PDA

View Full Version : Raging Tiger OPFOR Equipment Guide



CPangracs
18 Feb 04, 13:02
In preparation for combat actions versus the DPRK, you are hereby directed to use the link below to familiarize yourself with some of the equipment you may be facing in the coming months. Be advised, this info is confidential and intended for your eyes only.

RT OPFOR GUIDE (http://www.pangracs.com/RagingTiger/Raging%20Tiger%20OPFOR%20Equipment%20Guide_files/frame.htm)

kbluck
18 Feb 04, 16:15
Small nit: the BAT-M isn't armored, although the blade provides some frontal protection. It's successor, the BAT-2, is lightly armored.

Does the KPA actually have significant quantities of BMP-2 and BTR-80? Or are you postulating that they will acquire them before 2010?

--- Kevin

CPangracs
18 Feb 04, 17:30
Small nit: the BAT-M isn't armored, although the blade provides some frontal protection. It's successor, the BAT-2, is lightly armored.

Does the KPA actually have significant quantities of BMP-2 and BTR-80? Or are you postulating that they will acquire them before 2010?

--- Kevin
It is an assumption that the DPRK would "inherit" these aging platforms from their chinese supporters as the PLA updates their inventories. The DPRK used to produce versions of communist-block equipment before 1989, but has since lost that ability along with the fall of the wall and a cooling of all-out support from the Chinese.

Thanks for the info on the BAT-M. I was distracted when I put that together, but that's no excuse!

kbluck
18 Feb 04, 19:57
OK, going further up the food chain: does the PLA have significant quantities of these vehicles? I was under the impression they were equipped with primarily indigenous designs when it comes to APCs, although the Type 86 is a copy of the BMP-1. The Type 90 does look somewhat similar to a BMP-2, but I believe the design is home-grown.

--- Kevin

CPangracs
18 Feb 04, 23:38
OK, going further up the food chain: does the PLA have significant quantities of these vehicles? I was under the impression they were equipped with primarily indigenous designs when it comes to APCs, although the Type 86 is a copy of the BMP-1. The Type 90 does look somewhat similar to a BMP-2, but I believe the design is home-grown.

--- Kevin
No, they don't have "significant" numbers, but the market for Russian arms and vehicles is absolutely wide open right now, and many of these vehicles could conceivably make it into the DPRK inventory. Also, as we both know, our actual intel on what the DPRK has is VERY slight, for obvious reasons. Look at any well-known website about arms, and virtually nothing is available on the DPRK.

Kim's propaganda machine works well, IMO.

kbluck
19 Feb 04, 12:44
Conceivably, yes. But in large quantities? You can make whatever assumptions you like, but it would be best to have a consistent backstory to explain it.

Unclassified intel on DPRK is spotty, true, but there are some decent outlines out there. Both FAS.org and GlobalSecurity.org have some instructive estimates, as do Jane's and World Defense Almanac (not for free, admittedly.) I also have a USMC intel summary in PDF. It's got some good stuff, including TOEs. I'll send that to you if by chance you don't already have it (5+mb).

While these various estimates certainly show some disagreement, one thing they do seem to agree upon is the general absence of Soviet equipment dating from around the early 80's forward (like the BMP-2 and BTR-80), the major exceptions I've found being the possibility of locally produced AT4/5s and a very few modern aircraft.

If you postulate the presence of large numbers of such equipment after all by 2010, in spite of publicly available intel to the contrary, I think you'll need a rationale with a bit more detail as to how they got it and why we missed it.

--- Kevin

CPangracs
19 Feb 04, 14:15
I'll say it now, I'll say it again in 6 years,..."Unless you see it, or live it, you don't know it!"

Evidence, all of theat great intel we had from our CIA, Mossad, Interpol, The French, The Brits, et al. Yeah, there were DEFINITELY weapons of mass destruction being produced in massive quantities, yada, yada, yada. Your trust in ANY intel, FAS and GS included, is misplaced. Again, Russian military equipment is being sold to the highest bidder, and that HAS been proven.

