Tank Survivability c. 2000 and Tank Transporter Question

[Raellus]

First, some musings; then, my question.

With the the relative paucity of hi-tech ATGMs and launching platforms like helis and fixed wing tac-air, MBTs that made it to 2000 would have a better chance of hanging around than they would have had prior to, and shortly after the TDM. ATGM (and aircraft) production would have pretty much stopped after late '97. I imagine that most of what was produced before then would have been used up by the Battle of Kalisz.

LAWs and RPGs (not including tandem warhead versions) are not as deadly to modern MBTs as ATGMs. Abrams and Challenger tanks in Iraq have both survived multiple RPG hits relatively unscathed. Unless you can hit a chink in the armor (literally), the most you can hope for is a mobility kill. With slatted armor and improvised supplemental armor (tank tracks, welded on armor plates, sandbacks, chains, etc.), the chances of surviving an RPG or LAW hit are even better. I figure than most reactive armor would have been used up by 2000. Really, the biggest threat to an MBT in 2000 would be AT mines, another MBT, or the rare AT gun.

Anyway, those are just a few of my thoughts. MBTs would be very rare by 2000, but, IMO, they would be a lot harder to kill then too.

:confused: Here's my related question. I'm trying to find some info about modern U.S. and Soviet/Russian tank transporters and I haven't come across much. My Google searches are turning up mostly info on WWII tank transporters. The modern ones I've found are mostly European made. I figure a few of you know something about this topic. I hear that road marches are hell on tracks and that, whenever and wherever possible, tanks are moved around on rolling stock and/or truck trailers to spare them wear and tear. It's odd that I'm having so much trouble finding info/pics on modern U.S. and Russian tank transporters. Help!

Thanks.

[copeab]

:confused: Here's my related question. I'm trying to find some info about modern U.S. and Soviet/Russian tank transporters and I haven't come across much. My Google searches are turning up mostly info on WWII tank transporters. The modern ones I've found are mostly European made. I figure a few of you know something about this topic. I hear that road marches are hell on tracks and that, whenever and wherever possible, tanks are moved around on rolling stock and/or truck trailers to spare them wear and tear. It's odd that I'm having so much trouble finding info/pics on modern U.S. and Russian tank transporters. Help!


In the mid-1970's, the US adopted the M746 tractor and M747 trailer. The trailer could support 120,000 lbs and the tractor towed the loaded trailer at 38 mph. My photo shows it loaded with an M60 tank.I don't know if the Abrahms is carried by a new vehicle or an updated M746/747.

[kato13]

In the mid-1970's, the US adopted the M746 tractor and M747 trailer. The trailer could support 120,000 lbs and the tractor towed the loaded trailer at 38 mph. My photo shows it loaded with an M60 tank.I don't know if the Abrahms is carried by a new vehicle or an updated M746/747.

Paul has info on a few, The M-1000 HET (under US trailers) is used for the M1 Series I believe.

[Webstral]

Of course, anyone with a scrap of determination is going to figure out a way to move their tanks. Tractor trailers are limited to 40 tons on US highways (I believe), but there are plenty of trailers out there that can carry more. Adapting a civilian trailer for carrying a tank represents a challenge, but as long as the trailer can handle the weight the adaptations are more about getting the tank on the trailer securely.

40th Infantry Division in California faces this issue. I don't know whether any proper tank carriers were available when the division moved from Oregon to Camp Roberts; we might imagine, though, that an infantry division made technically mechanized by scrounging AFV might also have to make due to improvised tank carriers.

I won't bring up Thunder Empire here, other than to remark that 111th Brigade doesn't have any real tanks; ergo, finding suitable trailers for the Ridgways and M113s is going to be a far lesser challenge than that facing any formation with M1s to move.

Webstral

[cavtroop]

To your first point, the biggest threat to an MBT in 2000 would be availability of POL (Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants), followed by parts, fuel and ammo. I imagine you'd see more than a few MBT's abandoned (and destroyed in place by their crews), as they could no longer find parts, or lubricants, or ammo, or distill enough fuel, etc.

