RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to Angels of the Post-Holocaust: Twilight 2000

21:14, 5th May 2024 (GMT+0)

Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

Posted by helbent4For group 0
Kelsey Sarah Champlain
NPC, 659 posts
3/RSR - DRI
Master Corporal
Sat 11 Dec 2010
at 08:17
  • msg #8

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

In reply to Andrea Clarke-Sullivan (msg #7):

Kelsey was looking a little subdued herself. Unlike normal, she didn't greet her friend and roommate, Rachel, merely glancing her way.

When the information she discovered came to light, she brightened up. "Good news, at least in my opinion. I think the best approach is to go through my contact, let him make the first move. We'll meet on his terms, then. As well, he's a yank, so our lead negotiator should be American, too."

Kelsey sipped at her morning tea, becoming more awake.
Alain Belanger
GM, 100 posts
Provost
UBC
Sat 11 Dec 2010
at 08:19
  • msg #9

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

In reply to Kelsey Sarah Champlain (msg #8):

"Correct, the Faculty (the UBC governing council) will back any offer you make. It's worth it to begin salvage operations at the airport ASAP. Even more so to not risk lives. Most of our strength is tied up in consolidating our presence in the city."
Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko
player, 550 posts
Fmr. 62nd MRD
Senior Lieutenant
Sat 11 Dec 2010
at 08:40
  • msg #10

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

The mentioning of amphibious operation awoke the ex Lt. from his dizziness. Last night didn't slept very well:

Err...Excuse me...Well seems like...This is a bit embarrasing but seems like the original plan, the amphibious assault will not be possible to make!

I was completely unaware that the LAV vehicle, the american thing, cannot swim without special gear that I believe we don't have. Without it, the platoon is down 1/3 of the force and that's unacceptable!

We can still use the BMP-2 and the BTR-70 but I guess that only in a supporting role. I don't know if you are familiar with the term Bronnegruppa this was developed doctrinally in Afghanistan, namely to concentrate your APCs or IFVs into a unit that maneuvers independently to provide firepower support for the dismounted infantry. That will not change the need for the recce missions or the acquisition of mortars for fire support, of course...


There we go he thought, the first casualty is the plan....Even before starting:
Andrea Clarke-Sullivan
NPC, 318 posts
LT Commander
DRI/VIC
Sun 12 Dec 2010
at 14:01
  • msg #11

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

In reply to Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko (msg #10):

"The LAV is Canadian in manufacture, they all are, including the USMC LAV-25s."

Clarke sounded disappointed in the revelation. "That's too bad, at least most of the planning won't go to waste."

"Gunny Conklin, Rob, you said you had an idea for an assault over one of the bridges? If you wouldn't mind expanding on that, please, we can switch our focus."

Robert A. Conklin
player, 101 posts
3rd Recon, 3/3
GySGT
Mon 13 Dec 2010
at 07:58
  • msg #12

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

Rob nodded.
"It just seems to me with the fire power we have available we could easily use one of the bridges to get the LAVs into the AO. Taras would have to take a look at each of the defenses on them to determine which would be easiest to clear but I am sure we could get through atleast one and get our LAVs into the action. This is all for not if they have them rigged to blow or mined somehow of course."
Rob made a few gestures with his hands
"Use the amphib landing to lure away defenses or atleast distract them and then cross, Or vise-versa, assault a bridge and let that allow for an easier landing of the amphibs."

"Seems the main defense they have on the bridges to deal with our armor is shoulder fired and anything heavier then a 50 will cut through those m-113s so they aren't much of a threat besides to dismounts. We have the advantage in armor and heavy weaponry it seems. Why not exploit it."
If we turn this into a infantry fight then they have the advantage. They hold the high ground, the terminals and towers, we would have some concealment but little real cover out there. I'm not saying it can't be done but it could get pretty bloody if we dismount to early or resort to charges against a dug-in force."


Rob nods in Tara's direction. "I don't claim to be an expert on what static defenses can be cleared quickly and which the LAVs can simply roll over. What I was purposing is to overwhelm their outer defenses and then we pin them in the terminal buildings and then see if that sweeten's the deal we're offering a bit. I'd hate to have to root them out of those buildings."

Rob looked to the Commander.
"I'd also suggest getting our recon in ASAP and keep it going so we can exploit any weaknesses found in a timely manner. Three days from now is 3 wasted days to me. Can't plan out a recon like an assault. It's a bit more flowing then the usually set-piece battle. I am ready when ever ordered just give am a few hours to work out the details for Infil, Exfil and emergency extractions."
Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko
player, 552 posts
Fmr. 62nd MRD
Senior Lieutenant
Tue 14 Dec 2010
at 09:06
  • msg #13

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

You are right, Robert. It would be easy for us to conquer the bridge with superior firepower. We have remote controlled rockets and flamethrowers. But it will go against our Government of limited casualties policy and it will play in the hands of the Trolls as well.

