Converting Naval Weapons for use on land?

[Rainbow Six]

Guys, would appreciate your input here.

I've been doing some work on the south west of England lately, specifically Plymouth, which is home to a major Royal Navy base and am looking at the possibility of HMG forces stripping weapons systems from immobile ships for use a) as defensive platforms and b) as offensive weapons to use against the Duke of Cornwall's forces.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how practical it would be to take a surface warship's major weapons systems (e.g. 30mm oerlikon cannons, 20mm Phalanx CIWS, 4.5 inch gun) and convert them for use by land forces? Could these be used as a platform for gun trucks, or would they be too large? And would the engineering resources required be beyond that available after the nuclear exchange?

Cheers

[jester]

This has been done all the time in history!

Navy guns were placed on carriages durring the napoleonic war, the American Civil War, WWI <the rail guns> and WII, the large guns protecting Singapore, the guns from the damaged Battle Ships From Pearl Harbor were also used in fortifications in Hawaii, they also did this in the Philipines.

The Germans did this also on the Eastern Front, and in the Atlantic fortificaTIONS.

I have used them in some of my past campaigns. I liked using the old WWII 20mm antiaircraft guns as well as a 40mm Boffors on one platform.

A prime example is the creative use of the Germans 88mm flak as an antitank weapon.

I would think heavier guns could be mounted on trains, or entire gunturrets fitted on/in bunkers at key positions. Or maybe some freinkenarmor using lighter shipguns.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Definitely for some of the systems you mentioned like the 30mm Oerlikon cannons, the Oerlikon is literally just a "bigger machinegun". The Phalanx would be more difficult because it is completely self-contained and self-controlled (and heavy) - to make it usable I think you'd be better served by removing the gun and ammunition sections and placing them into some sort of artillery carriage plus you'd need to make a manual trigger mechanism. You're going to want someone with the right skills not just in mechanics but probably also physics to figure the recoil forces.
As for the larger naval guns, their turrets extend below decks and would require some serious lifting gear along with a properly prepared fort to emplace them in - altogether it's probably months if not years worth of work with the resources left in the Twilight world. The only real benefit would be as Jester mentioned, taking only the barrel and mating it to some sort of artillery carriage.

Don't forget that many RN vessels from that time period also had 20-30mm autocannon and .50 M2 machineguns for close in protection (I believe as a legacy from the Falklands War) so you'd have some weapons that would be a lot more portable (and could be mounted on a truck with a makeshift pintle or cradle). I would leave the main guns on the ships as they are and use them in the traditional Naval Gunfire Support role but firing from Portsmouth harbour rather than sailing the ships somewhere.

[pmulcahy11b]

I would think that if you can convert then for air use, you could convert them for ground use -- that's where some of the 40mm guns of AC-130s come from.

[jester]

When I said "gun turrets" I was thinking along the lines of the 5 inch gun mounts or the modern 120mm mounts that are used today or at least until recently. Like the guns on a destroyer. Those could be removed as a unit and mounted in a fort or on a railcar. As for the LARGER guns one would find on a cruiser or battleship, strip one or two out of the turret <which go down several decks, really those are more for the magazines and machinery for moving the entire turret>

Imagine if you will, a tall mountain <think Guns of Navarone> with such a monster gun. And it is the only passable area the gun covers, to bipass would mean you would have to go around and through mountains or worse, contaminated areas. It is more of a control and denial weapon. This can be the same for a straight, or channel or canal or channel. Again denying the enemy or whomever you dislike from using the area for fear of the weapon along. A psychological weapon for sure. Or, the weapon is mounted to a hull, and floated as a firing platform to an area to cause havoc to an enemy area. Take a naval gun say a 16 inch gun, put it on a railcar, then mount the rail car with a section of rail on the topdeck thus, allowing you some deflection to make adjustements. The ship points the gun in the general direction. The gun crew make smaller adjustments and then fires. The gun rolls down X distance of track and the gun is repositiononed to be fired again.

I can see several scenarios where the LARGE naval guns could be your reason for a PC campaign.

[Canadian Army]

The Phalanx CIWS has been adapted for operation on land:

Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar (C-RAM) System

http://www.platforms-mil.de/Bilder/Air_Defence_Raytheon_Centurion%203.jpg

http://www.defensenews.com/pgf/stories19/100808_hemtt_phalanx_ausa.JPG

Seeking a solution to constant rocket and mortar attacks on bases in Iraq, the United States Army requested a quick-to-field anti-projectile system in May 2004, as part of its Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar initiative. The end result of this program was 'Centurion'. For all intents and purposes a terrestrial version of the Navy's CIWS, the Centurion was developed in record time, with a proof of concept test in November that same year, and deployment to Iraq in 2005. Currently it protects forward operating bases and other high-value sites in and around Baghdad and is deployed by the British in the south of the country. Israel has purchased a single system for testing purposes, and is reported to be considering buying the system to counter rocket attacks and defend point military installations, though the nation's investment in an indigenous system known as Iron Dome has hindered these efforts. Recently Raytheon and Oshkosh have teamed up to build a prototype C-Ram on the back of a diesel-electric, 14-ton Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT).