And Kato is right, the M1 is transported on the roads by the HET, and also via rail.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The MAZ535 and MAZ537 truck has formed the basis for Soviet and WTO tank transporters for many years, still in use today in some places or in an updated form.

Tank Transporter MAZ-537G with MAZ/ChMZAP-5247G Semitrailer
http://ebook30.com/history/history/106780/soviet-tank-transporter-maz-537g-with-mazchmzap-5247g-semitrailer.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAZ-535
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://legion.wplus.net/guide/army/tr/maz535.shtml&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhhJDLcS-E_InR-ciqN2pgh_iy4ivg google translation of Russian site
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://legion.wplus.net/guide/army/tr/maz537.shtml&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhjmp8JOf4qJiK7kkCXW_qslAcVNPQ google translation of Russian site
http://www.military-today.com/trucks/maz_537.htm
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soviet_MAZ-537_trucks_transporting_tanks.JPEG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAZ-7310 updated version
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://legion.wplus.net/guide/army/tr/kzkt7428.shtml&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhgCaGZZcxEZKjxSrz7eEm9DBvobMQ google translation of Russian site, latest tank transporter
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://legion.wplus.net/guide/army/tr/trailors.shtml&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhj3KRaK4D6yRBqDj9tYn61-_RdnGQ google translation of same Russian site, this one's about the trailers

Can't say much for NATO transporters but I believe Paul Mulcahy has them on his site

[kato13]

Semi OT

Somewhere I have a list of how much railroad rolling stock is needed for every type of US battalion. I believe it was a planning document for NTC transport logistics.

If anyone is interested, let me know and I can dig it up.

[Raellus]

To your first point, the biggest threat to an MBT in 2000 would be availability of POL (Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants), followed by parts, fuel and ammo. I imagine you'd see more than a few MBT's abandoned (and destroyed in place by their crews), as they could no longer find parts, or lubricants, or ammo, or distill enough fuel, etc.

And Kato is right, the M1 is transported on the roads by the HET, and also via rail.

Point well taken. For the record, I was referring to "active" threats but I agree with your assertion. Broken down tanks in enemy controlled or disputed territory would probably be destroyed in place, if a heavy recovery vehicle wasn't on hand to tow it out of harm's way. On the other hand, in friendly territory, broken down tanks that couldn't be fixed would probably be cannibalized for spares for other tanks and not destroyed outright.

THANKS guys, I knew I came to the right place for TT info!:)

Apparently, the M746/747 could haul an M1 but not without hurting itself in the process.

[Legbreaker]

I can't say much about today, but I do recall that for the majority of WWII, British tank designers were restricted to only the width that could be carried on British trains. Later in the war this restriction was dropped and some really good designs were finally able to see the light of day.

Modern tanks may not be as easily transportable by rail as one may wish. Tunnels constructed in the 19th and early 20th centuries as well as bridges are going to present serious hurdles for transportation which in some cases may force delays of hours, days or even weeks if an alternate route can't be found/used.

[Abbott Shaull]

Point well taken. For the record, I was referring to "active" threats but I agree with your assertion. Broken down tanks in enemy controlled or disputed territory would probably be destroyed in place, if a heavy recovery vehicle wasn't on hand to tow it out of harm's way. On the other hand, in friendly territory, broken down tanks that couldn't be fixed would probably be cannibalized for spares for other tanks and not destroyed outright.

THANKS guys, I knew I came to the right place for TT info!:)

Apparently, the M746/747 could haul an M1 but not without hurting itself in the process.

Well for the most part any anti-tank weapon regardless the if it the old LAW or RPG to newer weapons would have to be considered as a lethal threat to any tank. This is mainly due, to the fact that any tank still operational would have already had taken a beaten, so there are more points that could be more expose than they had before the war.

[fightingflamingo]

Replacement vehicles (at least for the US, UK, and Canada) would be shipped into Holland or Denmark, and then offloaded from their ships, and loaded onto rail flatcarsand from there they would be moved to theatre logistical units. Then they would be cascaded down to Army, Corps, Divisional direct support units on tank transporters and flatbeds to the recieving units. All recovered friendly battle damaged vehicles would be moved in reverse with the intention of repairing them and returning them to service at each level, and only passing the vehicles back if they could not be repaired at a given level. Vehicles deemed to be a total loss at each stage of evacuation would be pulled out of the evacuation chain and stipped at that level for any salvage parts (I have IRL pulled road wheels of off M113 target vehicles to replace road wheels on my NG M113 damaged during annual training).

[Raellus]

Replacement vehicles (at least for the US, UK, and Canada) would be shipped into Holland or Denmark, and then offloaded from their ships, and loaded onto rail flatcarsand from there they would be moved to theatre logistical units. Then they would be cascaded down to Army, Corps, Divisional direct support units on tank transporters and flatbeds to the recieving units. All recovered friendly battle damaged vehicles would be moved in reverse with the intention of repairing them and returning them to service at each level, and only passing the vehicles back if they could not be repaired at a given level. Vehicles deemed to be a total loss at each stage of evacuation would be pulled out of the evacuation chain and stipped at that level for any salvage parts (I have IRL pulled road wheels of off M113 target vehicles to replace road wheels on my NG M113 damaged during annual training).

This is helpful. I was wondering at what levels salvage and repair would be handled. Great macro explanation and micro example.

I would imagine that more and more salvage and repair would be handled at the divisional level as the war wore on (especially once the cantonment system became established).

[fightingflamingo]

pretty much any battle damaged vehicle will have something which can be salvaged off of it. The US maintained a small depot level maintenance site in the FRG, but during wartime some of the Ro-Ro's would be taking vehicles back to the US for Depot level maintenance (reconstruction) at Anniston Army Depot. By doing so you lengthen the amount of time you have to ramp up your new production capacity to wartime levels, by drawing on recovered vehicles in addition to war reserves...

[Abbott Shaull]

After the start of 1998 the ability to send vehicle back to be repair would be limited, many Commanders at all levels would want to keep what they had no matter the start of it ill-repair.

[fightingflamingo]

yes... the krakow module addresses this in that the city has several tanks in static positions around the city with their powerpacks, radio's, etc removed, with communications being conducted with field telephones. turrets can be traversed manually (it might be slow but it can be done), and this allows more spares (or parts which can be rebuilt if you have a machine shop & skilled labor) to keep other vehicles in full operating capacity longer than would otherwise be possible. In Krakow, athough not explicity stated (IMHO possible), there could be two engines for each operation AFV, one in the vehicle, the other in some stage of a rebuild using locally fabricated parts from machine shops where available, or reconditioned where less extensive facilites are available...

[Legbreaker]

Regarding the static tanks in Krakow, I wonder if it would be feasible to replace the original powered traverse with a locally produced system. With much of the other internal equipment stripped out, the installation of an electric motor, a few belts, etc might make for a better option than cranking by hand. Smaller, fine adjustment would still be done manually though.

Since they're static, you could even run them on steam generated from the stove in the unit's HQ bunker a dozen metres away... In winter you're killing two birds with one stone - keeping the troops warm and powering the turret.

[Webstral]

Regarding the static tanks in Krakow, I wonder if it would be feasible to replace the original powered traverse with a locally produced system. With much of the other internal equipment stripped out, the installation of an electric motor, a few belts, etc might make for a better option than cranking by hand. Smaller, fine adjustment would still be done manually though.

Since they're static, you could even run them on steam generated from the stove in the unit's HQ bunker a dozen metres away... In winter you're killing two birds with one stone - keeping the troops warm and powering the turret.

I like the idea of constructing a new turret traverse mechanism. Good thinking!

If they are going to heat the tracks, the Krakow troops are going to have to insulate the turret somehow. Otherwise, in the winter steam and bared metal will ruin the winter camouflage. Still, that can't be an insurmountable problem.

Webstral

[Mohoender]

Modern tanks may not be as easily transportable by rail as one may wish. Tunnels constructed in the 19th and early 20th centuries as well as bridges are going to present serious hurdles for transportation which in some cases may force delays of hours, days or even weeks if an alternate route can't be found/used.

It will depend on the country and that will be hard to know. If I take the exemple of France and Belgium, it won't be a problem. Both countries have adapted their old 19th and early 20th centuries tunnels (or closed them). In addition, for France (I don't know for Belgium) our main land bases have a dedicated railway station. You should not forget that in most Western European countries, it is forbidden to roll your tanks on roads. Moving them with trucks in peacetime is extremely difficult. You need the authorizations, you need a special organization and our road tunnels have seldom been adapted.

Leg, you forgot something else. In Europe, trains have been used for centuries to move oversize goods.

I would suspect that to be true for Germany as well because it has a well developped railroad system.

I would be pretty confident for the Soviets also which are among the rare countries to retain dedicated railway troops.

One thing to check may be to see if a country has been developping the transportation system which consist of putting full trucks on train. If it has, you can be sure that tanks can be moved around that way. It's not absolutely accurate, however, as France for exemple can move tanks but has falleen behind in adopting that system for trucs.

What will remain an interesting source of problem, however, will be the difference between the rail system. A train leaving for France will not be able to go to Spain. A train from Russia will face similar problems... At least you can be sure to roll your trains from Paris to Warsaw. I took trains which were coming from Warsaw since I was a kid.:)

I hope all that is clear, I'm not sure.:D

[Legbreaker]

Leg, you forgot something else. In Europe, trains have been used for centuries to move oversize goods.
Well, it was the British system that started it all off... ;)

Elsewhere, as you rightly point out, it could well be a different story, but after a few months of combat, railway lines are sure to have been damaged, with bridges and tunnels destroyed. There will be limited routes available for the trains to take.

[Mohoender]

Well, it was the British system that started it all off... ;)

Elsewhere, as you rightly point out, it could well be a different story, but after a few months of combat, railway lines are sure to have been damaged, with bridges and tunnels destroyed. There will be limited routes available for the trains to take.

Entirely agree. Railways are especially vulnerable and what you describe will be even more true after the first nukes start to fall. Nevertheless, I use them in my game and consider that in some areas (for exemple the trans-Siberian) large portions have been repaired. There are no more aircraft to destroy them and they have become less vulnerable again. I also use armored trains to protect them (more often than not a big word for reinforced wagons) and, again, as in WW2, these trains are carrying replacement rails. A trip by train can be very long.

The other main advantages come from the fact that I considered that a limited amount of steam powered locomotive are still available. Funny enough, you might have no train rolling in england but some in Wales (I think the wales have maintained part of their rolling stock in working order: Great Little Trains of Wales). The same will be true for Italy... New ones can even be built as they don't need modern machinery for their production.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Before you dismiss trains in England, look up the Strategic Steam Reserve
http://www.willys-mb.co.uk/strategic-reserve.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/Oubliette/StratReserve.html

[Mohoender]

Before you dismiss trains in England, look up the Strategic Steam Reserve
http://www.willys-mb.co.uk/strategic-reserve.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/Oubliette/StratReserve.html

Thanks, great and very interesting.

However, I dismissed trains in England because of the amount of damage from the nukes more than because of the lack of locomotives.

Then, I'll have to change my mind for some locations such as HMG territories.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes, the Krakow module takes into account. One has to remember to that the at this time the Polish 8th MRD commander had more or less decided not to leave Krakow. Not all units were so static, I always suspected how much staying power the tanks in lot of units that had more than a dozen AFVs operating in 2000. Reading through many of the Modules you find units operating units with only the coax MG being the only operational weapon on the vehicle. By 2000, if it was mobile and look menacing, it was good enough with hopes it would break those who they were about to engage. With a little hope they weren't armed with Anti-tank weapons.

I mean if I was Light Infantry or Militia and seen T-72, M1, Challenger, Leopard and etc. milling around and we didn't have any AT weapons at all. I wouldn't be to willing to risk life and limb to find out if the main gun and/or MG mounted on it were in working order. Even those unit in light wheeled vehicles would probably think twice.

Like has been stated many times, units commander as time went by would be almost unwilling to leave a vehicle at maintenance point due to not knowing when and if they would get a replacement as long as it was moving. Even knowing that damage was extreme to the armor where it should be left behind for needed repairs....