So, if you are looking for something based on the future in an unpredictable world absolutely rooted in fact, then maybe Raging Tiger won't be for you. I hate to say that to anyone, but the main reason I accepted this project is because it wouldn't be the "same old thing", and I could throw a great many "what-if's" into the mix. It is also a chance for me to be graphically fresh and bring a new standard to the ATF maps.

Yes, I have a backstory that Pat Proctor seemed very excited about. It is also based in a reality that could quite possibly turn out to be true, given the current headlines, which is kind of scary given that I submitted my ideas almost 7 months ago. I'm sorry you think that Pat would approve of something totally unrealistic.

Yes, I could have stayed very linear and had a DPRK army filled with nothing but Type 63 Amphib tanks and Y531's that can be taken out by 3 or 4 25mm AP rounds from a Bradley (Look at the TO&E on GlobalSecurity.com, and that's about all you'll see!). I also could have stuck with ONLY ROK equipment for the good guys. That would not be my idea of fun or interesting. Despite it all, this is still a commercial venture, and we want the game to maybe appeal to people who may not be familiar with computer wargaming as such, not just grongards, history buffs, and people without imagination.;)

The fact is, if there are any hostilities in that region, the US will be involved, if not running the whole show. The equipment is real, and the possibility of the DPRK having this equipment is real as well. As for significant numbers, Raging Tiger is essentially a Battalion-and-below simulation. There does not have to be significant numbers in their inventory to have them thrown against a technologicaly superior force.

My goal with RT is to provide a graphically pleasing experience with enhanced gameplay and a feasible and interesting storyline. Whether I provide that with Raging Tiger will be up to the consumer, and even then, I'm confident there won't be a consensus of people saying that it is totally unrealistic. We shall see.

If you are still inclined after reading this, you can send on the USMC intel summary.

kbluck
19 Feb 04, 15:32
Easy there, Curt. Like I said, you can make whatever assumptions you like. I just think you'll need a higher standard of rationale to maintain your audience's "willing suspension of disbelief" when your assumptions contradict the "conventional wisdom". You have to admit, you waffled a bit when I asked you about the issue. First it was Chinese hand-me-downs. Then it was the backdoor Russian arms market. Perhaps you were just being coy, but it came across to me as not fully thought out.

You can download the USMC thing from my web server here:

http://www.netce.com/ATF/USMC-NK.pdf

Regards,

--- Kevin

CPangracs
19 Feb 04, 16:16
Easy there, Curt. Like I said, you can make whatever assumptions you like. I just think you'll need a higher standard of rationale to maintain your audience's "willing suspension of disbelief" when your assumptions contradict the "conventional wisdom". You have to admit, you waffled a bit when I asked you about the issue. First it was Chinese hand-me-downs. Then it was the backdoor Russian arms market. Perhaps you were just being coy, but it came across to me as not fully thought out.

You can download the USMC thing from my web server here:

http://www.netce.com/ATF/USMC-NK.pdf

Regards,

--- KevinNo need to caution me here. I'm fine. However, I have NOT waffled, you misunderstood. I suggest you reread what I wrote. There are NOT just Chinese hand-me-downs, evidence by their newest tank, the Type 98, in the DPRK Arsenal. There are the best and finest China has to offer IN ADDITION to newer Russian equipment. I deliberately threw in other possibilities as to the acquisition of BMP-2's and BTR-80's because you refused to believe that the DPRK could ever hope to own these items. Also, I'm under no obligation to anyone to release complete details of the game yet, so yes, it may be a matter of being coy, or it may be a matter of certain restrictions on what I can release.

Vehicles such as the BMP 2 and BTR-80, could easily make it to the DPRK, in numbers, either through the Chinese or in direct purchase from Russia. This does not require one to "suspend their disbelief", only to carry-out the state of the world's arms trade to its logical conclusion, and it is all right there. I may be making some assumptions, but they are not based in another dimension, they are based in past history, current availability, and future possibilities.