Each CADS consists of a modified Phalanx 1B CIWS; capable of firing 3,000 or 4,500 M-246 or M-940 rounds per minute; powered by an attached generator and mounted on a trailer or a Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT) for mobility. The HEMTT version is specially configured to accommodate the 7-ton Phalanx weapon, by removing the load-handling system; normally carried on the back of the truck; and fixed platforms on the vehicle to integrate the Phalanx. Like the naval (1B) version, the CADS uses Ku-band radar and FLIR to detect and track incoming projectiles, and is also capable of engaging surface targets, with the system able to reach a -25 degree elevation. The CADS is capable of defending a 1.2 km square area. The CADS trailer is transportable by C-17 only one at a time, whereas three to four CADS HEMTTs can fit on a C-17.

[Ramjam]

I used to work at Devonport Dockyard and from working there and talking to a few navy guys this is the following I could get out of them that might help :

There was a 4.5 inch Mk8 gun set up on land in a fixed emplacement at HMS Cambridge to the SE of Plymouth until it closed about 10 yrs ago. It was the RN's gunnery school. If I remember rightly there were also every other sort of ship's gun set up there to train crews.

The 4.5 inch Mk8 has a auto-loader on ships but at Cambridge they had to manually load and fire it.

The sea around that part of the coast was a no-go area as it was a live fire range.

Hope that helps abit.

(p.s. The RN are now holding trials using 155mm ammo instead on 4.5 inch according to Wiki. The reason behind this is so the army and RN can use a standard gun calibre making logistics easier).

[Trooper]

This has been done all the time in history!


... or vice versa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_56_TK

[jester]

Why not! In the Going Home campaign I had my PCs on a tramp steamer that was outfitted with autocannons, tank guns and antiaircaft guns,

And when that vessel sunk and they took over a large sailboat they outfitted it with a 40mm boffors and a quad .50<two of my favorite combinations to outfit PCs with.> I find that the heavy hitting power of a 40mm boffors or even a twin boffors like those from WWII ships anti aircraft batteries are just AWESOME! And wonderful when engaging light and medium vehicles and fortifications. I even had the PCs as a side mission going to salvage the arms from a A-10 Warthog that had done a bellylanding in the desert just to aquire its weapon systems and ammo.

I also preffer a 20mm autocannon like those found on WWII anti air defenses on ships another wonderful weapon. These are a bit bigger than a .50, but they do so much more. But, easily managed by a single man in a gunposition. And they are more easily aimed and less expensive than a 20mm gatling.

And then of course a favorite, the quad .50, or sometimes called "The Duster!" used in WWII and Korea either as a towed system or fixed on the bed of a halftrack or truck. These again are awesome weapons, they can cause most things to disentrigrate, making walls crumble, vehicles disapear and people vaporize. A perfect weapon for the PC who needs an equalizer!

As I said, I had the PCs aquire a towed quad 23mm gun from a ZSU and they mounted it on the bed of a truck. This was their tail end vehicle so if anyone hit them from behind, they could deal with it. As well as an ambush from the side of the road the weapon could be turned about 90degrees in either direction to the front to rake the roadside should they need it. Again, the massive fire of 4 automatic 23mm cannons would be enough to disuade any direhard attacker. I would dare say that all but a MBT would be daunted.

Ah, I love applying weapons for things they were never intended to be used for.

Another combination I liked, the 7.62 and a 20mm in the same mount, one for GP <the 7.62> to deal as an anti personel and light skinned targetes and the 20mm to deal with the harder shelled targets.

And then of course we have the Twin .50s! A wonderful duo that is decently fitted, although it can be a bit on the heavy side for dealing with light infantry and vehicles and a bit light for dealing with heavy targets, but still a nice general purpose platform that is light and easily mobile via a jeep, humvee or landrover.

[Rainbow Six]

Thanks for the input guys, some good info there. I'm going to go with a number of gun trucks carrying machine guns and cannons up to 30mm, and leave the larger guns on the ships, as Stainless Steel Cynic suggested.

Ramjam, thanks for the info on HMS Cambridge - very useful indeed.