Taras mas referring to Bulat's own ATGM (AT-4 Fagot) and his own RPO-A Shmel (thermobaric warhead).
Think for a moment like a chess player, folks. If you were the Trolls Commander where you will like your enemy to attack? Obviously in the bridge because that will give him time and options. He can reinforce, even blow it up as you well commented. He can even use the time available to escape.

I am glad that the bridge is a cantilever and not like the Lions Gate Bridge. It can be cleared but still is a dangerous bottleneck and we do not know yet the full extent of their weapons and if it is mined.


Taras mentioned the Lions Gate from a previous mission were the LAV III could not be deployed to the North Shore due to the weight restriction of 15 tons max. imposed on this suspension bridge.

My suggestion is to ask them to surrender. If they don't we blow up the tower and cross the river and assault the terminal with the soviet armor while we use the LAV III to pin down the bridge defenses.
Robert A. Conklin
player, 102 posts
3rd Recon, 3/3
GySGT
Tue 14 Dec 2010
at 10:43
  • msg #14

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

Rob nodded at Tara's remarks then speaks.
"I am afraid I have to disagree.
First to charge in without securing a good breach in their outer defenses leave you vulnerable from all angles. You have enemies attacking the assault team from all sides. Sure the LAVs could pin down a bridge but with very limited effectiveness. They could simply fall back to an area they are covered in. Our LAVs wouldn't have the flexibility to counter that while on this side of the river."

"Second, if anything was to happen to the few amphib vehicle we have the assault team would be trapped with enemies on all sides and no way for us to reinforce or extract them. it would be a death sentence."

"Third, yes the bridges could be mined or rigged but that is what our recon should tell us. I highly doubt they are dumb enough to rig to many of them because they would be cutting off their own escape routes. But taking at least one of those bridges and holding it gives the assault team the vital link to the UBC and reinforcement."

"Lastly, Its a win win. If they reinfoce the bridge then we have weakened another are of their defense. they they hold off on reinforcement then we take the bridge and he have our link to the UBC.No one is playing into their strengths if we anticipate their reaction and use it to our advantage. I want him to reinforce the bridge we are assaulting. This thins an already overstretched defense in other areas. It also exposes his troops during movement and may tip his hand as to what weaponry we don't yet know about. Let him concentrate his forces. It makes them easier to encircle using our secondary force. I understand it's a bottleneck but I'd rather assault through a bottleneck knowing the enemy is only at my front then be stuck in no man's land in the middle of the airport with enemies on all sides and no escape routes open to me."

"If you want to fight an engagement with a minimum lose of life make it as one sided as possible. Hit them as hard and as fast as you can from multiple angles. Most will surrender if given half a chance especially if we can encircle them. If we can capture or neutralize the outer defenses we can then concentrate on the terminal buildings and revisit negotiations with a lot more leverage. I don't want to see us assault those buildings unless there is no other choice. That is their home. Once inside we have lost most of our advantage and it will get damn bloody in there."

Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko
player, 553 posts
Fmr. 62nd MRD
Senior Lieutenant
Wed 15 Dec 2010
at 08:25
  • msg #15

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

Since the lack of amphibious capability of the LAV III ruins my plan I'm open to any other possibility. I am not very happy with a frontal assault on the bridge but if you think that we can pull it...so be it!
Alain Belanger
GM, 101 posts
Provost
UBC
Fri 17 Dec 2010
at 15:17
  • msg #16

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

In reply to Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko (msg #15):

"Well, we'll look into adding some kind of floatation to the LAV. See if that works. In the  mean time, it looks like some kind of assault over the bridges may be feasible, given the firepower we have."

"It's disappointing we didn't get more information from Kel's associate to make an alternative plan. Seth, I still want to hear something more definite from you, ASAP."


He looked a little nonplussed, although at what it's not clear. "I think Angela's going to want to follow up on the diplomatic angle. It's good to know Wright may be bought, but we have to get him to ask us or otherwise present any offer in such a way that doesn't tip him off his buddy is our man. If that's the case, then I think I can weasel some more time to work on Angela so she'll move back the schedule.

"That will give us time to see if we can buy munitions on Annacis Island or get a mortar from Vancouver Island command."

Kelsey Sarah Champlain
NPC, 660 posts
3/RSR - DRI
Master Corporal
Fri 17 Dec 2010
at 15:18
  • msg #17

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

"Well, sir, we should know a lot more tonight when Todd calls me back. I don't think anyone here would be shocked to hear I'd most like to follow up on the bribery aspect."
Zhang Rachel Lee
NPC, 226 posts
RCMP E Division
Corporal
Fri 17 Dec 2010
at 15:23
  • msg #18

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

Rachel cleared her throat.

