Modern tank lasting time? (valid for other modern systems)

[Mohoender]

The milage problem is one all modern tanks face. Weighing in around and average of 50-60 tonnes they're all going to chew through the fuel and from that viewpoint alone, only the wealthier, more developed countries are ever likely to employ them.


Going away from the original thread, I have a question. Wouldn't modern tank quickly become useless simply because of their weight? In a modern world, the 50-60 tons are definitely not a problem but with decaying bridges and rusting infrastructures everywhere, wouldn't they be stopped by every small river around?

After a few years of the twilight war, I don't really expect many bridges to be still capable of resisting such heavy weights.

Another question. How many time can last a M1A2 Abrams (even worse: a french Leclerc) without proper care and the vast technological support system to fix them?

Similar questions can concern fly-by-wire aircrafts.

[pmulcahy11b]

Another question. How many time can last a M1A2 Abrams (even worse: a french Leclerc) without proper care and the vast technological support system to fix them?

Similar questions can concern fly-by-wire aircrafts.

Out troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have been having this problem for a while. (And that's including small arms -- maintenance of small arms is another thing that T2K doesn't really cover.) That's with proper technological support. If you have a little experience (and sometimes not) and there's a depot-level military maintenance facility nearby, it's much easier to get a job in the US. The US military is having to regularly do large-scale fixes and rebuilds on everything from aircraft to M-9 pistols. Aircraft have even been grounded for extended periods (the F-15C/D fleet grounding a few years ago was the most infamous of those groundings) simply because they are worn out and no longer safe to fly. BDAR repairs in theater are rampant.

Now consider a T2K world where there is no depot-level maintenance, and little third-echelon maintenance. Chilling.

[Mohoender]

Paul what you say on aircrafts reminds me of what the chief mechanician on the BA103 "Cambrai" was saying back in 1994.

At the time the base was servicing Mirage 2000C and Mirage F-1C (that were due for retirement). The chief mechanician was over 50 and had been around since the late 1950's. Of course, we asked him what he was thinking of both aircrafts. He answered that "the Mirage 2000 was obviously the finest but that it was posing tremendous maintenance problems. The Mirage 2000 needed to much computers and to much technology for servicing. the F-1C of course had plenty of electronics but if it was damaged they could fix it fairly easily and send him back to action. As the F-1 was not fly by wire, the mechanician still had some action on its mechanical parts and in case of need, they could rework several piece to make the aircraft serviceable again."

I hope I was clear.:)

[pmulcahy11b]

I hope I was clear.:)

Absolutely. My neighbor, Mike March, is an 84-year-old retired auto mechanic. He can fix just about anything mechanical -- but he plainly admits he doesn't have a clue about modern cars and appliances. And he says it's the new electronics and computers -- they drive him nuts.

BTW, he was also a World War 2 Sherman tank driver. He has lots of great stories -- he got to Europe just days after the Normandy landings.

[Mohoender]

BTW, he was also a World War 2 Sherman tank driver. He has lots of great stories -- he got to Europe just days after the Normandy landings.

Too bad I'm not living in US anymore, I would be more than happy to write his biography.:)

[jester]

Its been a while and I am no tanker, but I saw one on TV, maybe it was modern armor or some such program on the history or discovery channel. But most armored vehicles need at least 2 hours of maintenance for each hour of use.

And for that reason I can see areturn to older simplier designs in a T2K world.

Old stocks of M60 and M48 tanks could be comming out of mothballs.

As for the bridge issue;

I see two things with that,

1 tanks would be accompanied by their own assault support troops to storm bridges capable of holding them with an engineer platoon inspecting and reinforcing the bridge to handle the weight. And thus, I can see many fights over bridges and fords by units who have tanks just to eneable them to transit through an area.

Bridges, units will consider the ones capable of supporting armor become key objectives. These as stated above units would man these not with one or two men or even a fireteam but these would be fully fortified in some areas with a full detatchment of troops to enable your forces to move, as well as to deny enemy forces movement. A second benefit is control of the roadway and the waterway. An enterprising warlord could even charge a toll for all who are not from around there, which of course would be a boost to the local economy.

And lastly, a return to simplier designs like the old jeep and similiar vehicles, and to the lighter armored and scout type cars like the M8 greyhound loosing the tracks but having more modern weaponry, or modern based old style weapons like recoless rifles could make a return to the battlefield to replace antitank missiles and even more complicated large caliber gun rounds.

[Adm.Lee]

Assuming bridge & road maintenance only stopped after 1998, I'm not so sure bridge deterioration is going to be a big factor in 2000. Sure, where bridges are already old and wearing out, but not when some are still in good shape.

Of course, when armies fight back and forth over ground, they blow up bridges all the time.

I think heavy AFVs would have more problem with bridges not existing, than them being too big for them.