Cheers

[avantman42]

When I said "gun turrets" I was thinking along the lines of the 5 inch gun mounts or the modern 120mm mounts that are used today or at least until recently. Like the guns on a destroyer. Those could be removed as a unit and mounted in a fort or on a railcar. As for the LARGER guns one would find on a cruiser or battleship, strip one or two out of the turret <which go down several decks, really those are more for the magazines and machinery for moving the entire turret>

I'm not convinced that, with the resources available in T2K, it would be feasible to remove a bigger gun from a ship and adapt it for use on land.

In the UK, though, it's a moot point. The Royal Navy haven't had cruisers or battleships for some years. The last cruiser (HMS Blake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Blake_(C99))) was decommissioned in 1979, the last battleship (HMS Vanguard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_(23))) in 1960.

[Webstral]

The Phalanx CIWS has been adapted for operation on land:

Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar (C-RAM) System

http://www.platforms-mil.de/Bilder/Air_Defence_Raytheon_Centurion%203.jpg

http://www.defensenews.com/pgf/stories19/100808_hemtt_phalanx_ausa.JPG

Seeking a solution to constant rocket and mortar attacks on bases in Iraq, the United States Army requested a quick-to-field anti-projectile system in May 2004, as part of its Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar initiative. The end result of this program was 'Centurion'. For all intents and purposes a terrestrial version of the Navy's CIWS, the Centurion was developed in record time, with a proof of concept test in November that same year, and deployment to Iraq in 2005. Currently it protects forward operating bases and other high-value sites in and around Baghdad and is deployed by the British in the south of the country. Israel has purchased a single system for testing purposes, and is reported to be considering buying the system to counter rocket attacks and defend point military installations, though the nation's investment in an indigenous system known as Iron Dome has hindered these efforts. Recently Raytheon and Oshkosh have teamed up to build a prototype C-Ram on the back of a diesel-electric, 14-ton Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT).

Each CADS consists of a modified Phalanx 1B CIWS; capable of firing 3,000 or 4,500 M-246 or M-940 rounds per minute; powered by an attached generator and mounted on a trailer or a Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT) for mobility. The HEMTT version is specially configured to accommodate the 7-ton Phalanx weapon, by removing the load-handling system; normally carried on the back of the truck; and fixed platforms on the vehicle to integrate the Phalanx. Like the naval (1B) version, the CADS uses Ku-band radar and FLIR to detect and track incoming projectiles, and is also capable of engaging surface targets, with the system able to reach a -25 degree elevation. The CADS is capable of defending a 1.2 km square area. The CADS trailer is transportable by C-17 only one at a time, whereas three to four CADS HEMTTs can fit on a C-17.

Sucks to be downrange.

Webstral

[jester]

I'm not convinced that, with the resources available in T2K, it would be feasible to remove a bigger gun from a ship and adapt it for use on land.

In the UK, though, it's a moot point. The Royal Navy haven't had cruisers or battleships for some years. The last cruiser (HMS Blake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Blake_(C99))) was decommissioned in 1979, the last battleship (HMS Vanguard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_(23))) in 1960.

I am thinking removing the gun from a ship that is no longer able to sail, and mounting it on a railcare, a 5 inch turret is quite capable of fiting on a rail car and certainly a 120mm system which is common on modern frigates and destroyers.

And then we have the older vessels that have been converted into museum or training.

Around ports there are always lots of cranes and lifts to remove the entire system as a unit and mount it on a flatcar. Or, as I said move it to a narrow straight or channel or even river which will allow you to control the access which will be an important thing in a T2K world. I would say have a pair of 5 inch guns in and arround a river or river town or rivber entrance if I were a would be war lord in T2K. If you want to transit then I am the only game in town. Oh, you have the Vistual Krowla, good luck making it past my guns. But, hey, the transit and mooring fee isn't too high a price to pay. Certaily much cheaper than hiring a bunch of those rogues from the 5th that was destroyed at Kalisz who seem to be everywhere these days.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

First let me say that I see the Twilight game as one of survival in the ruins after WW3 so I do not see many, if any, groups having the resources to carry out major projects until they have had a few years (or decades) to stabilize and collect what they need to overcome the subsistence survival that would be the norm for the first few years after the wars end.
-----
There are still many concerns before you could take a turret such as the 5-inch and mount it on a railcar. Naval guns are typically set up with most of their machinery below deck level, certainly the majority of the ammunition handling is done below the deck. So you would have to configure the turret to allow a horizontal ammunition loader rather than the vertical loading system normally used. Lots of work there and the need for qualified personnel to do it.
Then there's the power issue, most turrets are electrically powered so you have to also supply power for that and lots of it.
There's also the issue that many modern turrets have only line-of-sight aiming mechanisms and no indirect fire aiming devices as they rely on the fire control centre for aiming information or are remotely aimed directly from the fire control centre. It seems a colossal waste to use a long-range naval gun in nothing but the direct fire role - unless you can get some fire control teams trained up to counter that.

