User avatar
omnipus
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon 22 Jun 2020, 20:58

Re: [ALPHA] "so i am missing x vehicle/gear/weapon"

Mon 30 Nov 2020, 19:33

For reasons I am relatively okay with, the books really make no mention of which T-64s, T-72s, T-80s, BMPs, etc. If you are not familiar with Russian industrial naming conventions and background, it is super confusing. T-64As and Bs and BVs and T-72Ms, M2s, Ss, T-80A and B and U and UM and on and on and on. A T-72 can certainly be markedly superior to a T-64, and vice versa, depending on the versions encountered (which most laymen could never tell apart). Polish T-55s (AMs) would actually be superior to any Russian ones you would find (and look distinctly different), while Polish T-72s would be inferior to the Russian ones. It is a mess -- in part by design by the Soviets.

It would be nice to have this level of detail (along with support for things like reactive and composite armor and so on) -- but I am perfectly fine with that being withheld until supplemental/optional books can come out. I understand that FL is trying to cast a broader net initially, which is probably a good thing. The 1E/2E didn't make these distinctions either, really. In part because back then nobody actually knew all of this information, and instead we didn't up with weird guesses like the remote-turret T-90 and "AKR." But also because it's not primarily a game about tank combat.

However I will note that the 30mm autocannon was only on the BTR-80A variant, which was not super common. The base BTR-80 still had only a 14.5mm and was far more common. But again if this distinction is being made just for game reasons (BTR-80 = super scary! Earlier BTRs = only mostly very scary!) then I am fine with it.
 
AEB
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat 19 Sep 2020, 06:01

Re: [ALPHA] "so i am missing x vehicle/gear/weapon"

Tue 01 Dec 2020, 06:47

Just noticed that everyones' favourite improvised weapon the MOLOTOV COCKTAIL is missing. Even with fuel being scarce a bottle of flammable liquid is useful enough that they will be used, particularly against vehicles.
 
swedishtrex
Topic Author
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri 27 Nov 2020, 12:52

Re: [ALPHA] "so i am missing x vehicle/gear/weapon"

Tue 01 Dec 2020, 18:16

Just noticed that everyones' favourite improvised weapon the MOLOTOV COCKTAIL is missing. Even with fuel being scarce a bottle of flammable liquid is useful enough that they will be used, particularly against vehicles.
 
swedishtrex
Topic Author
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri 27 Nov 2020, 12:52

Re: [ALPHA] "so i am missing x vehicle/gear/weapon"

Fri 04 Dec 2020, 21:28

So...the sheridan, i know it was taken out of service by 97 but well over 80k produced and used even in desert storm. One would abolutly asume that i would have stayed in service given the cirumstances, especially with ammo and trained crews at hand.
 
User avatar
Vader
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2019, 14:11
Location: The Frozen North

Re: [ALPHA] "so i am missing x vehicle/gear/weapon"

Fri 04 Dec 2020, 22:27

So...the sheridan, i know it was taken out of service by 97 but well over 80k produced and used even in desert storm. One would abolutly asume that i would have stayed in service given the cirumstances, especially with ammo and trained crews at hand.

Not unlikely. In the historical timeline, many still perfectly serviceable, even excellent systems were taken out of service prematurely (Fpl 37, anyone?) because the political climate at the time thought they had become redundant.

Is the M551 one of those that would have remained in service? It had its own advantages, but also a fair bunch of disadvantages. It probably would not have much use as an infantry support vehicle, partly due to low rate of fire, partly because the Bradley's chain gun did a fair job in that capacity by itself, and its TOW launchers superior in the anti-tank role to the Shillelagh (the M113 needed the support better).
But they might still well be deployed in a recon role, same as during Desert Shield/Desert Storm, why not?
[i]Before[/i] clicking that response button — [i]are you sure you actually [b]read[/b] it?[/i]

...[i]and[/i] checked if something more was posted on the subject [b]after[/b] it? ;)
 
AEB
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat 19 Sep 2020, 06:01

Re: [ALPHA] "so i am missing x vehicle/gear/weapon"

Sat 05 Dec 2020, 04:27

The Sheridans were moved from National Guard service to training purposes in 1996. So there would still be a fair number around, the issue is would they have been shipped to Europe before everything broke down.