"I'd like more time to look into buying additional heavy weapons on the black market. Realistically, that will take time. I've also shown my face there, but under a helmet and goggles I might not be recognised. Still, I'd be best off not showing my face there.

"Andy, I think you might be the best person to make a buy. Bear, the biker downtown, he knows you. It makes sense if you were buying and selling weapons, to get in touch with him or drop his name. As well, there is the biker in custody in the hospital. He might know someone, too. We may have to release him, or at least make him a deal."

Andrew Montgomery McRae
player, 354 posts
1/CAR - DRI
Master Sniper (Sergeant)
Fri 17 Dec 2010
at 19:40
  • msg #19

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

Andy rubbed his stubble thoughtfully and then made his reply, "If and when I go back to Bear I'm going to have to pony up a decent TOE for our units," he began, "I stalled last time telling him I wanted to make an effective assessment not a guesstimate. I know Taras suggested vastly inflating our strength, but we have to assume that Bear has a decent angle on our forces already and he's actually just triangulating information."

He looked over at Belanger, "Sir, I'd appreciate you or one of your people working up something I can give him that will work to our advantage without tipping my hand. Another issue about making the buy is what cover story should we use? I can't see Bear helping me with a trade specifically for us, we need a story that he can accept. I'd rather work through Bear than the HA in the hospital as we suspect he'd a cast iron murdering bastard. I'll go along with any plan but letting him go free goes against the grain."
Seth Joseph Delaney
player, 154 posts
Sergeant
PPCLI & RMR
Sat 18 Dec 2010
at 00:02
  • msg #20

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

At Belanger's mention of his name Seth looked for a point to put in his own thoughts.

"Firstly Sir I agree with Rob with regards to the timing of the recee mission.  I don't see any point in waiting three days, particularly as Taras has concerns about his plan now.  We need intel about the ground ASAP and it's better to take a risk on discovery and go tonight than wait three days and then take the same risk then!  A lot of our current discussions are very speculative because we don't have much intel so we need to spend some time collecting more!  Both from teams outside the Bridge Trolls territory observing their activities and a recon onto the island itself.

Secondly one possibility to investigate further is whether a commando team could take out the guards on one of the bridges at night, approaching from the island side and using silenced weapons, as part of a full armoured assault.  That would give us control of a bridge, potentially with time to clear a path for non amphibious vehicles to move onto the island.  It's bound to be boring duty for the guards at night so their discipline could well be sloppy but that's something for some recee teams to work out.  In fact the sniper teams might already be able to give us some intel along those lines.

Lastly if you need another option for talking to this Bear character then Keith and I are both new arrivals and, probably, unknown to him.  We could go and have a chat."


Seth didn't mention that he looked much like a biker himself.
Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko
player, 554 posts
Fmr. 62nd MRD
Senior Lieutenant
Sat 18 Dec 2010
at 07:05
  • msg #21

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

We can use the Russians...Andy or Seth can be a go-between the buyers and sellers: Bulat for instance or even Captain Bezhov. The "Russians" will look like kinda third party. Not too suspicious, I guess.
Zhang Rachel Lee
NPC, 227 posts
RCMP E Division
Corporal
Sat 18 Dec 2010
at 08:21
  • msg #22

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

In reply to Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko (msg #21):

"That actually works well! Yes, "Russians" will work. It'll also give you a chance to look at the merchandise. Plus, no one's seen your face."
Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko
player, 555 posts
Fmr. 62nd MRD
Senior Lieutenant
Sat 18 Dec 2010
at 08:46
  • msg #23

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

Captain Bezhov is an Artillery Officer. I'm afraid he's been doing Air Defense during the war and he may not be too familiar with certain NATO equipment. One of the local guys can help.

I didn't even know myself that Eriks was an anti tank rocket!

Alain Belanger
GM, 102 posts
Provost
UBC
Sat 18 Dec 2010
at 09:19
  • msg #24

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

In reply to Andrew Montgomery McRae (msg #19):

"Master McRae, I concur. Bear may well be the better way to go, and a plea bargain would not be necessary. Oh, I also have some people putting together some intelligence information to feed the Angels. For all we know, they might have moles in our organisation, something we try to keep an eye out for, but we can't get too cute."

He switched gears a little, still referring to the undercover information.

"We'll try and get an "in" for our buyers, here. Taras and Captain Bezhov can easily be supplied the requisite training. Both of you, as needed. This whole operation is going to take some time, of course."
Andrea Clarke-Sullivan
NPC, 319 posts
LT Commander
DRI/VIC
Sat 18 Dec 2010
at 09:37
  • msg #25

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

In reply to Seth Joseph Delaney (msg #20):

"Yes, I see the point, both of you." Clarke nodded at both Seth and Rob, responding to their comments on a recce operation.

"On one hand, while recce can suggest a course of action, in my experience things are usually done the other way around. That is, first we decide a plan of action and our objectives, even if tentative, then we do recce in support of the objective."

"So here's what we're going to do."

"Gunny Conklin, we're going to go with your idea. Choose one option, either an amphibious crossing in support of clearing a bridge, or clearing a bridge to assist in a crossing. I need you to put together a operational plan. From that, we'll decide what the objectives are, and then any recce will be in direct support of those objectives. I'm not ruing anything else out but Jesus, we need to start somewhere!"

"Let's have that planning done tonight. Kelsey's contact can supply some basic information on defences. Then a hand picked team of volunteers will go in tonight, and it need not be the last time we go in. Merely the first."

"Okay, so what else do we need to cover? What needs to get done today? So far, we need to establish an OP. I think the site that Rob found, the Airport Square building overlooking the Arthur Liang Bridge, should do nicely."


OOC: The OP that was established earlier that day and that Rob and Andy visited was on a multi-story  building that has "Airport Square" on the side. It's to the immediate north of the Arthur Lang Bridge, on the Vancouver side. Google maps doesn't show it, but it can be clearly seen in Street View.

http://tinyurl.com/24sm3tf
This message was last edited by the GM at 09:55, Sat 18 Dec 2010.
Keith Michael Tremblay
player, 78 posts
Former USMC Infantry
'Hotel Five'
Wed 22 Dec 2010
at 01:31
  • msg #26

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

"I may not be able to help out so much in a recon but, my training should be able to help better with an amphibious assault, if we decide to go that way.  I will be honest and say that my snooping skills aren't what they should be.  However, I'm here for any kind of support if needed should we go that way.  My gear that I brought with me is also at your disposal, especially the ATGM."
Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko
player, 558 posts
Fmr. 62nd MRD
Senior Lieutenant
Wed 22 Dec 2010
at 06:39
  • msg #27

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

I have no doubt that everybody will try their best! A basic recce on the objective shouldn't be too difficult. Our expert sharpshooters will be taking the worst part with the watch. As per my own training I will focus mostly on the bridge structures and any possible obstacle to the advance of our forces. For that matter I may need some sort of security detail. We will tailor a proper team for the task!
Keith Michael Tremblay
player, 79 posts
Former USMC Infantry
'Hotel Five'
Wed 22 Dec 2010
at 13:39
  • msg #28

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko:
I have no doubt that everybody will try their best! A basic recce on the objective shouldn't be too difficult. Our expert sharpshooters will be taking the worst part with the watch. As per my own training I will focus mostly on the bridge structures and any possible obstacle to the advance of our forces. For that matter I may need some sort of security detail. We will tailor a proper team for the task!

"Well shit, if it's a security you need then count me in!"
Alain Belanger
GM, 103 posts
Provost
UBC
Fri 24 Dec 2010
at 10:53
  • msg #29

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

"Good to hear! We may have some bunkers to bust and some tracks to take out. Suitable jobs for an Eryx missile. A little short-range for some areas, but suitable for our purposes in some cases. I think that's it for now."
helbent4
GM, 1267 posts
aka Tony
Fri 24 Dec 2010
at 11:19
  • msg #31

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

It was getting late and there wasn't a lot of time to further complete any tasks that day. They still had to hear from Todd, then with the information he would hopefully supply they could perform the first of perhaps more than one recces, starting that night. With the meeting winding down, people would be best served by getting some sleep.
Andrea Clarke-Sullivan
NPC, 321 posts
LT Commander
DRI/VIC
Fri 24 Dec 2010
at 11:21
  • msg #32

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

"I'll see if Vancouver Island can spare another 60mm mortar. Maybe Jagelis can bring the one he took back. Also, see if they can convince the UBC leadership to allow us some more time to carry out an operation. I just don't know if a little under a week is enough time!"

"When I passed my report to Vancouver Island HQ command, they made a formal request for an operational plan ASAP so they can make recommendations and a final approval. Unfortunately, that's the way it is, it's standard procedure."

"Who wants to command the recce tonight? It's going to be an all-volunteer show. Taras, you want the honour?"

Keith Michael Tremblay
player, 80 posts
Former USMC Infantry
'Hotel Five'
Fri 24 Dec 2010
at 15:18
  • msg #33

Re: Deal or No Deal (19/04/01, 2000-0000)

Alain Belanger:
"Good to hear! We may have some bunkers to bust and some tracks to take out. Suitable jobs for an Eryx missile. A little short-range for some areas, but suitable for our purposes in some cases. I think that's it for now."

The exscitement on Keith's face is more apparent now that it seems that he has found a function within the unit.  "By God then Mr. Belanger, I'll make sure that I'm loaded and ready to go by the time we have to jump off!"
Sign In