New thread initiated.

Please post away!

Tony
This message was last updated by the GM at 23:59, Tue 23 June 2020.

I mean, if I REALLY want a pistol that'll stand up against armor, I have a TT-33.

Once I gave a try to a NORINCO clone of a P-226 in 7,62 mm Tokarev. Boy, wasn't that fun! Apparently Pakistan bought 80,000 of those.

The whole point behind the M-3 was to clear a track of unwanted riders, at least how I was taught to use it.  Not accurate for a damn at much range, but reliable and packs a punch with that ACP.

In reply to Kelsey Sarah Champlain (msg # 4):

Yeah, delousing.  M3s were a wee bit before my time, but I want to get a semi-auto one someday...

Did the Canadians use the para or folding stock versions of the FAL?

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 6):

The only version of the "FN" (as they are called) the CF used was with the fixed wooden buttstock, even in airborne units.

Funny anecdote about cleaning sand out of the FN:

"The sand issue is overplayed with the Canuck FN, here's an example from the days when I carried one.

During a day of "advance to contact" training, our platoon commander "asked" a few of us to lend our "shootin' irons" to three American reserve officers that wanted to go in on the next advance up into some sand dunes. I quite enjoyed the smoke break and when the shootin' was over the smiling Yank returned my beloved FN rifle with the curt complaint that "It broke". Time for IA's and Stoppages. Action is stuck to the rear, check mag, empty of rounds but full of sand, roll over rifle, pour sand out of action (Canuck FN has a cutaway body cover with a bridge for using charging clips), drop mag, with thumb depressing holding open device bash butt of rifle against a stout tree, action is released, ask Yank "Can you do that with an M16?", worked the action a few times and it was ready to go. Faster than you can read this I had it back in service, after all I used to train cadets to strip and assemble it in under a minute, while blindfolded.

Although the cut away body cover allowed debris to get into the action it also made it easier to clean it out as well."
Thanks,

Tony

In reply to helbent4 (msg # 7):

Well, we can do that with an M16, although because it's designed different our equivalent for a stuck bolt is holding it upright & stomping on the charging handle.  I know i can dissaemble/reassemble the M4 in under a minute blindfolded.  AK was under the same time hack, but a little longer than M4 since you have to dick around with getting the bolt & bolt carrier/piston properly aligned.  Never had any real trouble with my FAL, except if the little trigger bar thing came out; that was a pain to get back in place.

I know the FrankenFAL I have was build by a Century.  It's a mish-mash; metric upper on an inch lower with a metric magwell.  My bolt is Aussie, most of the furniture is now aftermarket & I had to swap a terrible barrel for an Angentinian new-old stock one.  But it shoots fine now.

Not quite as good at my AR10 though.

Regarding the FAL in Canadian service, there was a fully automatic version called the C1D used by naval boarding parties. These weapons were fitted with a change lever and trigger plunger from the automatic C2 version, though without the C2's heavy barrel and bipod. The rifle was identified with a large A on the side of the butt near the rear sight, painted in either red or white. Some C1Ds were eventual placed in service with land force units.  Another detail is the "Arctic trigger" that allowed the trigger guard to be removed so the weapon could be fired with heavy mitts on.

In reply to Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko (msg # 9):

Cool.

M16/M4 trigger guards are actually just held on at the front by a detent pin so you can open them up (theoretically using the tip of a round) to allow use with heavy gloves.

Besides Diemaco, I've been taking a look at the gun manufacturers in Canada that could have a sort of imprint in the game's timeline. Para-Ordnance comes to mind. Although it ended up fully owned, operated and moved down South it did have some interesting M-1911 based products.

Also, there is decent size Savage  arms factory on Ontario. Not long ago I recall they won a UK contract to supply the cadets with a .22 cal rifle. Seems that Savage is present in Canada now for more than 50 years and a facility like that could be turned into a government asset of sorts.

Other assets in country include Prairie Gun Works, nowadays they specialize in high precision rifles and they seem to be quite good at it.

Century Arms/Century International Arms?  They mainly handle imports, but they do some manufacturing (poorly) themselves.

You could also make an argument that some US manufacturers closer to the border might move north or decentralize into Canada; Colt's HQ is in Connecticut.
This message was last edited by the player at 01:55, Sat 27 June 2020.

Heard horror stories about Century.

In reply to Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko (msg # 13):

I have a couple from them.  The aforementioned FrankenFAL.  The reason the barrel was terrible was because, in order to comply with silly importation regs, they removed the flash hider & threading by literally taking a chopsaw & cutting the barrel right behind the threads.  Totally removing the crown.

That's why I had to have the barrel swapped.  It also had a hideous thumbhole stock...

My AK-clone from them isn't great either.  It works, but they've built ones before with a canted gas block/front sight; not good fro several reasons.  People have also seen them wear prematurely due to low-quality metal.

Thank you for sharing. Definitely confirmation of my scuttlebutt.

And those thumbhole stocks... I've seen some sheer ugliness back in the days. Was that a California thing?

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

I’m not sure.  I bought it in Texas (yeehaw), but I’m not sure of it’s providence previously.  It may also have just been an import thing.  Or maybe they just suck.  I don’t know why Century does the things it does.

Looks like it may be related to the 1994 assault weapons ban. "Sporterizing" an existing AR using a thumbhole stock and limiting the mag capacity would render the weapon legal.

Ah, the nineties...

That may well be it, although Century still does perplexing things.  I’ve seen their (semi-auto) AKM-clones being sold at a chain store nearby.  They had the slant-cut brake removed and replaced with a thread protector that was tack-welded on.  Why?  Who the fuck knows.

Hit and miss and then the botched jobs. Seemengly they are slowly clearing their act. There always be Bryco types out for the taking.

Gaston Glock surely is a hard nut to crack. Old article that narrates his survival to a vicious plastic hammer attack and his no less ferocious response:

https://www.forbes.com/global/...20.html#27061bec3eb5
This message was last edited by the player at 20:33, Mon 29 June 2020.

Yeah, he’s a tough ol’ bird.

For as much as I enjoy Glocks, I should try to get one of his e-tools or knives...

That article reads like a Tom Clancy novel!

In reply to Christopher Little Hawk MacDonald (msg # 22):

Indeed it does. More of a Forsyth flavor if you compute the old mercenary hired for the hit.

I remember the late 80s ads of the Glock pistols being featured nicely paired with a black, sharp looking knife of the same brand. I can't tell about the quality but surely be decent.

Regrettably there are also common blades out there riding the banner of well known companies to further business on that account. Similar to the Mauser brand use for anything from pocket knives to a rotating barrel pistol with fleeting success.

Smith & Wesson has a line of knives that are generally crap.

That said, the first Glock handgun was '17' because it was his seventeenth submitted design; he had previously contract with the Austrian military for knives & entrenching tools, so he has some pedigree.

Weird...

I happen to own an 1895 Chilean Mauser (Mauser Chileno Modelo 1895) manufactured by Ludwig Loewe Company.

I don't think about the company as much as the patent, and the late 20th century is rife with examples of brand exploitation in particular.

Yes, the 17th patent. I've seen some Smith and Wesson blades and wasn't impressed. But that crap sells. Same as the S&W Sigma sold to unsuspecting customers back in the day. A female Sargent I knew got it because "it was the same" as the Glock that was already sold out...

Quality always comes with a price tag and there always be car salesman to sweeten the deal.

Mauser was a brand name for several decades but after being reduced to an autogun maker, like that of the Tornado or Eurofighter, not much is left of the previous glory but a well known brand name, especially in Europe.

In reply to Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko (msg # 26):

For blades I usually stick to Kabar, SOG or Gerber (excluding mil-surp).  Plenty of other good makers I'm sure out there, but those are ones I have used a lot of & trust.

Back in the late 1990s, SAMCO GLOBAL ARMS of Miami Fl. imported a good deal of chilean 1895s, rifles and carbines. Superb quality. The '95 was a variant of the '93, maybe not as strong as the original but totally fine for handling the 7x57. Bayonets and scabbards were also available  These were manufactured by Weyesberg, Kirhsbaum & Co. of Solingen. German center of excellence for blades.

Gerber, SOG, etc are great brands. I'm mulling over getting my hands on a CRKT folder. My current everyday carry is a "John Deere" 2 inch pocket knife. Useful as hell. That and a Pentax 8x24 UCF pair of binoculars.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:47, Tue 30 June 2020.

In reply to Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko (msg # 28):

I forgot CRKT (at least their folders).  I have had several of their folders over the years; they're great quality.  I would definitely recommend them.

I still have the Buck 119 I wore on my webgear from 88-94, though I now favor a Gerber Strongarm instead.  I have had a lot of Gerbers, and they seem to walk off, my Buck never walked off.

I prefer Victorinox, Leatherman, and Kershaw folders.

As far as binos, I got a GREAT deal deal on surplus UK L12 binos a ways back.

I have a Gerber Prodigy, which is the slightly shorter version of the Strongarm; wonderful knife.  I think the only fixed blade I actually carried was a an M7 bayonet I procured myself (issue would have been the M9 bayonet, but they didn't actually issue those out anyway).

GM, how's it coming with Jack?  Get him to join us here in the OOC so we can get to know him!

Ah, the truncated binocs!

IIRC the L12 got a bad rep at the times of the Falklands War. Taras, my character, is currently hauling a pair of 1970s vintage civilian Bell & Howell 8x40 EWA (Extra Wide Angle). Also with a good deal of truncation (I bought them for $18 at a charity shop). Great japanese optics as the time demanded, before everything went "Made in China". Also, my current Pentax are truncated.

While the design allows for a more compact approach that is always useful, more so in a pocket bino, for a full size military issue like the L12 makes "point and shoot" not as intuitive as in a more streamlined design like a roof prism. This and issues with a loss of collimation were the main concerns I believe. This is true, I have porro prisms as well as more traditional layouts and it is noticeable in activities such as bird watching or plane spotting. But essentially the best binocular is the one that you have on you. The reduced size of the Pentax always fit in a bag pocket. Luckily I paid CAN $10 for them brand new from a lady on facebook. Bless her.

I believe the UK Forces are currently issued with the cute Steiner 8x30 with a reticle to replace the old L12. Me wants! Is Christmas yet?
This message was last edited by the player at 02:28, Wed 01 July 2020.

I dunno about any of that.  We had Steiner binos in the US Army; they were very nice, but kinda heavy & usually got left in the vic.  I think we used the PAS-13 (thermal viewer) more than actual binos.  I believe it went up to 10x.

Yep, Steiner for the US Army, "armored casing" makes the weight goes up easily and the comfort of carrying them is gone. Also a few image stabilisers (14x40) are in service. I've seen some mini Tasco, very handy and fitting nicely in a pocket in recent ops too. The US Navy uses Fujinon and the "big eyes" of course, onboard the ships. The Marines I believe they still rely on Bausch & Lomb, etc.

The Canadian Forces use ELCAN binocs and the newer Fujinon. The old leicas are featured in our $10 bill:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note201922.html
This message was last edited by the player at 02:49, Wed 01 July 2020.

In reply to Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko (msg # 26):

I usually carry a Leatherman multi-tool. Nothing special as a weapon but dang useful! Almost lost it going through Than Son Nhut International departing Sai Gon (Ho Chi Minh City). Customs picked up a couple cartridge casings in my backpack as it was getting checked. (A couple 7.62x39mm and 7.62x25 cases from an AKM/Type 56 and a Tokarev we shot off in Cambodia.) These were apparently considered "explosive devices" despite being spend casings, and having already gone through several airport check-ins. It was a bummer to lose them but I realised I forgot I still had my Leatherman on my belt, so this gave me a chance to slip it into my pack and not get it taken away for having a knife. I looked in the round clear Plexiglass bin where other banned items were chucked and noted that lighters shaped like realistic-looking RDG-5 hand grenades were very popular!

As for Jack, as of last week he was still interested but making his character. I've PMd him to get him moving a little on his character. We'll see what happens!

Tonyu

I leave my multi-tool at home when international travel is involved. And the lockpicks...

The Strongarm is fantastic, so the Prodigy must be much of the same.

I own an M7 myself, but they are pretty useless for anything but stabbing someone.  Artillery doesn't issue out bayonets either, they keep them in a box in the arms room, never saw them issued, but did see the armorer lovingly cleaning them one time.

I rather enjoy my TT33; it’s a snappy little pistol with some ‘oomph’ to it.



I bought mine because I think the M7 bayonet is better designed that the M9 bayonet for... well, bayoneting.  And neither my infantry or cav unit issued bayonets either.

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 39):

They figure we will stick each other with them.

Probably a valid concern.

Happy Canada Day!

I will not argue that point.

With your chrome heart shining
In the sun
Long may you run!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIk1O8l2czk

Tony

You will ride eternal, shiny and chrome!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhm-4kDBhio

For Canada

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gHYm112ByQ

And 'America Day' is coming up on the 4th.

Leatherman entered the multitool back in 1983. About ten years later and in a world faraway, the classic swiss army knife was still going strong. Due to the quality of Spanish manufacture I was able to buy an Aitor Alligator. Still use it anytime I go back to Spain. Then the made in China took away lots of business and the quality too due to contracting etc. A few solid brands still deliver in country like Muela.

Hopefully I will be able to travel soon back to the UK. I'm interested in some souvenir from Sheffield. Heard is the equivalent of the german Solingen?
This message was last edited by the player at 22:43, Wed 01 July 2020.

In reply to Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko (msg # 48):

My leatherman.

Looking sharp!

This is my Aitor:
https://www.amazon.ca/Aitor-AI...driver/dp/B0051CJHEC

Quite heavy and no lock for the blade but almost paid by itself back in the days unobstructing tampered pay phones in a mall. Yep, I was a mall cop back then, lol.

I have had a couple multitools over the years, my current favorite is SOG.

https://images-na.ssl-images-a...L2VL._AC_SL1500_.jpg

I got one as a ‘prize’ from my platoon sergeant in the light world for finishing first in a land-nav course.  I love it.  The jaws are geared so you get better grip & I just feel like it’s all-around stronger than a Leatherman.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:57, Wed 01 July 2020.

Looks amazing! Congrats.

Thanks.  Yours is snazzy as well.

And my dad has, somewhere, an aircrew survival folding knife/switchblade that was issued to him when he thought he was going to be a aircrew.  It has a (spring-activated) blade and a line-cutter for ditching a parachute; and of course the spring assist was put on the blade, not the line-cutter you'd ACTUALLY need in a hurry.  It's also 'international orange'.

Still a cool knife.

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 51):

Damn... could you find a slightly smaller picture please?

Well, I have seen worse.  All cool knives.

I have my ordinance issue pocket knife from the Army still.  It's not very cool, though.


This message was last edited by the player at 23:45, Wed 01 July 2020.

Apparently RPOL doesn't let you modify the size of an image through coding, and it's a pain to put a new image in on my phone, so I just reduced it to a link.

---

So that said, one thing to discuss as we grow closer to a grand re-opening is whether or not any of the PCs have previously encountered Eric.

There's a chance Mac encountered him while Eric was doing some partisan activity up in Lilloet.

Also some of the others (particularly RCMP personnel) may have have the opportunity to take a course from him while he was a contracted instructor...

1. Bomb Disposal (Construction - Demolitions)
   
2. Interrogation (Deception/Persuasion/Intimidation)
   
3. Rifle Marksmanship (Longarm)
   
4. Pistol Marksmanship (Sidearm)
   
5. Special Weapons Operation (Support Weapons)
   
6. Combatives (Hand-to-Hand/Hand Weapons)
   
7. Basic Combat Skills (Tactics)
   
8. Fieldcraft (Fieldcraft)
   
9. Street Survival (Streetcraft)

This message was last edited by the player at 04:02, Thu 02 July 2020.

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 55):

Oh how cool.  Does he need sparring partners?

Kel always needs exercise.  Her hand to hand is Comp, on the verge of becoming pro

He has professional for both hand-to-hand and hand weapons; with grappling on H2H.  Instruction level is professional as well.

But yes, there could be some sparring.

---

The rules for instructor-led training:

Training requires 40 hours with a penalty if the course runs longer than seven days, so 8 hours a day for 5 days is a course of instruction.  Then I make an instruction (PER) check, and if I succeed, BAM!  1 skill point.

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 57):

She's not as good with melee weapons, barely Comp.

Lessee if Tony has time for her to have taken a full HTH instruction course.

She's a fairly big, strong woman.  (175cm (5'9") 64.31Kg (142)

Lol.  That would put her as an inch taller than Eric, but about 23 pounds (roughly 10 kg) lighter.

That is exactly how it's like here on Canada day! Plus, all our heads flop around when we talk.

Following is a video with another (more cheesy) version of "Oh Canada" than that supplied by Rush. (Also apropos for Remembrance Day.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qmbb0TMWLk

Actually, that more describes the couple of "America Day" celebrations I've been to over the years.

That's a fine multitool. Mine has a ruler, which comes in handy when wargaming.

Unfortunately TinyPic was closed down by Photobucket so there's not a good way to resize and repost pictures any more! Links might be for the best.

Taras might have had some training after he joined the RCMP. I think everyone else is CF.

Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 02:50, Thu 02 July 2020.

Hey everyone new player join soon just thought I would introduce myself!

Greetings!

Tell us a bit about you & your character.  let's get an idea of how they'd fit in.

I am still coming up with the rest of his background but so far I am going with a what was once a nerd and a deadbeat until his parents kicked him out of his house and he was forced to join the military since thats what was suggested to him. His time spent in a very different lifestyle changed him into somewhat of a mature adult but still retains his lazy attitude and he still a nerd deep down.

Cool.

I think most of us have a bio of one sort or another on our profiles.

Eric started out as a soldier in the US Army, then got a bachelor's degree after he got out, went on to be a cop and then a military contractor (starting as training police in the third world then moving on to other operation types).  He fought with the US military in Alaska then in guerrilla actions with locals.  Now he's a contractor/RCMP auxiliary who did some instruction & then some undercover work for them.  He's going to be new to the party and introduced with your character.

I recommend if he is US Forces that he be a "Career Specialist".

Sham-shield for life.

Also, my MOS branch didn't have warrant officers, which meant I had to be at the top of my game.  However, I only used my shamming for good (kind of?), a shamurai.

Does this mean with a third member, we will activate the E-4 Mafia?

(Last Active Duty Rank, Specialist as well!)

I do believe so.

LET THE ACQUIRING BEGIN!

In other news, I'm still standing-by to finish the TOE once we get info on Jack.

In reply to Kelsey Sarah Champlain (msg # 67):

Here the focus is not on pay grade. As there is no "up-or-out" our equivalent is the "CFLers" which means a "Corporal For Life" (and, coincidentally, a player in the Canadian Football League).

We are pretty close to firing up. Jack may need to catch up later if he's not done. Or something else could be worked out.

Either way I have a start for the team roughly planned out. It's having to do with the stolen elephants, a bit of unfinished business.

Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 10:54, Tue 07 July 2020.

Oh goodie. I am worried about the elephants...

Good to hear that we'll finally get to launch soon. Looking forward to it very much.

Load up on guns, bring your friends!

Yeehaw!

Let's rope'em & RIDE!

Don't forget,  I had 6 equipment dice that will I throw in for team gear. I was going to keep 2 for myself, but I have enough toys.

It looks like we have enough vehicles and crew-served weapons.  I'm thinking that we could apply it to fuel, ammo or something like that.  Unless we're set up to requisition that from HQ (Tony?)

If we get a grill, I'm sure Eric can whip something up.

In reply to Stanley Alistair Abbot (msg # 75):

Great, I now have everyone's Equipment dice. I'll get to rolling them ASAP.

There are 28 dice used for team gear. Any suggestions? I'm probably going to use 6-9 to try and roll up a LAV. I expect you will end up with 2-3 heavy vehicles at least (it's random, I might need several tries).

Any suggestions on how to split up the dice? Once I have that we can put together all we have in terms of personnel and material and get the game going!

While Jack is getting sorted out we are going to need to proceed without him. In that case, Darek, an NPC RCMP Auxiliary (and former WP armour officer) will be attached to the team if someone is needed to crew any heavy combat vehicles. (Aside from Kel, who is competent.)

Thanks,

Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 02:05, Wed 08 July 2020.

In reply to helbent4 (msg # 77):

As long as we have a legit AT system (Gustav or missile; not just rockets), I think we're good on support weapons.

We are definitely good on lighter vics, so only dice for an LAV or heavier I think.

Do we need to use dice for food/fuel/ammo?

We may want some for group gear, if that's not provided.  Probably like a mil radio & antenna, grill & still at a minimum?

I did roll for, and got, a HUMMER for the group.

An APC or LAV would be nice

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 78):

Local supply is a serious issue. At this time aupplies and equipment are being diverted to Vancouver Island, where holdout Soviet forces hold about half the island and Canadian forces hold the rest. As well, local Militia units and RCMP detachments are struggling to be stood-up by local command (Vancouver Garrison) and they are getting priority on whatever remains.

Therefore equipment issue and supply will be precarious for the most part. I'm using the "team" dice to represent whatever you've been issued or managed to hold onto. You might get resupply but it will be a matter of weeks or longer and not days. Currently you can only rely on what you possess for your initial equipment and resupply will largely be a matter of scrounging or local procurement (like making fuel in a still, arranging for a local food supply, etc.).

Tony

Okay.  In that case, perhaps...

1. 3d6 up to 3 times on mil vics for armor.
   
2. Several dice for base gear.  maybe 4x 1d6 & 1x 2d6?
   
3. 1d6 on civ ammo (because it gives a good range).
   
4. 4x 1d6 on mil ammo.
   
5. 2x 1d6 on food.
   
6. 2x 2d6 on fuel?
   
7. 2x 1d6 left over.  Perhaps rolls for random small arms?

Thoughts?

Do we have to live off the land?

I'd better brush up on my hunting skills then. Any chance of a fishing pole?

In reply to helbent4 (msg # 77):

Stan can drive heavies too.  APC, logging truck, it's all the same.

Command probably wouldn't let you starve but this would be your source of fresh meat aside from whatever you can buy/trade with from the locals.

As for the dice:



I think that's fine. If Javier and Lee do not wish any changed I'll use these as a guideline of your priorities.

Thanks,

Tony

I'm excited to see what we end up with.

The proposed rolls look good to me.

If we get something good on the first vehicle roll can we keep the rest of the dice for other stuff or do we just take the best of three rolls?

In reply to Stanley Alistair Abbot (msg # 86):

I would stop if you get something good, and go for some support weapons.

At present you have an armed technical, an uparmoured Humvee (in this era it would be "applique" or "Hillbilly" armour.) So one good APC or combat vehicle will do the trick.

Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 06:23, Thu 09 July 2020.

I'm ok with it, Tony.

Sounds good, Tony.  Roll the bones.

GM, as a practicing hoplophile, I have to ask...

What does the current timeline say about 'experimental' weapon systems like the Pancor Jackhammer or CAWS?

Or for that matter the likelihood of coming across an AN-94 (1994 production) or some of the Russian 9x39mm stuff (AS Val started in 1987 & OTs-12 in 1993).

If it's an issue with specs, the shotguns are in the Alternate Arms guide (which I possess), and the rest I've either already made specs for or could do relatively easily.

Just sayin'.

A few but interesting "rara avis" right there. Not many built in the Russian side as the market was limited to their own Special Forces or the newly formed CIS. A few Abakan to Kirguizistan and Belarus. Yet the validated factor is that they were certainly put to work as demonstrated in Chechnya.

The "lost decade" was definitely not lost for the arms industry designers. KBP for instance was churning out some curio SMGs.

Indeed.

Also though, keep in mind that the 'low' production rates were determined by IRL need; with a shooting war going on, they may have very well ramped-up production.

Plus it would be awesome to clear a room with a spray of tungsten buckshot on auto or a string of 259 grain rifle rounds...

Certainly "war economy " will be different. One of the main concerns regarding the An-94 was cost, estimated at three times or so that of an Ak-74. Reliability issues aside this could probably be an issue for cost cutting war time story line. Seemingly so for other exotic species. Not so much for the more straightforward 9x39 family.

I've been studying the relationship between Diemaco, later Colt Canada, and Para Ordnance. They were quite well connected and at some point Colt Canada advertised the pistol maker after forging a marketing and distribution agreement. Very early 2000s.

This brings me to believe that there could be a good chance for a war time economy production of Para pistols for the Canadian Forces due to this agreement.

While nowadays the Hi-Power still reigns supreme, successive attempts for a replacement have been floated always under the aegis of Colt Canada acquiring as a whole package the IP of a established product.

Being long time gone out of the business of pistols, the door is now open. Hell, who remembers the Colt 2000, lol!
This message was last edited by the player at 23:31, Thu 09 July 2020.

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 90):

The game was of course written in the 80's so what they thought would be issued influenced the available weapons.

Kraut Space Magic is an issue weapon. For that matter, the Colt 2000 is a available.

In T2K the HK CAWS is an issue weapon. The Jackhammer might be a police weapon but with the CAWS in service it's hard to see what advantage it would offer.

With regards to the AN-94, this version of the rules unfortunately doesn't model weapon accuracy in a granular way. All assault rifles are essentially the same, even though the AN-94 is supposed to be far more accurate than the AK-74. I somehow think the AN-94 wouldn't be a priority for the Soviet government as the Red Army in this timeline was still relying on older infantry doctrine on the tactical level which emphasised firepower over accuracy. But special units might have them issued.

Hard to see what the CF would do with Para-Ordnance. Some kind of M1911 chambered for 9mm tp compliment the Hi-Power as the main pistol? I can see an earlier buy of Sig P226s.

Sorry, wasn't able to get to the equipment rolls tonight!

Tony

In reply to helbent4 (msg # 94):

Yuck, why would you make a 9mm 1911?  As far as I am concerned that is what a Hi Power is.

9mm 1911s are getting sort of popular lately.   Springfield has a "Range Officer" model in 9mm and it's a good seller with good reviews.

Back to Para Ordinance, their claim to fame was high-capacity 1911s.  I remember reading brochures in the gun shop for large frame 45ACP pistols with 14 rd double stack mags. They also sold them in 40 S&W. I seem to recall that they targeted the IPSC shooter market. Since the .40 had a higher capacity and the round would make major power factor for scoring.

 I'm not sure how hard it would be to retool to scale down to 9mm, but a 1911 with a 17rd mag would be kind of cool.

The real ‘selling point’ on the AN94 was the dual rate of fire.  2-round burst kicked the ROF up to 1800 RPM.  The idea being that both rounds would be out of the barrel before recoil affected grouping.  The specific idea for that was body armor penetration.  Both rounds would have extremely close points of impact, with the first round weakening or destroying armor at POI, allowing the second round a better chance at penetration.

I think my rules for it were something like 2-round burst uses two rounds & has the recoil of a burst (recoil impulse is felt eventually), but was resolved as a single round impact with increased AP; like x1/x2.

As for hi-cap 1911s, just buy a .45 ACP glock.  Glock 21 mags hold 13 rounds standard, and you can buy three or four for the cost of a PO.

You forget the time line.  There was no Glock chambered in. 45 ACP back then.

The first Glock 21s were released in 1990.

Regarding the An-94 I'm not sure about armor penetration. It wasn't much of an issue in the day as it is right now with the NGWS program. The idea I recall was to increase hit probability. The same effect was run in parallel as a replacement for the M-16 with no effect as we know.

While the Abakan was initially successful as a design product, the fielding results were less than expected. Apart from the internal mechanisms nightmare the precision achieved was less than spectacular. At 50 meters impacts were 6 to 8 inches apart, and at 100 meters, it was even worse. Nevetmind defeating personal armor. While still superior to a 74, the juice was not worth the squeeze.

M-1911 and cousins in 9 mm Para goes quite back in time. STAR was making them since the 1920s. Even a number of them served in the Wehrmacht. Curiously enough ending up in the hands of the Soviet Union where property sanitized were stored for a possible "aid" for foreign comrades in need. Llama made plenty and it was issued for the Spanish Armed forces, etc.

I remember Para Ordnance having a M-1911 9 mm Pb double stack, 18 rounds in the offering. While Sig made some inroads to replace the Hi-power, a wartime situation would have complicated the scheme. The government always considered Diemaco as a strategic industry and still does so under  Colt Canada. That's why we pay $26,000 for a MAG-58 in 2020.

The strategic value of Diemaco with its operational partnership with Para is where I tactically see a potential Para-Ordnance for the CF. Not unlike a Ross rifle, mind you, and probably with similar outcomes, lol.

That is an insane price.  IIRC, the US pays <$7k for the M240B.

Yup,

https://ottawacitizen.com/news...elivered-in-december

I'm not excessively fond of how a 1911 breaks down, and prefer the more modern designed Hi Power.  Both are JM Browning designs, the Hi Power being the newer.  I consider it a "New and Improved" design, and meant for use with the 9mm.

As I see the developmental history of pistols, the fact is most designers and manufacturers use the 1911 as a starting point. The mentioned Hi-Power and Star, but also Tokarev, the French pistol designers dwell deeply on the concept, Ballester-Molina, Radom, SIG, S&W with the Model 39 and a long etc. The resilience of the original was kept alive by military and civilian customers alike that buy 1911s from purist to tacticool-ists. The "cult" remains iterated from the trenches to IPSC.

As a third or fourth tier weapon I believe anything could go. Combing through military procurement of pistols during both World Wars practically demonstrates this lesser majesty approach.

The source on the 2-round burst for penetration was, I believe, a Jane’s Small Arms Infantry Rifles supplement I read a couple in the late 1990s/early 2000s.

As for the MAGs, some cost increase is understandable, since it’s for the ‘system’; gun, barrels, spares, accessories, etc., but shouldn’t account for being nearly 4x the cost.

As for the 1911, it has a lot of variants because it came in at the beginning of the automatic pistol lifespan & were successful enough initially to be widely emulated because there wasn’t much else to model after; Glocks are the now at least the theoretical model, with everyone & their mom releasing a polymer frame striker-fired pistol.  I have a 1911; a very nice one in fact, but they’re over-rated pistols.  They are a pain to disassemble & many have issues with HP ammo.  In addition the magazine capacity is severely limiting.

Part of the reason they’re used for competitive shooting is they can be made hyper-accurate.  Not so much as an artifact of the design (IMHO), but because gunsmiths have had over a century to tweak & work the design to squeeze every last bit out of it.  Glocks and other designs are catching up though.

But yeah; pistols see little enough combat use (outside of VERY specific niches) that their general statistics are irrelevant.  Thanks for spending all that money of the Sig P320 military.

Most modern pistols I have handled are damn near identical in assembly to a Hi Power.  You can call that "Based on the 1911" all you want, but if that front bushing is not there, they are actually based on the Hi Power.
This message was last edited by the player at 18:11, Fri 10 July 2020.

Bushing barrel and bull barrel both can apply to the M1911. But yeah, I see what you mean.
This message was last edited by the player at 19:08, Fri 10 July 2020.

Didn't know that.  I thought it wasn't until the early 2000s.  Never paid much attention to Glock until about 10 years ago. I'm mostly a Sig guy.

It certainly was a prolific year for Glock in the US. In 1990, the company released the Glock 20 (ten millimeter), Glock 21, (.45 ACP), and Glock 22 (.40 Smith & Wesson).

I have a Glock 22 I build using exactly zero Glock-brand parts (including a LWD Timberwolf frame).  I also have a Glock 21 I built using a six inch barrel with a 10mm conversion barrel.  It's a great shooter; minimal recoil and very smooth (after I worked out the bugs).  It feels a little odd, like the action is just a tad slow, but that's an artifact of all the extra mass moving around & I can run it just as fast as any of my other Glocks.

Even further off topic,  I have been rucking in the morning with a 35lb backpack. I have a loop around my house that almost 5 miles (4.7mi according to Google maps).  Over the last 2 months, I have knocked my time down 7 minutes since the first trip.

The more that I do this the more appreciation for the fitness of our characters.

For the gear nerds, it's a London Bridge Trading 3 day assault pack with a concrete paving block wrapped in a towel and a 5 lb dumbbell.  I have a couple lengths of pool noodles in the bottom to boost the weight up higher.


https://lbtinc.com/collections/apks/products/1476a

Nice.  Rucking is a good workout, but it's murder on joints if you do it long-term.

I was a mortar infantryman in the US Army for 5 years in a light unit.  I do not miss long ruckmarches in full gear.  You would be surprised how many people in an infantry unit don't know how to pack a rucksack.  Heavy stuff up top & towards your back.  Used to be that I'd pack with something soft inside my ruck against my back, but since we did our marches in body armor, that didn't really matter.

On another tangent, I did a bunch of test rolls using the group gear dice agreed upon; generally got good stuff.

Several of them ended up with the Wz551, which would be unlikely for us.  I supposed the closest analog would be either a USMC LAW-25 or a CAF LAV II Coyote?

Mortar Maggot!

I was an 11C for about half a year when I joined the PA NG out of active duty, until my real MOS was suddenly discovered and I got moved to where they could take advantage of it.  I was on the base plate for our 81.

I did very few marches with a ruck in my 8 years.

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 112):


I break up the rucks with running every couple of days and a total rest day on sunday.

It was a little rough at first but it's all good.  Got weird blisters on the tips of my toes but it's callous now. My legs are shredded and my calves got huge, bigger that when I was lifting in the gym.

Strangely enough, I started rucking because of knee pain when running.  Now I can run 4 miles without any pain at all.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:53, Fri 10 July 2020.

Lol.  11C's the way to be!

We're really just 11Bang-bangs that can count though...

But yeah, I was in a light battalion in the 25th, so every thursday we put on armor, helmet & ruck, drew rifles & a radio, and rucked around the base for 5-8 miles.  We only ever humped the mortar if we were legging it out to a training area though.

That said, light talks a lot of shit about mech.  It's all jealousy.  I don't care how tight it is in the back of a Brad, it's still better than being on foot.

Wz551... Sure Canada continues to enjoy the honeymoon with NORINCO but the 6x6 seems a bit of stretch, lol.

Unless some East Van militia secretly funded by the PRC got hands on. On a serious note, there was a tremendous devide of the communist party of Canada between its Leninist and Maoist counterparts. Only in Canada...

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/i.../000/757/498/89c.gif

In reply to Stanley Alistair Abbot (msg # 115):

Yeah, rucking is no joke.  I may get back into it (but with a lighter load that I used to do).
 It's probably the second best as a total body workout after swimming (all muscles & cardio).

A 50 l Karrimor Bobcat saved my days of grueling college commute. Once piece of gear.

I had a Camelbak MFB in ACU I used after the army for college.  It was the perfect pack.  Plenty of space, could haul a truckload, and had dividers & pockets to keep all my stuff straight.

And also GM, don't forget that you have officially opened the door for Kraut Space Magic.

KSM always finds a way...  XD

Can't help the pop culture reference from wikipedia:

Until around 1973, the word "Deutsch-Rock" ("German Rock") was used to refer to the new groups from West Germany.[25] "Krautrock" was originally a humorous term coined in the early 1970s either by British disc jockey John Peel[26] or by the UK music newspaper Melody Maker, in which experimental German bands found an early and enthusiastic following, and ironically retained by its practitioners.[27] The term derives from the ethnic slur "kraut", and its use by the music press was inspired by a track from Amon Düül's Psychedelic Underground titled "Mama Düül und ihre Sauerkrautband spielt auf" ('Mama Düül and her Sauerkrautband Strike Up').[28][29][30] According to author Ulrich Adelt, "kraut" in German can refer to herbs, weeds, and drugs.

Lol.  Good to know.  And we can thank Gun Jesus for the term.

Indeed, Gun Jesus does seem to have originated this term. Und zo, anyzink ist possible, ya?

I suspect the C6A1 MAG is expensive for two reasons (four, if you count the exchange rate and the inclusion of the cost of spare parts and accessories, etc.): CF weapons systems are made to be reliable in sub-freezing temperatures for an extended period and because the government wanted local manufacture for a relatively much smaller client than the US military (1/10 the relative size) meaning there is almost no economy of scale.

I am making the call the CF agreed an M1911 chambered in 9x19mm is pointless so in the buildup to war they went with Browning Hi-Power BDA for production and contracted Browning of Montreal to build them.

The first vehicle on the random Military Vehicle list with an autocannon is the Warrior at 13, so that's where I would peg the LAV-III Kodiak. The LAV-25 is probably at the 12 mark. The equivalent to the wz551 would be the AVGP Cougar (Piranha I 6x6 w/12.7mm.).

OK, let's do this!

Roll, roll, roll.

Military Vehicles:
(3d6): 13 Fv105 Warrior. nice! Looks like we can trade that for a LAV-III Kodiak.
(3d6): 9 Either a 10-ton or 5-ton with trailer.
(3d6): Holding in reserve.

Base Equipment:
(1d6): 1
(1d6): 3
(1d6): 5
(1d6): 6
(2d6): 11 (I suggest the solar cells.)

Civilian Ammo:
(1d6): 6, 6x 100 = 43,47,49,66,82,6

Military Ammo:
(4d6): 600 x 7.62x39mm, 500x 7.62x51mm (Belted), 600x 7.62x39mm, 600x .50 BMG

Food:
(1d6) 120kg Balanced Wild Food
(1d6) 5x cans of tea (Man, for such a good roll, this was somewhat disappointing.)

Fuel:
(2d6) 3x200L fuel drums of biodiesel.
(2d6) 1x300L fuel bladder of gasoline.

Support Weapons (4 Bonus Dice):
(2d6) Carl Gustav w/10 x 84mm Rounds
(1d6) RPG-7 w/10x rounds
(1d6) M2HB w/6 belts

5 dice in reserve. I suggest kitting out your base a little more?

Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 10:47, Sat 11 July 2020.

Are we going to have a permanent base, then?

Currently it's Fort Langley (aka the National Parks Ft. Langley Historical Site).

https://g.page/ParksCanadaFortLangley?share

Tony

Can we set up a decent kitchen, please?

I assume that Ft Langley is an RCMP base now. Are we all mixed in or do we have our own area/buildings/compound?

In reply to helbent4 (msg # 125):


Fuel looks kind of low.  Enough to refuel our vehicles maybe one or two more times.  A still would be a mission saver. The bigger the better if we want to drive a LAV around.

Also, we got a crap load of AK ammo.   Maybe I need to switch to an AK under-folder instead.
This message was last edited by the player at 16:28, Sat 11 July 2020.

For base equipment...

1) Grill or construction tools?
3) Mechanic’s tools.
5) Camo netting or power tools?
6) Large mil tent?
11) Solar cells.

With five dice, maybe one or two more 2d6 on gear then the rest in 1d6 gear?

Browning Montreal is an importer y distributor with a warehouse in Canada. There was never a factory. Most Browning guns were made in Belgium by Fabrique Nationale (FN) until the mid 1970s when some production was shifted to Miroku in Japan. Browning firearms production since then are made in either Belgium, Portugal, Japan or in the United States.

But for the sake of hi power tradition, a local manufacturer could easily be set up for production.

In reply to Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko (msg # 132):

So... I see a misconception here.

The Hi Power while branded "Browning" in places, was an FN produced weapon initially.  There was also a Canadian manufacturer, using the same design.  Maybe it is my misconception, to me if it is not an FN, it's not a proper Hi Power.

In reply to Stanley Alistair Abbot (msg # 130):

Yeah, still would be great.

I assume that, given enough raw materials, someone with enough mechanical skill could construct one?

Looks like we should keep out eyes out for scrap while we're out on patrol.   We better get that STREETCRAFT skill warmed up.

Eric has a ‘professional’ rating in streetcraft.  Same for fieldcraft.  He’s a creepin’ dude.

You are it. There is no one else.

The compound should have a decent kitchen, likely in the main house. It was a real trading fort with wood-fired stoves, etc. It would be ideal in this situation. (Modern electricity was installed as well.)

It's kind of a complicated story about the Hi-Power.

"How the Hi-Power came to Canada and Inglis is an interesting tale of wartime intrigue and resistance. After Belgium fell to Germany in May of 1940, FN became a subsidiary of the Germany’s DWM, producing weapons for the Wehrmacht. However, the director of FN and his deputy were in England when Belgium fell and did not return.

More importantly, small-arms designer Dieudonné Saive, who had perfected John Browning’s Hi-Power concept, escaped to England in the summer of 1941, bringing with him the drawings for a new self-loading rifle that would eventually become the FN49 as well as his knowledge of the Hi-Power. Although the British had purchased a substantial number of Colt 1911A1 pistols from the U.S., they were interested in producing the Browning Hi-Power and tasked Saive with reproducing from memory a set of manufacturing drawings for it, initially with the intent of producing it at Royal Small Arms Factory (RSAF) Enfield. In fact, Enfield produced prototypes by the end of 1943, although the pistol never went into production there."

https://www.tactical-life.com/...is-hi-power-pistols/

To make a long story short, China then asked Canada to procure Hi-Powers and they were made by the John Inglis Co. In 1944 it was decided to divert all produced models and future production to Commonwealth service and by the end of the year it replaced the Webley as the issue sidearm. So basically if it's a WWII-vintage Hi-Power then it's an Inglis-produced pistol. In the sense of a pistol of that vintage is either a Nazi copy made under a duress or one made in the free world, both are "real" Hi-Powers.

One thing I'm reminded of is all Canadian Ingliss-made Hi-Powers (likely all the ones in the game) have a 14-round magazine.

And sure, the government would then contract with Para-Ordnance to build new Hi-Powers.

Thanks,

Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:48, Sat 11 July 2020.

That's us.  Creepin' while the bad guys are sleepin'.

Okay, so our new posting has a kitchen of some level, and probably at least electrical systems, I assume unpowered?

What about running water, shower facilities, etc?  If that can be made to run, even with out it being potable, Eric has a small group water filter which should be sufficient for our team.  Anything that needs work can probably be seen to by Eric & Taras.

For base equipment...

1) Grill or construction tools? Grill isn't really needed, the team (who's been to the fort) can confirm there are extensive kitchen facilities. But there are a lot of trees blocking LOS to the east.
3) Mechanic’s tools.
5) Camo netting or power tools? I'd go for the power tools.
6) Large mil tent? Are you planning on doing a lot of camping? Ha ha, why did I give you guys a base? A field telephone would be handy for connecting OPs at your base.
11) Solar cells. You have 9.

With five dice, maybe one or two more 2d6 on gear then the rest in 1d6 gear? Go for at least a 3 Dice roll.

Tony

Good to know.

The running water?  Or is it buckets from the river?

The construction tools will definitely be helpful to clear a field of fire, although it should be mentioned Eric keeps a hatchet in his truck.  ;)

This is home, sweet home:

https://youtu.be/FEXuDDJSBXc

Assumingly the place of birth of British Columbia nonetheless.

Can we keep the warrior ? Pretty much no where it can't go.



-

There are still an undetermined number of Warrior IFV at The British Army Training Unit Suffield (BATUS). This is a British Army unit located at the vast training area of Canadian Forces Base Suffield near Suffield, Alberta,

Water is supplied by the still-functioning municipal supply. Fresh water is supplied even in the absence of electricity via underground aqueducts that were not damaged in the nuclear attacks. Water pressure is maintained due to gravity as the reservoir is at altitude.

Otherwise, there is definitely a hand-pumped well. And a wood-fired outdoor oven, plus a blacksmithy. If you want to spend weeks clearing trees by hand through back-breaking labour, as opposed to days using a chainsaw, that's your choice.

This is the original capitol of the Crown Colony of Columbia.

LAV-III makes a bit more sense than a Warrior in this theatre although I suppose one could have made its way here from the Anglo-German brigade formed from British Army and Bundeswehr units training out at CFB Suffield during the war. They seem roughly the same, with the LAV being faster on roads and the Warrior a little faster offroad. Where there is a real difference is the Warrior's fuel consumption is about five times as much (170L per hour vs. 35L/H). Main armament is about the same (25mm vs. 30mm autocannon). The Warrior does have much better armour protection.

Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 03:58, Sun 12 July 2020.

Is the warrior amphibious, I know the APC it is based on is with field modification ? As for road speed given the state of the roads its moot, though being able to power over or through fallen trees and debris is not.


-
This message was last edited by the player at 07:56, Sun 12 July 2020.

In reply to Thomas Matthew Andrews (msg # 146):

The Warrior is not amphibious. (Neither is the LAV-III, although the earlier LAV-25 is.) If the road is clear or relatively clear, the LAV is much faster. If the road is considered as off-road (that is, semi- or partially-blocked or degraded or flooded) then the Warrior is a little faster than the LAV. (Road or off-road are the two basic modes of travel.)

Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 06:45, Sun 12 July 2020.

I would vote for the LAV then.  The significantly lower fuel consumption is a huge selling point.

That said, my technical still hasn’t been decided between diesel or gasoline.  Does anything else we have run on gas?  If not, the entire supply would be devoted to his vic.

I have to say that I wasn't too familiar with the Warrior. A quick review ensured and I found out that the coax is a chain gun type in 7,62 mm. The so called “Chain Gun” system was developed by the Hughes Tool Co around 1973. The basic principle involved an externally driven endless chain that ran around the receiver and operated a more or less traditional rotating bolt and bolt carrier through a single abutment, fixed to the chain. This principle was used to develop a wide array of weapons, including a 30mm helicopter gun for the Apache helicopter, several automatic cannon of the “Bushmaster” family, and one 7.62mm machine gun, the EX34 used in the Warrior. Despite the fact that “Chain Gun” automatic cannon found wide acceptance in US Service and abroad, the “smaller brother” of the family found no luck in the US Armed forces; however, it was adopted as a vehicle gun in UK and Canada and is manufactured under license by Colt Canada (former DIEMACO) in Canada.

Just finished watching "Greyhound" with Tom Hanks. Good show but the CGI kinda ruin the thing. The uncanny valley...

In reply to Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko (msg # 150):

OK, 2nd round of base gear rolls as follows:

14, 5, 4, 2.

If you'd like, I'm willing to trade the LAV-III for a LAV-Coyote recce vehicle. The Coyote has the same armament of the LAV-III and is a little smaller (it is based on the same hull as the LAV-25). It only has 4 crew: driver, commander, gunner and surveillance operator (surveillance gear taking up almost the entire rear compartment). The following is from Paul Mulcahy's site and is pretty accurate:

"The Coyote is a scout/surveillance version of the LAV-25. It is used only by Canada. The Coyote was designed to replace the M-114 Lynx in Canadian service. No dismount troops are carried, and most of the rear is taken up by a variety of reconnaissance and surveillance gear.  The Coyote is fitted with thermal vision, a laser designator, a ground-surveillance radar with an extendable mast 10 meters high and a range of 10 km (it is a small radar), a video camera and VCR (linked to all visual and surveillance devices, and later replaced with digital storage), a digital compass system, a GPS system, and chemical and radiation detection equipment. The radio fit includes one short-range, one medium-range, and two long-range radios, one of which is data-capable. The radar mast also mounts a thermal imager and image intensifier, as well as an LLTV camera. The Coyote can detect and attempt to intercept radio broadcasts within 50 kilometers, and an onboard computer helps analyze and record collected data. In addition, there is a front-mounted winch with a capacity of 6804kg.

     The Coyote is often equipped with the LAST kit, but firing ports are plated over.  The extra equipment on the Coyote unbalances it, rendering it incapable of amphibious operations, and that equipment is not fitted to the Coyote."

Tony

My 2¢...

1 - Construction tools (or repair work) OR chainsaw.
2 - Basic Hand Tools
3 - Mechanics Tools OR Electrician’s Tool
4 - Small Still
5 - Basic Power Tools
5 - 1d6 Camo Nets?
6 - Field Telephone System (1d6+1 handsets)
11 - 9 Solar Cells
14 - Portable Machine Shop

I recommend the 5-ton & trailer for the truck (mil vic - 9).  With that config, we can transport the machine shop on the truck, OR set the truck up as a technical in the future.

The nine solar panels will make 1.8 kw when running, enough for both the machine shop (1.0 kw) & power tools (0.5 kw) to be used simultaneously, with some left over current.  However, it will only be functional while the sun is out (unsure of weather patterns in the area).  We would want to build a battery bank for it (surprisingly easy), but wiring it all into an existing power grid at the site might take some knowhow & potentially electrician’s tools?

I like the idea of the surveillance gear on the Coyote, and think that would be something right up our team’s alley, although losing the passenger capacity would relegate it to a mobile gun platform rather than an IFV.  I have personally operated the gyro-cam on a JERRV, and I can tell you it’s an incredibly useful system, especially if you’re doing reconnaissance or spotting work.

That said, what’s the fuel consumption on the Coyote?  Same as LAV?

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 152):

Yours sound good, and useful.  We need a still to produce fuel in case we are stranded without.  Damn well need tools.

Kel has some radios, used to have more.. on Tony if she still has spares.  She is a commo tech and shade tree mechanic, as well as good at shooting people.. and fieldcraft.

Cool.

Does she have electrical skill?  The question is mechanic’s tools or electrician’s.  Probably mechanical since all we’d need electricians for is some work for a battery bank while mechanic’s would be useful for keeping all our vics running (assuming spares).

Construction tools or chainsaw?  Construction tools could be used by Eric or Taras for shoring up the base camp & helping out with hearts & minds.  Chainsaw would be useful for clearing fields of fire around the base, as well as keeping the wood-fired stoves & stills fed.

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 154):

Mechanical and electronics, both, both Pro.

She was originally infantreer and signaler.

Cool.  I’d say mechanic’s tools then.  Battery bank is super-basic (given appropriate materials).

All I'm good for is providing unskilled muscle!

I just shoot real good...

Lol.

Eric is, I think the oldest guy on the team at 41, but has the skills to make up for it.

Expert for longarm & sidearm.

Professional for the face skills (persuasion, deception & intimidation), construction/demo, sneaking skills (fieldcraft & streetcraft), tactics, instruction, support weapons and hand-to-hand/grappling & hand weapons.

Plus some competent aqutics/SCUBA, climbing, artillery, driving, medicine and security.

And a single point in cooking.

He comes off as a nice guy, but is very, very dangerous.

Things are looking good for vehicles as far as I'm concerned, especially with the LAV Recon variant.  I'm satisfied with the base camp gear too.

We won't get much out of that small still. According to the book, it only puts out a liter at a time.  I don't know what the time interval is though.   We will need a medium or larger to generate enough alcohol to fuel vehicles.  That said, nothing wrong with a little "medicinal' tonic now and again.

True.  And that said, it could serve as a decent base for being upgraded to a larger still.

Going back to clearing those trees, Stan has skill in Artisan - logging (3). We can get those trees down safely and figure out which ones are suitable for cutting into lumber.

Prior to the war, I was permanent party training cadre for the 1RMR (reserve). Stan has good skills as far as shootin' and scootin', can drive heavies, instruction and can do basic mechanical.

Nice!

So the question then is construction tools or chainsaw.

I definitely like the ability to do some timber-work.  Not only does that allow us to shore up the existing buildings or possibly even reinforce them (although scrap steel might be better for some of the parapet positions), but also allows us a source of potential income or trade goods, or even possibly a work program for nearby civies.

I mean, this is about restoring order, winning hearts & minds and setting the communities up for success, right?  ;)

I'm waiting for Kel's thoughts on the Coyote. She had her heart rightfully set on the LAV-III, this would be similar but not necessarily the same. Fuel use for the basioc Coyote is the same as the LAV-III, with the upgrade it goes from 35L/H to more like 50L/H.

Not that you've taken inventory but I imagine the Fort has basic tools like hand saws, shovels, picks, mattocks, axes, etc. It's probably not going to have a chainsaw.) To be fair I'll roll for it when you do take stock.

Tony

So the fort has a set of basic hand tools?  Or All the way up to a full set of construction tools already?  It would make sense that they'd have some tools there for maintenance.

I can live without a "Medicinal" still, but it can make for good trade material.  Also.. if you want to poison people, just a little wood slash will blind and kill.  I hope we don't have to go that route, but I am not above it.

Tony:  Break it down for me "Barney Style", is the Coyote a better vehicle?  It'll be her ride, yes?

In reply to Kelsey Sarah Champlain (msg # 165):

I like the Coyote a lot. It's the same basic vehicle as the LAV-25 with the same basic armament (25mm plus 7.62mm coax and 7.62mm TC GPMG). You'd likely have the version that is slightly uparmoured compared to the LAV-III Kodiak. The Kodiak's fire control and stabilisation are slightly better than the Coyote and the Kodiak's commander has an independent thermal imagine system (CITS) for true hunter-killer capability. The Kodiak has slightly better fuel consumption. The Coyote gives up its passenger capacity to have a full surveillance suite in the rear bay. (The mast goes up through the left rear roof hatch.)



I've sat in one (at the city fair, the Pacific National Exhibition). Imagine a cockpit surrounded by various video screens, computers and radios. You enter through rear double doors with the operator facing a console on the left with a passage behind him to the driver and turret basket. Here is a somewhat cheesy video of one that was put together for a kid's show (Popular Mechanics for Kids). (Coyote aside, note the older non-CADPAT OD uniforms, the TC's black armoured beret, the almost-useless issue "boonie hat" the presenter is wearing, and that the targets are wearing, I think, British desert DPM tunics.)

The segment starts at the 2:50 mark:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5wvfqz

TLDR: The Kodiak is a much better battle-taxi because it can carry 7 dismounts, while the CITS gives it an advantage in light anti-vehicle combat. (Considering it's not a tank a CITS is almost overkill). The Coyote is much better for surveillance purposes because of the mast sensors and EW/surveillance radio suite. Against infantry both are about the same (same weapon systems). I would imagine she would make the most sense riding in the Coyote. The rest of the team would be transported by the Humvee or technical.

Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 00:50, Tue 14 July 2020.

So the site is abandoned & we are moving in to occupy it?  Or are the new guys (myself, Jack, NPC) going to already be there, setting up as an advon team (maybe with the new supply of group gear), with the originals coming in to set up shop?

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 167):

I'll try to make it clear what the setup is when we start.

In previous activities the team investigated reports of some kind of monsters or large mutant beasts in and around the fort area. Instead, they found a pair of African Elephants that were released from the Vancouver Game farm a few years prior. They would have died from cold and starvation had they not been taken in and cared for by Old Willie, a local hermit who was living at the fort after it was abandoned. He has maintained the fort and added some greenhouses. (So you can assume there are extensive basic hand and some construction tools available.) As this was reported to HQ it is all Eric would know at this point.

Tony

Awesome.  In that case...

1 - Construction tools (or repair work) OR chainsaw.
2 - Basic Hand Tools
3 - Mechanics Tools OR Electrician’s Tool
4 - Small Still
5 - Basic Power Tools
5 - 1d6 Camo Nets?
6 - Field Telephone System (1d6+1 handsets)
11 - 9 Solar Cells
14 - Portable Machine Shop

I think that's what would work for the group gear.  If no one objects, I'll throw it all into the tracker.

You have 6 field telephones and 3 camo nets. (I'll also throw in an extra camo net for whichever LAV you go with.)

Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 01:16, Tue 14 July 2020.

Great, working it all up now.

One more question...

The 5-ton truck...
In the US military (at least currently) it is common for even cargo trucks to have a mount for a crew-served weapon.  Would this one have a pintle or be unarmed?

In reply to helbent4 (msg # 166):

so Basically an LAV-25 with toys that Kel can appreciate?  Nice.
I take it we get the Mast version?  Remote would be cool too.

BTW, this one I want to name "Huginn"

Yeah, I approve, I guess.  In real combat she may be back to doing fieldcraft and shooting though.  Rank might keep her in the vehicle, we'll see.

I hated your video, and give you a few of my own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePnINk3R6VA&t=102s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yU2mo0m11c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qamIMR7EwFY
This message was last edited by the player at 03:42, Tue 14 July 2020.

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 171):

It took a while to find out (Canadian military trucks are not very well documented) but the 5-ton truck would likely be the HLVW-2, a 6x6 Steyr 1491/91M "Percheron", purchased in 1983 (and bought by the US Army in 2015 as part of the FMTV program). Looking at pictures I think there is a pintle on some versions. Below is a flont-line combat support version in the King's Own Calgary Regiment.The rails on top seem to be a guardrail for a middle position roof hatch.



Unless I miss my guess the thing on the side of the rail is a pintle mount on the side? If not how hard would it be to put one in?:

http://www.military-today.com/trucks/hlvw_l1.jpg

I guess we're going with the LAVin Spoonful II then, a Coyote. Great!

Thanks,

Tony

Yeah, I did a bit of deep googling & found a pic of it from an oblique angle.  It does appear to be some sort of guardrail.  I can’t find any really high def pics of it, but if their is a roof hatch, there is almost undoubtedly a version with a pintle.  If not, given a roof hatch, it would be easy enough to weld one in place (given welding equipment), although without a mount & ring assembly, it would have limited traverse.

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 174):

Ok then, a limited-traverse pintle is the best you can get. It's not going to be your "Herkimer Battle Jitney"!

Tony

A spy tank... :-)

I really like the Steyr truck. Taras used to be deployed in recovery vehicle tasks with a MAZ 537 8x8 and I'm sure wouldn't mind to play with it. Engineering, logistics, that's his stuff.

Definitely a hatch there but nothing specific about weapons mount.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt...t=jpg&name=large

https://twitter.com/31_CBG/sta...716644343809/photo/2

It is possible that the metal frame on the roof seems to serve the purpose of being the receptacle of the camo net to avoid something like this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/...8806/in/photostream/


There are numerous variants in use of this truck by the CF at the time period. For the basic cargo there is one model with a crane (3,5 ton) or without it.

Also something to contemplate is that during the 1990s, conducting operations in the Balkans, the threat of small arms fire, grenades and blast mines led the Canadian Army to develop an armour protection system (APS) for the HLVW. The components were made of steel, ceramic and ballistic glass. These components were extremely heavy and could only be designed to defeat certain threats without seriously degrading the payload capacity and functionality of the vehicle. In Afghanistan was equipped with the same APS that was procured for the Balkans conflict.

Edit:I asked an ex CF fella:

"HLVW came in as I was leaving, but my 5 ton had a cage on top and that is where we kept our cam net, just made it easier to deploy and stow."
This message was last edited by the player at 06:16, Tue 14 July 2020.

In reply to Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko (msg # 176):

Whatever its intended purpose it seems like a pintle could be welded to it to provide some minor protection. You have a Humvee and technical, not to mention a LAV-Coyote, arming the HLWV seems like a very low priority. I made a random roll, no crane.

Tony

Okay, so the group gear tracker (under game links) is updated.  I’m debating whether or not to remove Eric’s stuff, since it’s technically property of him & Ravenwood Defense Group, but some of it at least will probably stay.  Gonna be a team player.  ;)

Anyway, if I’m missing anything lemme know.

We also have a spare PKM laying around that could be mounted on the truck.

Tara's will name the HLVW truck "Ludmila". Built large and powerful for a comfortable ride.

Common trick, We used it with our 88 and 109 van as well, though we just used ratchet straps to the cab roof, and on the 88 the spade.

I had to look up the M109; wasn't familiar with all the nomenclatures for all the trucks.  I assume that's pretty similar to the portable machine shop we already have (but trailer mounted).

I think we're almost ready to roll. Jack seems to be checking in sporadically but if he's not done soon he may need to catch up when he can.

Ravenwood's national affiliate is Ravenwood Security Canada Ltd. based in Edmonton, Alberta. Mainly an armoured car service and oilfield security contractor. (US Corporate is in, say, Houston?) You haven't heard from corporate (Canada or US) for years. You could be like the Coca-Cola Co. affiliate in Nazi Germany and pull a Fresca(?) where you just keep operating even though you direct ties to head office are cut. Assume he's got papers signed off for anything normally illegal or restricted, whatever that means. It still doesn't mean someone won't try and bluff you into handing it over.

Tony

Yeah, I figured RSC Ltd. is probably operating in isolation from Ravenwood Defense Group/RDG USA (who are ACTUALLY the ones who hired Eric), given the difficulty of any kind of meaningful long-range telecommunications.  I imagine right now RSC Canada would probably be doing the vast majority of their work for the government rather than private companies now (I'm not sure if Canada nationalized the petroleum industry now or not).

Also, my understanding is that as a contractor, his authorizations are handled at the DRI or RCMP Division level, so anyone trying to confiscate his property without having the authority of that level of bureaucracy can take it & shove it.

Not sure what you mean by "Portable machine shop", to be honest.  A 109 is a big box on a 6x6 M35 series chassis.  They usually end up with the Maintenance department, and used as a tool truck, and have an anvil/large vise mounted on a bumper, carry a 1.5 KW generator.  They usually drag a 1.5Ton trailer full of parts.

I spent a lot of time driving trucks like a 109.  Way too much time, enough not to be sentimental much about them.

Here is a blog with a guy talking about one he owned.  Nice pics.

http://www.nf6x.net/1999/10/m1...-5-ton-6x6-shop-van/

Here are details on a model kit of one, what is neat is it has inside views.

https://web.ipmsusa3.org/content/m109a3m185a3-shop-van

The shop truck would be a fun bug out vehicle project.  Lots of flat space on top for solar panels and a generator. You load it up with a lot of supplies, a bulk water tank and put bunks in there too.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:01, Tue 14 July 2020.

Indeed.

I have considered buying a school bus for conversion into an RV as well.  Without the seats they have a surprising amount of room...

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 186):

I like to look at all the options.

I would love to try a 5 Ton Expando-van personally.

Check out the expanded interior on one.  =)

US M934


https://sundanceequipmentonlin...tary-m934-5-ton-6x6/

Intriguing.

As it sits right now for group gear, the machine shop is mounted on the trailer, which leaves the 5-ton truck empty for use in resupply/logistics work, site stripping, logging work, etc.

Ludmila offers a decent recovery platform as well for the "spy tank" Huggin. I recall an incident in the past where we've got a humvee stuck on a septic tank.

Edit: We talked about blades... this just pop on my GB page. Went straight to the knives. Got a fat wallet?

https://www.gastonglockstyle.com/damascus-knives.html
This message was last edited by the player at 02:48, Thu 16 July 2020.

It would have to be recovery the hard way; it doesn't appear that the 5-ton truck has a winch in the game manual.

Fun fact:

The US Army requires your military driver's license to have a separate entry for HMMWV (M998), HMMWV with a winch (M998), and up-armored HMWWVs (M1114).

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 190):

They required me to have one for 1009, 1008, 1028, M109A3, M35A2.
Very familiar with this, they go by nomenclature, not chassis.

I had M110A2 and M578, despite them being the same chassis too.

My military driver's license was almost always on 3-4 sheets.  O_O

Hell.. I had the stupid camp stove on it as well, in Germany!

In reply to Kelsey Sarah Champlain (msg # 191):

Lol.  I need to see if I can find my old one from when I was brand-new shiny PFC.  It has the entry 'Passenger Bus' on it.

100% got trained to drive a Blue Bird bus.  Fuckin' Hawaii...

The only GOVs I ever drove were pickups.  I never got to have any fun.

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 192):

That's just fucked up.  I got to drive a K-Car for VIPs for like a month when I got stuck in the "Duty BN" at Bliss.  Don't think it ended up on my license, though!

Here, this is for you.

GOV?  Govt Owned Vehicle?  Donno if I'd call a tactical that!


https://www.duffelblog.com/202...-our-goddamn-rifles/

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 190):

Interestingly, I think the HLVW Percheron is actually a 10-ton truck. Basically I think we went from the old M35 Deuce straight to 10-tonner without a 5-ton in between. Looks like the US military came to the same conclusion, replacing their 5-ton truck with the 10-ton M1083-M1091 Medium Tactical Vehicle, also based on the Steyr M12 (the same as the HLVW).

https://ndiastorage.blob.core....tactical/poulter.pdf

You can choose to go with the 10-ton HLVW, or with a (fictional) CF MLVW SMP 5-ton based on the M928 (cargo version with winch), bought or made under licence to supplement the aging M35-pattern MLVW "Deuce".

Mac's gear has been altered to add a Parker-Hale C3A1 sniper rifle. (I miscalculated his allowed equipment weight limit.)

Sadly, "Jack" had to drop out and will join later if at all possible. Darek will be an NPC tank crewman to provide some additional skills. (Ex-Polish armoured officer, RCMP Auxiliary.) I will add his gear soon.

A few more details (equipment-wise) are still to come. Then we can begin!

Thanks,

Tony

In reply to helbent4 (msg # 195):

The M1083 actually is a five-ton truck.  The FMTV (Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles), also includes the M1078 LMTV (2.5-ton)m  We use HEMMTs for 10-ton.

I think.  I was a dumb grunt.  So even though I was qualified to drive all the FTMVs, I don't ACTUALLY know all that much.

We could go with the US 5-ton M1083.  Which would definitely have a turret ring.
This message was last edited by the player at 05:20, Thu 16 July 2020.

Or for that matter, the M939 truck.  Despite being the previous generation, my national guard unit still had them in 2010.

They only ever let me drive a Land Rover when I was serving... :(

Ah, you are right. The FMTV is either 2.5 or 5 tons. Sure, we'll go with a Steyr 12M18 (M1083) 5-ton MLVW-SMP to augument and replace the MLVW-M35 Deuce (as it's air transportable by C-130). Although I have my doubts it would have a gun ring in peacetime it seems like something that would be fitted during the war.

Thanks,

Tony

In reply to helbent4 (msg # 199):

If they can be fitted with a gun ring, in the US Army, then they are fitted with them.  We always have a "We could be going to war" mindset, and our equipment is set up for it, and that is how we train.

If a gun ring would be on it for war, then the ring is on, and the M2 for that ring is in the armory, and it is checked out for exercises and training.  Not to do it that way is a logistical nightmare, and takes up more storage spaces at depot for things they can push onto subordinate units.  After all, they have to have an armory anyway, so let them store the M2s.  Also, why wait to fabricate the rings... or store them... if you can just mount them on the vehicles.

In reply to Kelsey Sarah Champlain (msg # 200):

Yeah, that.

They come from the factory with them IIRC; turret ring is integrated into the hatch (or vise-versa?), and without it there’s a big hole in the roof of the cab.  In addition, as Kel’s player mentioned, the US Military is really big on using M2’s as the mounted crew-served; it’s less common to see an M240 and rare to see an M249 mounted.  I notice some other countries tend to use the M240/MAG58 more than the Ma Deuce.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:26, Thu 16 July 2020.

In reply to Kelsey Sarah Champlain (msg # 200):

These would be a Canadian version of these trucks. So probably no gun rings or M2s, at least to start. Much CF gear is quite top-notch so that's not always the problem. But more of a mindset that if the government can put off an expenditure until usually absolutely necessary it often will. Simply because its budget is not hooked up to a fire hose spewing unending dollar bills. Storage space is not really a problem, nor would fabricating new ones.

But either way, assume it does have a gun ring on the roof hatch.

Still waiting on a couple players to sort some details out, then we're ready to go!

Tony

In reply to helbent4 (msg # 202):

LOL, Tony, they get the ring from the factory usually... or they never get one.
Does the CF not do rings,because it is not something you do "heading to combat".

In reply to Kelsey Sarah Champlain (msg # 203)

Not having been in the military I can't say I would know definitively if any or no CF transports have rings mounts. And what vehicles I tend to see in the city are with the Militia, so light trucks, Iltis's and before that Jeeps would be the ones I'm most visually familiar with.

I would guess the doctrine is something like mounting a gun on a transport that is not supposed to be on the front line is pointless. You should never be deliberately going into combat with it, other vehicles and dismounts are used for fire support. If you get attacked by foot mobiles then you withdraw and/or let dismounts and escort vehicles deal with the threat. Arming transports just gives the drivers ideas. I guess there's some marginal utility in an AA role against helicopters (it's not like you are going to be strafed by Me109s) and if you come under ambush en route at least you can lay down suppressing fire as you di di mao. Buying them unarmed and then retrofitting them with ring mounts seems like a CF thing to do. Just because that's not what usually happens is no reason it can't be done, if more expensively, at the last minute. The CF way!

Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:43, Thu 16 July 2020.

In reply to helbent4 (msg # 204):

Yuck.

US Army gets things installed, then just doesn't issue you the weapon.

Like bayonets.  Every rifle has a bayonet lug, but they are almost never issued, even in combat.

In reply to Kelsey Sarah Champlain (msg # 205):

I can't speak for everything (or really, anything) in the CF. Most of the time it always boils down to budget or doctrine. Much of the time the Regular Force gets what it needs, budget permitting. The Militia (Reserve Force) often gets screwed or short-changed. Unlike the National Guard, I think the Militia units themselves never get deployed overseas for any reason. They are more of a traditional Reserve, where members that are called up are sent as voluntary replacements and reinforcements to Reg Force units serving overseas. During actual wartime Militia units ("Regiments") will be stood-to and filled out as actual battalions and, possibly, as regiments/brigade sized units in their own right for deployment if time, available personnel and need permit.

That said regarding bayonets, as a Commonwealth country the standard anti-ambush drill is to fix bayonets and assault the enemy position (if you are pinned down and can't power through). I am told this is also more of a US Marine practice more than an Army practice. (I remember some gamer friends who were in the US Army were impressed at an article about a British unit that did this when pinned down during an ambush in Iraq. My response was, "oh, I guess you don't do that?")

Tony

Keep in mind that things aren't always as clear-cut as 'behind the lines'.  For example, the operations in Iraq & Afghanistan.  There really wasn't a delineation between combat zones & rear echelon areas.

In addition, consider the amount of resources needed to heavily guard every convoy ever in a theater (one of the reasons well-executed insurgencies can drain resources).  It is infinitely helpful for even non-combat vehicles, such as cargo trucks, to have means to defend themselves.  Every extra muzzle is helpful & helps stretch the capabilities of the escort unit.

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 207):

Bear in mind I'm just getting into the possible mindset of why this may or may not be the case, if it even is doctrine. I'm not personally endorsing or otherwise commenting on the wisdom of this. As you may know, Canada was also heavily involved in Afghanistan. The only listing for a transport I could find seemed to be for a tank transporter, and it was not armed.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada...afghanistan-1.850849

I suspect in Afghanistan the CF effort relied more on US and NATO logistical supply in the field so that our transports weren't exposed to ambushes (and it would cost less). But that's just a guess. I just know I can't find pictures of CF transports with rooftop ring mounts anywhere. (That doesn't mean much, I can't find US transports with them either but I am sure you are telling the truth.) The MLVW M35 "Deuce" had a cargo rack on the roof where they store the camo net. The new Navistar MSVS 10ton is what is called "MilCOTS" or Military-Civilian Off The Shelf and so likely will not priortise a gun mount. But it will accept armour kits so the concept of defence in case of ambush is not unknown, if perhaps more passive than active.

Either way it's not an issue. I am fine with the CF adopting a program whereby it builds under licence or buys Steyr M1083 as the MSVS 5-ton system (decades ahead of when it was really adopted.) It's a smaller relative of a vehicle already in service so it's a proved design with parts commonality. Under the circumstances (buildup to a war) a ring mount make sense.

Tony

In reply to helbent4 (msg # 208):

Honestly, modern armies may not bother with them much anymore.

Odd things get MG mounts in the US Army.. My 109.. no, because it had a hard top on the cab.

Most hard topped cargo trucks did not get them.

Wreckers did, though.  Almost always.  Probably something to do with them being outside of normal convoy a lot.  Tracked wreckers always had an M2HB.  An 88 would have the M2, and an M60D as well, or two of them.  Lots of hatches...

Ammo carriers (M542) always.  110A2 SP How?  Nope, but the 542 has it for him.

They like to put them on the rag top trucks, though.

KBR contractors used a civilian wrecker to right our MRAP after it rolled over on me.

I did get serviced by a wrecker once in the NG though.  We got sent on a state-activated duty mission for a hurricane, and because it's the NG, our humvee rolled out with a broken fuel gauge (y'all see where this is going?).  Our driver said he filled it up, but LITERALLY fifteen minutes out the gate we ran out of fuel.  Wrecker topped us off, but a diesel engine that's gone completely out of fuel doesn't start easy.

Half a bottle of bug spray later though...
This message was last edited by the player at 19:04, Fri 17 July 2020.

Taras will be happy to take the original HLVW truck with its 10 ton load capacity.

It is a pure breed logistics platform and its military background procurement fits accordingly with the nature of the reconstruction team missions.

It doesn't need to be a battle wagon. Sure a pintle mounted MG can be installed but that's secondary. We are not, at the moment, conducting what the CF define as "combat logistics patrols" as they were done in Afghanistan.

Upon detailed analysis of the shortcomings of what was happening with the convoys in Irak the CF reached a series of conclusions and measures to be implemented in terms of force protection but arming logistic trucks with MGs was not a priority as it didn't transform overnight logistics personnel into combat forces. It was also the case that most of these drivers, etc, were reservists.

As team OC, Lt. Cmdr. Clarke-Sullivan will probably take his recommendation over anyone else.

Is it ok for me to proceed on this basis?

Thanks,

Tony

I don't have an issue.

I'll change it under the tracker.  Trading the 10-ton for the 5-ton + trailer, correct?

Correct.

Thanks,

Tony

The upside of it too is that the 10-ton has a 3-ton cargo crane, which means it can load & unload the machine shop.  It should allow us to be able to pack up all our stuff & roll out if we need to.

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 215):

Cool. I added the designation, HLVW. Yes, the cargo version comes with material handling crane. And it also has a vehicle radio set.

Tony

What is the current chain of command?

In reply to Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko (msg # 217):

Everyone in the field team are Other Ranks ("Enlisted"). By NATO rank/seniority it's Taras (RCMP Staff Sgt. Brevet to Warrant Officer OR-7), then Kel. (CF Sgt. OR-6). After it's Tremblay (USMC Sgt. OR-5), Andrews (UK RM Cpl. OR-4) then MacDonald, Abbot (CF Privates, OR-3). Darek (NPC) and Eric are Auxiliary Constables, equivalent to Privates (RCMP equivalent OR-2). Father Nick is a volunteer civilian attached to your unit. Everyone technically outranks him, but he can walk away under most circumstances where it would be legal for a private citizen to do so.

Your commander at HQ is Lt. Cmdr. Andrea Clarke-Sullivan, RCN (OF-4). Operating under her apparently authority (although possibly a CSIS asset) is the Provost of UBC, Alain Belanger. He shows up from time to time and seems to be connected to the CIA or at least their operations at some level. Every once in a while you see Lt. Matthew Stone, US Army (OF-2) also seems to be operating in the CIA orbit.

Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 05:06, Sun 19 July 2020.

Thank you.

Comms.

Seems like all the vehicles available are equipped with a radio. Are personal radios available for everybody?

In reply to Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko (msg # 219):

I would be surprised if anyone other than Father Nick lacks a radio, although some of them are COTS (Civilian Off The Shelf) units. You'll get a PRC-177 manpack radio plus a few tactical radios added to Andrews' allotment.

As for attached NPCs I'm going to finish Darek's gear tonight. I think I'll also add an experienced driver, Alice.

NPC Database:

Aux Const. Darek Sochaki (Tank crewman - Gunner) PM-63 SMG
Trooper Alice Mercredi (Armoured Recce - Driver) C8 Carbine

Presumably they can be grouped with Kel and Eric in the Coyote to fully man it. If the players wish, each can take 1 NPC to play alongside their PC in this configuration.

Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:14, Mon 20 July 2020.

Kel has an unspecified amount of AN/PRC 152's, and a 68, as well as some portable and non portable signal sniffing and hacking hardware.

10-4

Kelly is our radio expert. We will need to revamp the comms with proper distribution of personal equipment and new call signs, etc.

Eric has a personal tactical radio as well; probably a Motorola Saber or PRC-148 MBITR.  I'm not sure the PRC-152 was available in 2000.

Also, not sure why Eric is in the Coyote.  He doesn't have the heavy qual for driving or any points in gunnery.  He could use an NPC driver for the technical though.

And as far as callsigns, I assume we're going with unique individual callsigns rather than the (US) military system of an identifier followed by a number.  Commanche 4-6 (Commanche being C Troop, 4 being 4th platoon, 6 being the identifier for the OIC (platoon leader)), Commanche 4-7 Golf, etc.

For individual, I like something with a Texas flare.  Cowboy?  Gunslinger?

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 223):

Only have two 152's, I  forgot.  They hit general use in 2004-5, which means these are probably prototypes, or souped up 126's.  They are, btw, 152s... not 152A.. etc.


We will label each element by ride, or duty, again.

We are going with Identifier followed by number, because your net is run by a CF regular.

Last time we used Chess related callsigns, might as well keep with it.

Knight was the Cougar.
Bishop was the HMMWV
Rook was the Iltis.

You can speak of the "Element" as just that callsign, the number comes into play with addressing a person in particular.  We are known also to use the word "Actual".

1 goes to the vehicle commander or gunner
6 goes specifically to Taras
2 goes to the driver
3-5 goes as needed.

Tony, I need a list of vehicles and known crew, please.

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 223):

1) No idea why I thought Eric would go in the Coyote.

2) For whatever reason (remember, years ago) I decided the PRC-152 was available before the war. It might have some reliability problems as it would be new gear. The standard CF manpack radio was the PRC-77 but I assume more advanced digital PRC-177 sets would be purchased/built and they are backwards compatible.

3) Element = Detachment in CF terminology. As well, in this era it's still CF (Canadian Forces) and not the reversion to the earlier CAF (Canadian Armed Forces). Interestingly, in South Africa and Rhodesia (during the "Bush War") a small unit was called a "Stick" and detachments/elements/sections were "Call-Signs". "9" is traditional CF designation for OC (commander).

4) We have cowboys as well here in BC. (They tend to be mostly Natives.) And until recently a ranch bigger than any in Texas (subdivided a few years ago). Although not as cool.

Team Uriel Vehicles:

1. LAV-Coyote ("LAVin' Spoonful II")
   
2. Humvee w/M240
   
3. Crew-Cab technical w/M2HB
   
4. 10-Ton HLVW w/PKM

Team Uriel Personnel (in rough chain of command):

1. Staff Sgt. Taras Shevchenko (RCMP)
   
2. Sgt. Kel Champlain (CF)
   
3. Sgt. Keith Tremblay (USMC)
   
4. Cpl. Thomas Andrews (UK RM)
   
5. Pvt. Stan Abbot (CF)
   
6. Pvt. Mac MacDonald (CF)
   
7. Trooper Mercredi (CF)
   
8. PC Eric Wright (RCMP Aux.)
   
9. PC Darek Sochaki (RCMP Aux.)
   
10. Father Nick (CRC volunteer)

Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 21:13, Mon 20 July 2020.

Tex?  Dallas?  Alamo?

Slight correction:

The technical currently has an M2 mounted on it.  It originally came with the PKM, but then I rolled up an M2 on support weapons, and swapped it over.

I suppose that would mean the technical would be taking over the Rook callsign then?

Tex works.

LAV-Coyote (LAVin' Spoonful II) - Knight
HMMWV w/240 (Unnamed) - King
Technical - Bishop
10 Ton - Rook

Let's talk about assignments, I suggest Kel for the LAV because she can man any station in it.  I suggest Taras command from another vehicle.  I think the Hummer might be best because it will likely have a great radio.  But.. if we can get an NPC that is good with radio, Kel can move to the Hummer instead and Taras can run the LAV.

Thoughts?  Where do the PCs want to be?  Kel is a foot soldier at heart, so she doesn't mind being in that role, and has portable equipment.. not as fancy as the Coyote's, but she has it.

I’ll take a look in a bit.  The other thing though is if we have the split between maneuver & support element, it wouldn’t be wise to mix those team members in vehicles.

Support Element:
LAV Coyote - Knight
D: S. Abbot
G: K. Champlain
Pass: C. MacDonald
Pass: Father Nick

Manuever Element:
HMMWV - King
D: T. Andrews
G: K. Tremblay
TC: T. Shevchenko

Technical - Bishop
D: D. Sochacki
G: E. Wright

---

Rook I was thinking would probably be left back at base unless it was needed.  Alternatively, it could be used as transpo for the support element, particularly with a few more NPC crew members to fill out positions.

In reply to Kelsey Sarah Champlain (msg # 228):

Ah, the good old PRC-68 from Morrow Project days. Sure, with the PRC-152 coming into service they could be supplemented by A/N PRC-128 hand radios.

I moved some points around and Trooper Mercredi is qualified (Professional) on military radios. Remember, she is armoured recce and is experienced with the Coyote. Sochaki is a tanker and might take it as an insult if he's stuck driving a truck! (Not that his opinions necessarily matter.)

Tony

In reply to helbent4 (msg # 231):

Well Excellent.

So if Taras wants to run the LAV, he can and has a great commo person to run that array.  Kel is only Comp at gunnery, so if someone better can take that helm it might be better for us.  We need someone good on the big gun.

The Coyote is going to need a competent driver, gunner, systems operator and a commander to keep the complex vehicle operating the way the rug tied the whole room together in The Big Lebowski. Taras would rather be able to command this assest from the outside. Maybe from the humvee or even Ludmila, depending on the mission ahead.

Coyote is also a bit bigger & slower.  And if they need support fire, that 25mm would be great.  In addition, with the LAV at the RP, they can provide sensor & imagery support for the assaulters.

It would also make a good ride for a 'cavalry to the rescue' scenario.

In reply to Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko (msg # 233):

Guess I am it, then.

Knight - LAV
Knight 1 - K Champlain - Commander
Knight 2 - Sochaki - Driver
Knight 3 - ?? Asst Gunner
Knight 4 - Mercredi - Commo

We got anyone that is really good at gunner we can post into here, PC or NPC?

King - HMMWV

King 2 - ????
King 6 - Taras - Shotgun, task force commander


Bishop - Technical

ERIC - We put the 25 to good use before!

Indeed. Tara's wants to give the 2nd in command as much authority as possible and being in charge of the Coyote will be the best Aufstragtaktik approach.

Once proper crew is established the rest is pretty much calling an uber. Let's keep it flexible and see what HQ wants from us.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:02, Mon 20 July 2020.

Lol.  Does that make Eric Rook-1 or Rook-3?

Can be ordained as a Bishop too.

In reply to Taras Vladimirovich Shevchenko (msg # 238):

Ack.  I meant Bishop.  Bishop-1 or Bishop-3?

I thought Nick was the bishop.

In reply to Kelsey Sarah Champlain (msg # 235):

Darek is a pretty hot gunner, as he'd tell you himself. The player was actually a Polish fellow (as far as I could tell) who dropped out before playing because (I am not making this up) he seemed to have his nose out of joint about his PC being under a female PC (Kel) in the chain of command (or maybe just women soldiers in general). Now, that was just the player. I can imagine that Darek, as a former tank officer, should he feel the same way, would find being under the command of a female NCO even more galling.

I would say that for the Coyote Mercredi is a good driver, Darek is a good gunner. Mercredi is also trained in comms and radar operation so in a pinch she could cover both the driver and sensor operator's positions with a bit of a delay switching from one to the other.

Tony

In reply to helbent4 (msg # 241):

OK, looking at THIS!

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product933.html
This message was last edited by the player at 00:07, Tue 21 July 2020.

In reply to Kelsey Sarah Champlain (msg # 242):

I believe four.  Driver, Gunner, Commander, Equipment Operator.

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 243):

Correct.

Knight - LAV
Knight 1 - K Champlain - Commander
Knight 2 - Sochaki - Driver
Knight 3 - Darek - Gunner
Knight 4 - Mercredi - Commo Equip operator

In that case...

LAV Coyote - Knight
Knight 1 - K. Champlain - Commander
Knight 2 - NPC? - Driver
Knight 3 - D.Sochacki - Gunner?
Knight 4 - A. Mercredi - Commo Equip Operator
(Darek & Sochacki are the same person)

10-Ton - Rook
Rook 2 - S. Abbot - Driver
Rook 3 - C. MacDonald - Passenger
Rook 4 - Father Nick - Passenger


HMMWV - King
King 1 - T. Shevchenko - Commander
King 2 - T. Andrews - Driver
King 3 - K. Tremblay - Gunner

Technical - Bishop
Bishop 1 - E. Wright - Gunner/TC
Bishop 2 - NPC? - Driver

Thomas is better on support weapons then driving. He got points in both , ones just better then the other.


-

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 245):

I see the 10-ton as being a vehicle you would more take on operations where it makes sense.