I could see the M551 playing a major role back in the USA in 2000 rather than in Europe.

Now given that a number of NATO countries like Turkey were still using the M48 Patton in 1997 you could see those on the Europe battlefield.
 
welsh
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun 29 Nov 2020, 15:53

Re: [ALPHA] "so i am missing x vehicle/gear/weapon"

Sat 05 Dec 2020, 05:57

I think most likely for equipment that was withdrawn from service just before the game time frame, it would be found back in the United States (or whatever country) pressed into service on the home front as the situation deteriorated. Likely the resources to get it to the front in Europe would not have existed.
 
User avatar
pansarskott
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2020, 19:29

Re: [ALPHA] "so i am missing x vehicle/gear/weapon"

Sat 05 Dec 2020, 07:47

Sheridan's IRL retirement in 1996 would probably have been postponed. But when I looked up production numbers (because 80000 seemed way to high), it looks like about 1600 were produced in total from 1959 onwards.

The Sheridans would probably be where the 82nd Airborne is (or has been and couldn't bring their Sheridans when they moved) . Wherever that is?
 
welsh
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun 29 Nov 2020, 15:53

Re: [ALPHA] "so i am missing x vehicle/gear/weapon"

Sat 05 Dec 2020, 18:08

Given the emphasis on survival, it would be nice to have the game include an air rifle. Not effective for combat but handy for small game and quiet for parties trying not to attract attention. And ammo can be made by local cottage industries by melting down wheel weights etc. from abandoned vehicles.

Requests like this are kind of icing on the cake and of course there are lots of military firearms missing, but it's nice to expand the civilian options also imo.

BTW thinking on the numerous suggestions to lose the zip guns: if Poland has lost 75% of its population, you still have 9 million people, which is going to be more people than you have guns. Poland has one civilian-owned firearm for every forty people as it stands today, and the influx even of millions of military firearms (some of which then get melted in nuclear strikes) isn't going to arm everyone. There is a place in the game for improvised firearms.
 
User avatar
Ursus Maior
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue 25 Aug 2020, 20:58
Contact:

Re: [ALPHA] "so i am missing x vehicle/gear/weapon"

Mon 07 Dec 2020, 14:45

Also the fluff on the T- series tanks is wrong. The T-72 is not a replacement for the T-64, as the T-80 was not designed to fight alongside the T-72.

[...]

also the M1 (turbine) is much faster than the T-64 and T-72 (conventional diesels). The T-80 is a fuel guzzler as the M1.. but in game it has the same consumption as the diesels...

Oh... the T-90 should be there, it was entering serviced in 1990...
1) I commented on that, too, via Dropbox. The T-series is represented quite inaccurately in the alpha edition and that's strange, since even Wikipedia gets it right (not to mention more traditional literature). The T-72 was more or less a back-up project developed in order to have a design that could outfit tank units after the begin of war, when producing the T-64 would have been to difficult and expensive. During the 60s it was then decided to produce what would become the T-72 anyhow, essentially as a cheaper alternative to the T-64. The T-64 and its redesign, the T-80, also were not exported and thus the T-72 became the true successor to the heritage tanks of the T-54/55/62 development line.

2) The fuel guzzling of the M1 was enormous, indeed, especially in the beginning. When the M1 arrived in divisions, the divisions were calculated to have a sevenfold need in fuel in total compared to a division equipped with M60s. At least that was the calculation in the early 80s and should reflect in the attributes of the vehicle. The T-80, basically a vastly improved T-64, would have guzzled less, as Soviet tanks were lighter. But it should still put a strain on any party trying to keep one going.

3) Indeed, the T-90 had entered service in 1992, though in very limited numbers. The T-90 is also not what NATO intelligence services had predicted a T-90 to be like. The hypothetical T-90, feared to come about during the 80s, was sketched out in the original T2K. That never materialized, nor did the Leopard 3 or laser weapons. The actual T-90 is a redesigned T-72B implementing advanced technology from the T-80 series. The goal was to have a single type of tank supersede the T-64, T-72 and T-80 hodgepodge of the ground forces. However during the 90s less than 200 tanks were actually produced, thanks to all the mess Russia was in. However those were part of the Siberian Military District forces and thus could be part of a first counter-counterattack force in T2K's 1996.
liber & infractus

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests