armor and soft-skinned vehicles, and that's how most Blowpipes were used by the Mujaheddin. The Blowpipe uses a command-guidance system similar to SACLOS-guided AAMs and ATGMs -- a big reason they could be used against ground targets. A Stinger doesn't guide that well against ground targets.
                              I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes

                              Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                You seem to be right Paul. I should have researched first. Clutter from ground heat seems to confuse the seeker. In "CotK" Clancy rectified that by having it be night and winter as well as having having the targets be heated and above ground. The scenarios where they would be useful would be few, but I still see commanders holding on to them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X