[Special Ops/Covert Ops] Equipment for Mercenary Operation in 1990-1991

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

There is more to it than that. They seized on tropes because it had narrative reasons which make them continue to be useful. The Italian mafia works because it had a weird combination of medieval tribalism and feudalism with the modern world-the Corelones basically were no different from Medici. It also works because of the cultish mysticism that in real life is descended from the guild system. Asian crime gangs (which are no doubt similarly accurately depicted) have a similar attraction.

Using wrong nationalities, wrong job descriptions or otherwise ignore the actual country, city and decade where you are setting your story in order to 'fit' in these themes merely demonstrates that the writer isn't very good and has confused the things that worked about The Godfather and the specifics of its setting.

You don't need to have your 2020s character to step through a time portal where they escaped half a century of fashion changes, gentrification, changing demographics and fundamental changes in the position of Italian-Americans when it comes to mainstream culture in order to portray a character torn between loyalty to family and their own sense of right and wrong.

Just like you don't need your character to be from Philadelphia and have a speech impediment if you're going to make a movie about a struggling boxer who goes the distance, and, in fact, you should probably not tell that story again.

There are themes, emotional struggles and contrasting values that resonate more or less universally. It's usually better to allow a character to be themselves and come from a real place, as a person of the time they are supposed to be from, if you want the audience to buy their emotional journey. If you just copy the outer trappings of the movie you're trying to be a lesser version of, well, I guess you'll have a job in today's Hollywood, but what you're doing is the cinematic version of writing pop music with an algorithm. You're just selling empty packaging.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Likewise mercs as throwaway characters has the advantage that you do not have to name the enemy or give him a personality and no one will be offended by having someone they like in real life as the villain (a very great advantage in a time of factional politics).

If any character in my campaign feels like a 'throwaway character', then I've failed. I am certainly capable of failing, I have failed before, and I probably will fail again in the future. But I'm not going to set out with my heart firmly set on failure, aiming for a product that I would not buy if it were free.

[jason taylor]

Of course. Mercs are usually NPC mook type adversaries on TV.

[Icelander]

Most 'technicals' are fairly light four-wheel drive pick-up trucks with mounted 7.62x54mmR or 7.62x51mm machine guns, but if you have access to .50 BMG or 12.7x108mm machine guns and solid enough mounts, nothing really stops you from using those.

I've seen pictures of technicals with recoilless rifles (dangerous because of back-blast, but if the gunners are careful, it works) and heard about militias mounting the AGS-17 Plamya automatic grenade launcher.

I've also heard about ZU-23-2, 23x152mm twin-barrel anti-air gun being mounted on 'technicals', but even if someone has done something, it doesn't make it a good idea. Then again, if it works, it's not stupid.

The ZU--23-2 is about 15 feet long, nine and a half feet wide and weighs about a ton empty, though that is in towable condition. I don't have the necessary technical knowledge to know if stripping everything that is not needed to fire the weapon from a truck bed and replacing it with some kind of mounting superstructure that allows at least some arc of fire would decrease or increase the weight, but from pictures, removing the wheels would make it somewhat narrower and thus easier to fit on a truck bed.

I'd like to know how much truck I'd need to transport and fire the ZU-23-2. I can imagine that a Toyota Hilux or Ford F-150 might simply not have the space, suspension or power to transport not only the weapon, but also whatever superstructure you'd need to build to be a be able to both secure the weapon for firing, but also enable enough motion so you're not stuck with having to move the truck to engage another target. Plus, some amount of ammo.

But how much bigger do I need to go and what kind of support and traverse structure would one mount the ZU-23-2 on in the truck bed?

I'm imagining that the modifications would be carried out locally, with liberal use of welding equipment, but maybe they'd also order some kind of steel base plate which had outer supports and an internal traversing circle, like a turret except without the armour. Well, okay, maybe explore the option of a smallarms-proof front plate for the gunner.

And, generally, how much gun can I mount on a Toyota Hilux and still use it as an off-road scouting vehicle?

[jason taylor]

The Ukrainians before the front became positional used technicals as light dragoons to bring anti-tank teams where they could ambush enemy tanks. They must have mounted something heavier as well to cover the users of man-portables but that is in any event an alternate use. Another would be as motherships for drones or cyberwarfare platforms (I never thought of it before outside sci-fi but they must have designated platforms by now for making a DDOS). An IFV or a simple technical would be good for that.

Of course you are talking about the 90's. Which is earlier than both the large scale use of drones and advanced electronic warfare.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I've also heard about ZU-23-2, 23x152mm twin-barrel anti-air gun being mounted on 'technicals', but even if someone has done something, it doesn't make it a good idea. Then again, if it works, it's not stupid.

The ZU--23-2 is about 15 feet long, nine and a half feet wide and weighs about a ton empty, though that is in towable condition. I don't have the necessary technical knowledge to know if stripping everything that is not needed to fire the weapon from a truck bed and replacing it with some kind of mounting superstructure that allows at least some arc of fire would decrease or increase the weight, but from pictures, removing the wheels would make it somewhat narrower and thus easier to fit on a truck bed.

I'd like to know how much truck I'd need to transport and fire the ZU-23-2. I can imagine that a Toyota Hilux or Ford F-150 might simply not have the space, suspension or power to transport not only the weapon, but also whatever superstructure you'd need to build to be a be able to both secure the weapon for firing, but also enable enough motion so you're not stuck with having to move the truck to engage another target. Plus, some amount of ammo.

But how much bigger do I need to go and what kind of support and traverse structure would one mount the ZU-23-2 on in the truck bed?

There are two ways to go about this.

The relatively easy way is to take the wheels off the ZU-23-2, hoist it onto the bed of a truck that is large enough and can carry at least twice that weight, and bolt it down. That uses the existing mounting and aiming system, but it needs a big truck, and it will last much better if the truck has its bed-supporting beams in the right places for some brackets to be attached to bolt down the gun mount. The margin of two on weight capacity is to allow for (a) ammunition weight and (b) some durability margin, since the vibration from firing high-powered autocannon is significant.

You can do this with the resources of a decently equipped vehicle repair shop and a few Machinist rolls.

The other way needs a lot more engineering work. You take the gun system off its mount, and design and build a new mount on the truck. Assume the gun system is about half the weight of the towable ZU-23-2, and your new mounting system will weigh about the same again, or twice that if it is powered. You don't need such a spacious truck, but it needs at least as much weight capacity as the one for the easy way.

This needs a good Engineer (Artillery) roll, several Armoury (Heavy Weapons) rolls, an Engineer (Automobiles) roll, an Engineer (Hydraulics) or Engineer (Electrical) roll if the mount is power-operated, and a lot of Mechanic work with the relevant specialties, plus Machinist. You'll need a proper machine shop as well as the vehicle repair shop, plus a lot more bought-in parts if the mount is power-operated. This probably isn't worthwhile unless you're going to build tens of the things.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by johndallman

There are two ways to go about this.

The relatively easy way is to take the wheels off the ZU-23-2, hoist it onto the bed of a truck that is large enough and can carry at least twice that weight, and bolt it down. That uses the existing mounting and aiming system, but it needs a big truck, and it will last much better if the truck has its bed-supporting beams in the right places for some brackets to be attached to bolt down the gun mount. The margin of two on weight capacity is to allow for (a) ammunition weight and (b) some durability margin, since the vibration from firing high-powered autocannon is significant.

You can do this with the resources of a decently equipped vehicle repair shop and a few Machinist rolls.

Most pick-up trucks don't seem to come with beds much longer than eight feet or wider than five and a half. Which is obviously no good for me.

Back in the 1970s, Dodge made a W600 cab and chassis, rated for a load of two-and-half tons, I think. The Lebanese Civil War featured some of those with ZU-23-2 mounted, as well as Toyota Dyna U10 trucks rated for three ton loads. Both of these look like off-road use would be more difficult than with lighter pickup trucks, but I suppose that's the price you pay for firepower.

What are some 1990 model four-wheel drive trucks that are the rough equivalent of the Dodge W600? I think the Toyota Dyna 300 or 400, in their U60 line, would be the 1990 equivalent of a Toyota Dyna U10 truck, but it wouldn't hurt if someone truck-savvy could tell me what were some of best off-road capable trucks rated for 2.5+ tons for the 1990 model year were. If there's some commonality between parts of lighter trucks like the Toyota Hilux and Land Cruiser and a Toyota Dyna truck capable of mounting a ZU-23-2, that might be perfect.

Also, I know GAZ-66 trucks were often used to tow the ZU-23-2 by the Soviets and the Soviets did not mass-produce a vehicle mounting the weapon for the ground attack role. Was that just because BMP-2 with their 30mm autocannon did the same job better?

Are there any Soviet vehicles which could be modified to mount a ZU-23-2 for less than it would cost to buy a new Western truck which could take the weapon with little more work than removing the wheels and bolting it to the chassis?

Originally Posted by johndallman

The other way needs a lot more engineering work. You take the gun system off its mount, and design and build a new mount on the truck. Assume the gun system is about half the weight of the towable ZU-23-2, and your new mounting system will weigh about the same again, or twice that if it is powered. You don't need such a spacious truck, but it needs at least as much weight capacity as the one for the easy way.

This needs a good Engineer (Artillery) roll, several Armoury (Heavy Weapons) rolls, an Engineer (Automobiles) roll, an Engineer (Hydraulics) or Engineer (Electrical) roll if the mount is power-operated, and a lot of Mechanic work with the relevant specialties, plus Machinist. You'll need a proper machine shop as well as the vehicle repair shop, plus a lot more bought-in parts if the mount is power-operated. This probably isn't worthwhile unless you're going to build tens of the things.

I think my main question would be whether these would be better at crossing rough terrain than medium trucks like the Dodge W600 or Toyota Dyna?

If I can just order the 4WD and good suspension version of a medium truck like a Toyota Dyna and end up with similar performance off-road as a slimmer traditional pickup truck rated for the same weight, this would never be worth it. But if the wider body of the truck severely limits where it can go, I think spending $25,000+ on modifications to a more traditional truck might be worth it.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

The Ukrainians before the front became positional used technicals as light dragoons to bring anti-tank teams where they could ambush enemy tanks. They must have mounted something heavier as well to cover the users of man-portables but that is in any event an alternate use. Another would be as motherships for drones or cyberwarfare platforms (I never thought of it before outside sci-fi but they must have designated platforms by now for making a DDOS). An IFV or a simple technical would be good for that.

Of course you are talking about the 90's. Which is earlier than both the large scale use of drones and advanced electronic warfare.

Well, maximum firepower against tanks with minimal infrastructure would be man-portable AT missiles with the crew transported by unarmoured truck. There is a lot about it that is not ideal, but if your trucks can cross the terrain using only diesel fuel they carry with them, and MRAP or other armoured vehicles can't, not unless you establish a forward base and a logistics network to support it, well, then helicopters and trucks are what is practical.

I don't suppose I can rule out fighting MBTs. Some African states have them and while lighter armoured vehicles are, in many ways, superior for counter-insurgency purposes, Buffels, Casspirs, Panhards and Elands can do a lot of things, but they can't really fight real tanks, even ones a generation older.

Of course, for later, PC-focused uses, an ATGM might not be optimal for fighting off feral animals twisted by Mana into monstrous, ravenous creatures. Hard to hit a feral cat with a guided missile. Even a bear twisted into a monster would be better engaged with an autocannon than an ATGM.

Maybe a 14.5mm machine gun could be a happy medium and an AGS-17 grenade machine gun on every other truck. Two trucks per eight man stick. Four of them could dismount as scouts and to lay ambushes.

[Icelander]

Most of the weapons will be Soviet Bloc, if only for the ease and economy of acquisition during the period. And while there will be armoured vehicles for certain deployments, the force is meant to be airborne-qualified and trained for helicopter-borne air assault.

While the troopers will almost certainly deploy loaded for bear, air assault usually means that your logistics are aviation-based, so getting a lot of weight there quickly is difficult. So, even if we could get them there, we probably would have some trouble keeping ground-based miniguns, autocannon or howitzers in enough ammo to be worthwhile. A happy medium between easily portable and powerful enough has to be struck, as well as keeping in mind that we need ammo that is easily re-supplied by an occasional air drop or helicopter landing, there's not going to be constant convoys of resupply.

I'm probably going to give the PKM 7.62x54mmR as a GPMG and a 60mm patrol mortar (South Africa-made Commando Mortars, 17 lbs. each including everything but the ammo) to the individual sections, as well as maybe some RPD or RPK in 7.62x39mm. I figure RPG-7 launchers might be useful enough to burden someone on every section with one.

Grenade launchers too, though I haven't decided whether that means equipping the grenadier with an AK-pattern rifle that can mount a GP-25 or if they should carry cut-down M79 'pirate guns' and a compact personal weapon for close-in encounters.

Each 24-man Troop will thus have three GPMGs, three 60mm mortars, three RPG-7 launchers and maybe six LMGs, with machine gun doctrine assigning the GPMG gunner an assistant gunner, but each LMG gunner will handle his gun alone when they fire and maneuver, though he has a battle buddy, and if they are dug in for an ambush or base defence where the battle buddy has no more pressing duties, he'll transition to Assistant Gunner for as long as they are static.

What would that mean in terms for company-level Weapon Platoons?

Each company-size formation, called a 'Commando', will have three of those Troops, for 72 men. They'll have a small HQ element and then a Weapons Platoon, which can be anywhere from 16-32 men, depending on what people feel is necessary. If sixteen can be enough, then maybe a Commando could be transported by four Mi-8/Mi-17 helicopters, even with a HQ element and the weapons taking up space.

If that goal is unrealistic or such a small Weapons Platoon can't give the fire support that might be needed by three maneuver elements, well, rather than go up to just 24 men and have just a few too many to fit, if we know we need two helicopters for the Weapons Platoon, I'd want 32 men on it.

What kind of weapons do I want on that Weapons Platoon?

Do I want more of what I have at the Troop level or do I go bigger?

I'm definitely going to want some 2B14 Podnos 82mm airborne mortars. Do I bother with 60mm mortars with longer barrels and better accuracy or do I just view the 'patmors' (SA slang for 'patrol mortars') as bigger grenade launchers at the section level and use only 82mm mortars as part of my Weapons Platoon?

Mortars need protection and sometimes, Weapons Platoons have to perform direct fire missions.

Do I want a heavy beast, like the NSV Utyos, 12.7x108mm, which weighs 55+ lbs. and over 90 lbs. on its tripod? Or a lighter GPMG on a tripod, like the PKMS, 7.62x54mmR, which is less than 27 lbs. empty with its tripod?

And do I need anything at the company-level which will kill vehicles, other than the RPG-7? On one hand, if we don't control the air, we're not getting any re-supply, and airborne troops are not who you send against tank. On the other hand, maybe one aging trainer hastily armed for the ground attack role or a few BTR-60 armoured cars shouldn't mean automatic mission failure. At the very least, they should be able to hit them hard enough to make them hesitate and give the field force time to be evacuated.

What other support weapons should my Weapons Platoon have?

And if we move up a level, there's a fire support battery that supports the whole thing, two company-levels Commandos, an aviation element and a forward Helicopter Administrative Area (Helikopter Administrasie Gebied or 'HAG' to Afrikaans-speakers or those who have served in a South African military context), as well as logistics elements that re-supply that forward base.

What kind of Soviet weapons do I want for that fire support battery, who will be at the other end of the radio when the airborne Commandos need some fire support and there is no friendly gunship or fixed-wing aircraft in the air nearby?

[Icelander]

What does this look like as a Weapons Platoon?

Weapons Platoon
(TO&E 45 personnel)

Headquarters and Command Section
Weapons Platoon OIC = 1
Weapons Platoon Sergeant = 1
Weapons Platoon RTO = 1
Weapons Platoon Medic = 1
Weapons Platoon FO & Marksman = 1
Weapons Platoon FO and Security = 1
Total HCS personnel comprise 6.

Mortar Section
Two 2B14 Podnos Mortars w/4 crew each = 8
One FDC element for mortars w/2 men = 2
Mortar Section RTO = 1
Mortar Section FO and Marksman/Observer = 1
Mortar Section Sergeant = 1
Mortar Section OIC = 1
Total MS personnel comprise 14.

Assault & Anti-Tank Section
Two SPG-9D w/3 crew each = 6
Two RPG-7D w/2 crew each = 4
Assault & Anti-Tank Section RTO = 1
Assault & Anti-Tank Section Sergeant = 1
Assault & Anti-Tank Section OIC = 1
Total A&ATS personnel comprise 13.

Machine Gun Section
Two PKMS (or PKMNS) machine guns w/2 crew each = 4
One AGS-17 Plamya grenade machine gun w/2 crew = 2
One NSVS-12.7 machine gun w/3 crew = 3
Machine Gun Section RTO = 1
Machine gun Section Sergeant = 1
Machine Gun Section OIC = 1
Total MGS personnel comprise 12.

Any weapons I'm obviously lacking that should definitely be fielded at the company-level?

I think I'll reserve Anti-Air for the battalion/regiment level, which basically means the highest command they have, usually situated in the forward base they operate from.

Same goes for wire-guided anti-tank missiles. I can definitely imagine deploying them, but then it would be mission-specific and either someone in the field force would already be qualified with the weapon and exchange their normal weaponry for it, or a specialist would be sent along to use the missile.

Any place where I have too few or too many personnel?

[johndallman]

What does the platoon have as its organic transport? There's a lot of equipment there and some is heavy to man-pack for any distance.