I do agree, that maintenance would be a problem. There are probably plenty enough technicians and tools to form effective shops at a brigade or division level, especially if the division can concentrate its surviving AFVs in one or a few battalion. Parts and computerized diagnostics, that's your issue.

[Mohoender]

Of course, when armies fight back and forth over ground, they blow up bridges all the time.


About bridges that's what I had more or less in mind. Plus the numerous damaged ones still standing.

During ww2 after the allied landing in Provence, bridges had been so extensively damaged or blown up that the train that was running all along the coast (Train des Pignes) was never put back in service. Fixing all the bridges was too expensive and fighting in the area lasted for a few weeks only. Bridges simply were primary targets.

[jester]

AH!!! A downside!

Tanks and other very heavy tracked vehicles do alot of damage to roads. I mean even diesel trucks do ALOT of damage, but tanks even more. With so many heavy vehicles traveling on the paved roads and bridges they would show ALOT of wear. Alot of roads would be beaten to pieces within two years of hard use. The bridges, they may handle the weight, but the roadbed for them would be damaged And that would pose one of the bigger problems in my view.

And that also brings the question of, with the regular roads being so torn up by armor alot of your wheeled vehicles would suffer unusual wear and even damage with broken axels and other drive train damage from having to travel in the path of tracked vehicles.

[copeab]

And that also brings the question of, with the regular roads being so torn up by armor alot of your wheeled vehicles would suffer unusual wear and even damage with broken axels and other drive train damage from having to travel in the path of tracked vehicles.

Finding replacements for damaged tires alone would be a problem, and tires will wear out before axles or transmissions.

[Mohoender]

AH!!! A downside!

Tanks and other very heavy tracked vehicles do alot of damage to roads. I mean even diesel trucks do ALOT of damage, but tanks even more. With so many heavy vehicles traveling on the paved roads and bridges they would show ALOT of wear. Alot of roads would be beaten to pieces within two years of hard use. The bridges, they may handle the weight, but the roadbed for them would be damaged And that would pose one of the bigger problems in my view.


A very good point indeed. I'll add one. With the nuclear exchange, the weather changes with archer winter, droughts, major floods... That can be terrific and leave its mark in no more than a few months.

The simple and sudden drop of temperatures during the nuclear winter will make waterpipes to be destroyed, the road covering will be largely weakened and stones will explode. When, the temperatures rise again, the snow melting (water evacuation damaged), combining with rain, will result in dramatic floods on most river ravaging river banks, taking away roads, blowing away buildings and destroying or damaging bridges. If that is effectively followed by droughts (as in the USA), the entire road systems will decay even further.

I have spent several times on the Douro river over the past twenty years (going there every year). Each year, parts of the road, bridges... was going down in the river. No to talk of the mountain falling down on your head every winter. Funny enough as one of the modern bridges was damaged every two years, the Roman bridge down the dust road (the sole access to the Tavora valley until the 17th century) was still standing and we were crossing it with heavy caterpillar bulldozer on a regular base.

I perfectly agree that with only two years of neglect fair portions of the road system will be perfectly in shape. However, essential parts of it will be either destroyed or largely damaged.

[Raellus]

I think we can all agree that after the excalating nuclear exchange starting in '97, manufacture of high-tech military gear would all but cease. By 2000, a lot of what remained from before the tech-freeze but be worn out and broken down, or just about there.

NVGs, for example. After two to five years of heavy-duty use in field/combat conditions (impact damage, droppages, immersion, dust, mud, etc.) and without proper high-tech maintainance, such complex electronic devices would quickly break down, even if you could find batteries for them. Radios would be similar. I know this stuff is designed to be durable, but how long would they realistically last? As a GM, I tend to make funtional hi-tech items fairly rare.

As for MBTs, what few tanks you'd be likely to encounter in 2000 would most likely have survived battle damage and multiple major breakdowns, and would probably contain lots of spare parts scavenged from destroyed or badly damaged brothers and sisters. In other words, most tanks would be Frankensteins. Others may have arrived in theatre fresh from the factory before most factories were blasted to radioactive slag or deprived of all electricity.

I'll throw this idea out there. The MBT strengths listed in the canonical vehicle guides represent only operational tanks in each division. Based on WWII MBT operational tank levels, and given the relative complexity of modern MBT various systems, there might actually be a third as many non-operational tanks in each division that could be potentially repaired and put back into action if parts, fuel, ammo, crew, etc. could be found for them.

One other argument in favor of Soviet/WTO military capabilities post-'97 is the relative simplicity of a lot of their hardware, especially their stuff made in the years before the late '80s. Plus, with their numbers advantage, they'd have more tanks to canibalize spare parts from.

I think I've already asked this, but what's the life of a typical ATGM or SAM under field conditions? I would imagine that guidance systems, especially, wouldn't hold out indefinitely in the field.