BTW, I have, indeed, seen that handbook on the DPRK, and, because it was over 6 years old at the time of the conception of RT, I disregarded much of it due to the intel that report was actually based on, which I read in its pure form here at the CARL Library. Most of the info was dated NLT 1991. That "handbook" was only a compilation of previously-gathered intel sources. I had access to a few other things that aren't generally available to the public-at-large which assisted me in many of my conclusions.

Kevin, I will never profess to be an arms-trade expert, nor am I a historian by trade. I am a wargamer by hobby and now by profession. I am often a stickler for historical accuracy, but in the case of future warfare, supposition is the name of the game, and two people could come to completely different conclusions looking at the exact same intel, which is often the bane of the intel community:) . Please know that I respect your opinions, but request that you do the same for me, and please understand that some of my source info is a bit different from yours (nothing confidential or requiring a security clearance, I assure you!).

kbluck
19 Feb 04, 17:32
I just want to make clear, Curt --- I'm not "refusing to believe" anything about your game. I asked a simple question regarding some material you published not lining up with publicly available information. Your first answer regarding the Chinese *also* didn't line up, and so it didn't seem satisfying to me as an answer. Since you invited me to reread your answer, here it is:


It is an assumption that the DPRK would "inherit" these aging platforms from their chinese supporters as the PLA updates their inventories. The DPRK used to produce versions of communist-block equipment before 1989, but has since lost that ability along with the fall of the wall and a cooling of all-out support from the Chinese.

Nothing there about black-market arms sales. You clearly identified PLA casting off obsolete equipment as the source. You rule out local production as well. I ask a follow-up regarding the general belief that the Chinese don't have them either, and you don't clarify the Chinese situation at all, fingering the Russians as the source instead. Those seem like completely different stories to me. So I suggested you might want to sort out your backstory on the matter. Sorry if I offended you.

If the real answer is "wait and see", then just say so. But, if you're going to offer "sneak previews", I'm going to offer feedback on what I see, and question your story if it doesn't seem internally consistent. This particular element didn't. If the answer is Russian arms sales, great, but that's not what you said the first time I asked. If so, then that in turn brings up the question of how such major sales went unnoticed. If the answer to that is "massive intelligence failure", that's fine too. Worse have happened. Still a bit thin, but it is just a preview after all, and one can hope details will be revealed in the game's alternate history when it comes out.

On the other hand, if the answer is "I pulled it out of thin air because I thought the real equipment was too pathetic to offer a challenge to the player", as some aspects of your response seem to indicate, I think at least some of your potential audience is going to have trouble swallowing that.

As for my imagination, notice I haven't offered any criticism of your major story arc, paradigm-shattering as it may be, because nothing about it made me go "hey, wait a minute...". There is a sort of "rule" in hard science fiction that the author is allowed one major violation of the laws of physics as we know them to drive the story, but everything else needs to stay consistent with that violation and what we already know. If that allowance is exceeded, or the consistency test fails, the story becomes ridiculous.

Truth really is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense.

--- Kevin

XRAY
19 Feb 04, 17:57
Far be it for me a mere Corporal to come between two Senior NCOs, but gentlemen enough already!

Having followed all you posts over the last few weeks (which are now becoming warmer and longer by the day) itís time to agree to disagree.

I have the utmost respect for both you gentlemen , the amount of expertise and effort you put in to enhance the ATF engine is truly commendable. I look forward daily to visiting Donís forums and I am amazed at the goodwill I find.


So tell me to butt out if you wish, but itís how I see recent developments on the ATF forum.

Peter

CPangracs
19 Feb 04, 18:04
I have rewritten this post 5 times now, and all turned-out sounding very defensive. You seem to be trying to blow holes in something that you don't even have the full background on.

RAGING TIGER IS A WORK OF FICTION. It is NOT a historical recreation. If I said that the DPRK bought BMP-3's from a guy named Vinny in the Bronx, then that is MY problem. You may not be able to handle it, but I am not building this game for you, I am building it for a much broader audience. I have never been accused of being a snob as far as my gami9ng tastes and preferences, and so it shall be with my foray into game creation.

If all you can pick on is a matter of semantics on how I replied, then I guess I should be very happy to survive such historical scrutiny relatively unscathed. I now know to be much more careful in how I explain things, and include a bunch of caveats and disclaimers after every statement.

Unless someone OTHER than Kevin would like to opine on the matter of the equipment represented in the equipment guide, I am requesting that a moderator close this thread, because its productivity has reached its capacity.


---Curt

XRAY
19 Feb 04, 18:29
Curt & Kevin

I have sent this email to Don Maddox, perhaps he will be able to resolve your disagreement.

"A rather unfortunate flame war is developing over on the ATF forum and despite a call for the parties to agree to disagree the matter continues to be unresolved. It would be tragic if two of the main contributors to this forum left because of a unresolved disagreement.


One of the parties, CPangracs is now requesting a Moderator to intervene.

The post is Raging Tiger OPFOR Equipment Guid"

kbluck
19 Feb 04, 18:33
You're right, we've gotten rather testy. I apologize for my part in the escalation.

All I really wanted to know is which parts of your concept are based on documentation, and which parts are speculation. I have no problem with speculation; the whole title is speculative, as is most of wargaming. When I saw you including BMP-2 and BTR-80, I was mainly curious as to whether you had hard new information on the subject, since that would be very interesting to me. Then the China response confused me. Ditto Grizzly; I was curious if you knew something I didn't, or you were reading tea leaves. Unfortunately, I got sidetracked on intraservice politics and how to plow up IEDs.

A common hazard of technically oriented conversations and delayed feedback.

:TRUCE:

--- Kevin

CPangracs
19 Feb 04, 18:53
No worries, Kevin. Like I said, I too get sidetracked, especially when dealing with things that have fascinated me my whole life.

I will say, however, that there have been some dealings between Russia and China that aren't well known, and involve conventional weapons and vehicles. Of course, there will have to be a bit of speculation on my part for Raging Tiger, but I don't plan on going overboard!:devious:

CPangracs
19 Feb 04, 19:02
Curt & Kevin

I have sent this email to Don Maddox, perhaps he will be able to resolve your disagreement.

"A rather unfortunate flame war is developing over on the ATF forum and despite a call for the parties to agree to disagree the matter continues to be unresolved. It would be tragic if two of the main contributors to this forum left because of a unresolved disagreement.


One of the parties, CPangracs is now requesting a Moderator to intervene.

The post is Raging Tiger OPFOR Equipment Guid"
With all due respect, Peter, butt-out. We handled it without your intervention. IF I had wanted a moderator to intervene I would have contacted Don directly. I was giving things a chance to cool down, and it did, probably before you even hit the send button. Kevin and I are old Army dogs of war, and we both tend to be very obstinate. I think it keeps us BOTH honest and continually forces us to analyze our respective positions on a given topic.

As far as the term "Agree to disagree", that is the dumbest phrase I've ever heard, and never solves anything. "A matter of differing opinions" is much better.:D

Kevin and I are adults, and we worked it out. If that was your idea of a flame war, life must be awful tame and boring where you come from!;) One thing I doubt you'll see here is what often happens in the general forums, which is why I rarely venture there.

Thanks for your concern, but Kev and I are old buds now, having an espresso at the local Starbux! But you never know, we may have differing opinions on another subject tomorrow,...all the better to learn from, right?

XRAY
19 Feb 04, 19:41
Curt

Point taken, I may have been hasty and deserve the rebuke. But following your many postís I was becoming concerned that things could escalate and a flame war could result.

So please accept my apologies and Iíll keep my mouth shut in future

CPangracs
19 Feb 04, 20:19
NO! Never keep your mouth shut! That's how things like the Holocaust get started and keep going!