Being a driver is uncool! Gunner, much cooler. That said if I were Eric I wouldn't want someone who's not me to drive my wheels. (But that's not my recommendation as GM, that's just me personally.)

Tony

Lol, indeed.  I may burn a reinforcement contact for a (PMC?) driver.  Eric's driving is only competent while his support weapon is professional; better shooter than driver.  It also makes for better RPing, IMHO.

In reply to helbent4 (msg # 247):

Oh well crap.

I need a driver.. cause a good gunner is hard to come by.

What kind of skill is required to drive the LAV?

I believe that would be Driving/Heavy

Father Nick, feel free to jump in the humvee. Taras is handy with logistic trucks and no stranger to a PKM. Probably is the same one liberated from his unit.

That is my thought as well.

Tony

Then I'll go there instead, and driving skill of 4 should be enough to drive the humvee under normal circumstances.

Wouldn't that mean then that Father Nick is going in with the maneuver team?

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 255):

who even has Driving/Heavy other than Darak?

My reading of the rules is that a HMMWV, even an up-armored one, would fall under normal driving. 'Heavy' would be buses, heavy trucks, semis, wheeled IFVs, etc.

In reply to Kelsey Sarah Champlain (msg # 256):

April, Mac, Stan, Taras, Thomas.

Correct, a Humvee is covered under normal driving. The 10-ton would be Driving (Heavy).

Tony

Thomas has driving - heavy.

In reply to Thomas Matthew Andrews (msg # 259):

What skill level, and.. wanna drive an LAV?
Or.. can you Gun?

In reply to Kelsey Sarah Champlain (msg # 260):

Competent - Driving
Professional - Support weapons, including guided.


-

In reply to Thomas Matthew Andrews (msg # 261):

The 25mm is "Gunnery". Co-ax is of course Support Weapons.

Tony

So:

LAV Coyote - Knight
Knight 1 - K. Champlain - Commander
Knight 2 - A. Mercredi - Driver
Knight 3 - D. Sochacki - Gunner
Knight 4 - Empty - Commo Equip Operator (switched into by Alice & Kelsey?)


10-Ton - Rook
Rook 2 - S. Abbot - Driver
Rook 3 - C. MacDonald - Passenger
Rook 4 - Father Nick - Passenger


HMMWV - King
King 1 - T. Shevchenko - Commander
King 2 - T. Andrews - Driver
King 3 - K. Tremblay - Gunner

Technical - Bishop
Bishop 1 - E. Wright - Gunner/TC
Bishop 2 - NPC? - Driver

Also, it was mentioned earlier that Eric's truck was the extended cab, but for what I have written on the sheet, it would be the standard cab (1 driver, 1 gunner, 2 passengers; 500kg cargo after conversion).

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 263):

Ah, I assumed the CUCV was a crew cab like the Silverado MILCOTS (aka "Milverado").

I see few occasions where you would roll all vehicles. If you are (usually) leaving the 10-ton at base you can consolidate personnel as you see fit! As for the Coyote if it's operating in a fire support role then 3 crew is sufficient. As well when it comes to radio intercept that can be set automatically by Kel and that station does not need to be manned. There is no prep time, like when you want to deploy the mast.

In the mean time I will post call-signs in the Reference thread.

Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 01:58, Wed 22 July 2020.

I don't think Mercredi is a Heavy Driver, and I want her on the LAV's advanced radio stuff anyway.

I have a Driver/gunner and need another either driver or gunner.  The equipment area of the LAV means that one position goes unfilled.

Does Mercredi have at least two dice of heavy drive?

Tony?

Tony all pickup style CUCVs (1008/1028 and such) are single cab long bed with a single bench seat.

He has an M1008.  Some slab armor & a pedestal mount in the back with an M2, as well as a radio (as per GM).

I didn't know their designation until I looked it up for the game.  We always just called them 'range trucks'.  That may be more a function of my era of service though.

In reply to Kelsey Sarah Champlain (msg # 265):

Trooper Alice (sorry, not April) Mercredi is qualified to drive the Coyote and has experience (Professional). (Privates in the army have a title that is related to their trade, which is like an MOS except broader. Alice is in armour, so she is called "Trooper". Artillery are called "Bombardiers". Snipers are of course "Snipers" and Engineers are "Sappers". Infantry are technically "Infanteers" but I think common usage is still "Private".)

Ha! Should have gone with the Milverado.

Note: Tremblay has "K-Rations" listed. For game purposes I think these are the same as Survival rations.

Tony

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 267):

They were used in that configuration for EOD, nothing like an M2 to clear unexploded shells.

The 1008 radio mount makes it hard to have more than a passenger and driver, since it is on the floor.

We used radios like this in the latemid-late 80's through mid 90's

In reply to helbent4 (msg # 268):

Well if I can't pick up one more gunner or driver, we might have to go without a commander at times.

Luckily, Kel has some smaller gear she can set up in her cupola area.

Note:  Tony, on Kel's sheet there is no backpack on purpose, she has gear she does not pack but stays in vehicle.

Yeah, K-rations would be long gone by 2000-2002.  They were replaced in the US by another canned ration in 1958 & those were replaced by MREs in 1981.  Any K-rations left over would be most likely inedible...  XD

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 271):

I had to look up K-rations as well to see what it meant. On Paul Mulcahy's site:



This text was made for v2.2 T2K rules, and is Paul's own creation. At this point they are kind of an expedient meal replacement for advanced military rations like MREs and IMPs due to an industrial base severely damaged during and after the nuclear strikes.

Tony

In reply to helbent4 (msg # 272):

Yup, K rations and C Rations both existed at the same time.

C Rats were replaced by MREs

K Rats by LRP rations.

I dig the stop-gap stuff includes in the setting, including the M16-EZ, although from the description (which kinda sounds more like an AR18 than AR15/M16).

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 274):

Glad you mentioned the AR18. Yeah, I wondered why bother with the M16EZ when you could make AR18s in a garage. A non-canon part of this game is that the AR18 has largely replaced the M16EZ.

Thanks,

Tony

In reply to helbent4 (msg # 275):

It sounds like the EZ basically uses worn-out components like the bolt & barrel that are out of military specs but (sort of) functional.  Those parts are the ones that require the most precision machining, so reusing them, even for worn ones, would save a bunch of machining.  If you don’t care about function.
This message was last edited by the player at 19:36, Wed 22 July 2020.

Minor point: An Artillery private is a 'gunner' not a 'bombardier' - that term is the corpoeral-equivalent in the Arty.

I think I missed what this is in reference to?

From what I recall in the US, Gunner is not used much in Artillery.  The term "Smoke" is for the NCO over the gun platoons as a whole, though.

Yeah; my experience is that gunner is used in the US military (at least army) as a position, not really a rank or general term.  In the US army, they're all soldiers, or troopers if they're in a cav unit.

In reply to helbent4 (msg # 275):

As far as M16EZ/AR18/AR180...

I can see the AR-18 or AR-180 gaining traction in Canada, since I think it was less restricted for ownership than the AR15/M16/C7 there.

That said, from what I've gathered about the AR180 & what I know about AR15s from building them, it seems that really the only place you'd be simplifying manufacturing with the AR18 is the receiver, which you can make from flats like an AKM receiver.

That said, the AR18 is more complicated in other ways.  The addition of a machined gas piston/rod assembly, which would require some decent machining for functionality (on the AR15 it's replaced with literally a hollow metal tube).  In addition, the AR18 uses a buffer system of two parallel springs on rods (the AR15 uses one large spring by itself & a buffer).

Just my two cents (in USD) though.
This message was last edited by the player at 21:05, Wed 22 July 2020.

Yes, thanks! "Gunner" is correct for Trained Privates in the artillery.

In response to why this is important, it's just a clarifying why I refer to Mecredi as a "Trooper". Most or all Trained Privates (OR-2) will have this kind of title, and this unit has a number of them. "Master Sniper" is the title of a commander of a sniper unit, usually a Master Corporal or Sergant.


I think the origin of "man" does not refer to a male, but the French "main" (or "hand"). This is why the term "man" or "manned" with regards to crew or staff or whatever is not a gendered term.

Regarding the AR18, it was never commercially released in Canada that I know of. In my version of the Twilight War it is a manufactured and issued as a military weapon mainly in the US but also in Canada (mainly back east) as the M16EZs wear out or prove completely inaccurate and a waste of ammunition. I'm not going to go into a deep technical dive (again, although I have in the past) but the TLDR is the AR18 is designed to be easier to manufacture and more reliable than the AR15, although marginally less accurate. It was almost intended for this purpose.

"The AR-16 and its predecessor, the AR-12 were designed by Stoner in response to demands by the military forces of smaller, less developed nations for a less expensive, yet state-of-the-art selective-fire military rifle that unlike the AR-10 and AR-15, could be produced inexpensively of heavy-gauge sheet metal using automatic screw machines, lathes, and presses."

Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 21:38, Wed 22 July 2020.

Fair enough.  It almost sounds like what they might want is an AK74 in 5.56, although I suspect with the current state of semi-invasion & whatnot, having friendlies walking about with AK-type rifles could be confusing.

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 282):

Funny you should say that, because that was the direct comparison that was made: the AR-18 was intended as a kind of "western AK" in conception if not design.

The AR-18B can accept STANAG magazines and so this would be the pattern that would be used to make copies. As for who would be issued the AR-18B, the US Federal government would have a limited supply of M16A2s so those would go to new or loyal units. The AR-18B would be issued to local defence groups (militia) and to supplement the M16A2 when those ran out in mid-1998. The US military junta would be sitting on an enormous stock of old M16 parts and so would issue the M16EZ at first, eventually supplementing and then replacing those with AR-18Bs around early 2000.

Tony

So basically AR-15 variants are going to funneled to front-line, direct combat units (primarily infantry I would guess), with the other rifle roles being filled by AR18s and possibly PCCs/PDWs/SMGs?

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 284):

That's my general idea. The AR-18B has a side-folding stock so it's pretty handy.

Ha! I just came across an article that says the AR-180B is going to start production in Canada.

https://www.militarytimes.com/...-to-make-a-comeback/

Some more general information:

https://gundigest.com/more/cla...rmalites-black-rifle

Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 08:25, Thu 23 July 2020.

I know there's a gun parts company in the US (Brownell's) that is making AR-180 uppers that will fit on an AR15 lower.

Because 'Murica.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:27, Mon 27 July 2020.

It addition, I suppose the logical continuation of that would also be countries dusting off the blueprints for simple to manufacture SMGs as well; M3, Stirling, PPS-43...

So where do we stand on starting?  Just curious.

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 288):

I think I will start on standing.

Actually, I have an appointment, First Sergeant.

If anyone asks, I'm at dental.

In other news, what would be his choices for .45 SMG?  All I can think of would be grease gun (in use for armor & SPG crews into the 90s) or the MAC-10.  UMP-45 was theoretically released in 1999, but would be exceedingly rare, as would mags.

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 291):

M50 Reising, UZI or my personal pick a Thompson w/100 round drum.


-

Yeah, an M1928 would be ideal; that vertical foregrip would be great.  But both it & a Reising would be unlikely due to rarity.  Same with the .45 Uzi I would think.  I’m not sure how widespread they were, although apparently at least the Belgian military used them.

I think we are about ready. NPC gear is done. I think everyone's gear is done as well.

Look for a new post in a day or so!

Tony

Hurray!

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 293):

Don't over look private collections and museums, the latter could have many many examples of the exactly same model.


-

In reply to Eric C. Wright (msg # 293):

There was also a .45 ACP variant (MAC M10) of the Ingram bullet hose.  Gun Jesus did an episode about them on his Youtube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU9kVinACYU&;

Yeah.  Grease gun or MAC-10 would be most likely.  Probably MAC-10 route if he ever wanted to put a can on it.

While there are museum & collector pieces, I have no idea of the legal hoops one would have to jump through in Canada to own a fully-automatic firearm, or even to keep one as a museum/historical piece.  I volunteered with the living history department of a WW2 museum here in the US, and they had a few, but that was because they used them for reenactments.  Even then most of their display pieces were demilled.

100 round drum on a thompson would crazy heavy; a lot of GIs didn't even bother with the 50 rounders.  And they rattle.


That said, if the GM ever gives us one, I'm all in.  I'll find a fedora.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:55, Tue 28 July 2020.