You would be better off removing the gun and its cradle from the turret and mounting that on a railcar and treating it like traditional land artillery but you still need to incorporate devices to elevate and traverse and load ammunition.
I really do believe, like avantman, that this would be beyond the abilities of most groups in the Twilight world and if it is within their abilities, it is not worth the resources to make what is essentially a fairly limited use weapon - once the ammunition is gone there is no way to get more so for example if you only have 40 rounds, it is just not worth all the time and resources to make a naval gun into a land gun. That's assuming there is even any suitable ammunition left at all on the ship as most of it is probably on still serving ships rather than on damaged ships awaiting repairs in a dockyard.

The time and energy would be better spent making typical land fortifications or making simpler weapons. In fact I think you'd be better served making simple MRLS launchrails to fire blackpowder rockets.

[Legbreaker]

I'm with Stainless and Avantman. Some of the smaller weapon systems might be dismountable and used on land, but the bigger guns and missiles are going to have to stay where they are.
Even if the engineering issues of mounting the larger weapons are resolved, you still need the machinery to actually move them from the ship to shore. Even today there's not a lot of places that can shift an 8 inch gun turret.

Far better to leave them where they are and if possible shift the badly damaged hulk with tugs to where it can be sunk in shallow water.

[Targan]

Far better to leave them where they are and if possible shift the badly damaged hulk with tugs to where it can be sunk in shallow water.

You beat me to it. I've been meaning to post a similar comment since this thread started. I think that for coastal (and possibly riverine/lake) applications it would be most sensible ground the ship with the weapons in place. Or if the vessel is still marginally seaworthy just anchor (or otherwise secure) it in place. Then you can tow it to another location if operational requirements change. The vessel wouldn't need to be able to move under its own power but it would be very helpful if it still had its generators working to provide electrical and hydraulic power for turret traverse and elevation, heating, maybe even radio and radar. Just look at the situation of the USS Virginia in Satellite Down. It will probably never move again but it utterly dominates that small section of coastline (and provides electrical power for its little shore community).

[headquarters]

everyone has their own take on the scope of the game I guess.

Converting naval guns to land based systems can be done - although it is demanding in terms of resources ,personell and expertise.

The German railcar guns of huge caliber during WWII had a crew of 1300 personell all told .(Cooks,mechanicstrain engineers,guards,spotterplane,spotterplane airfield personell etc etc )

Imagine setting up 20 companies of 30-50 men instead and having them dominate an area on foot or truck or horseback.
I agree that this would take you further than one railway gun in terms of controlling the land in a "survive in the ruins " game .But in a "warlord vs warlord scrap over who owns the ruins and the villages " the railway gun would be the bang to end the squabble .So different scopes .

It might not be efficient -thats very well.
But improvising such guns to be used on land could happen .

Us Norgies did it in 1940 at Hegra fort in Mid Norway -it wasnt a 8 inch battleship naval gun though . Smaller .It did help ,but sighting and firing the thing at the unholy agressors was a pain and not very effective.

Using AA guns or smaller shipboard guns to make emplacements or "technicals" would be highly cost effective on the other hand ( imho )

[avantman42]

I'm with Stainless and Avantman. Some of the smaller weapon systems might be dismountable and used on land, but the bigger guns and missiles are going to have to stay where they are.

The other point I tried to make is that the original post was specifically asking about the South of England, and the Royal Navy doesn't have any big guns on it's ships. The biggest is about 4.5"

It might be feasible to dismount a 4.5" gun, but I'd be surprised if it was worth the effort, especially when there are lots of land-based guns of at least that calibre.

You beat me to it. I've been meaning to post a similar comment since this thread started. I think that for coastal (and possibly riverine/lake) applications it would be most sensible ground the ship with the weapons in place. Or if the vessel is still marginally seaworthy just anchor (or otherwise secure) it in place.

Agreed.

[Rainbow Six]

You beat me to it. I've been meaning to post a similar comment since this thread started. I think that for coastal (and possibly riverine/lake) applications it would be most sensible ground the ship with the weapons in place. Or if the vessel is still marginally seaworthy just anchor (or otherwise secure) it in place.

That's more or less what I plan to do - anchor the ships (a Type 22 Frigate and a Type 42 Destroyer), with their 4.5 inch guns still in place, but strip off any GPMG's, M2 HMG's and 20mm oerlikon cannons and mount them on improvised gun trucks.

The gun trucks are a combination of Bedford 4 tonners, Stalwarts, and Land Rovers, all of which I've named (inspired by the gun trucks in Graebarde's 5th Dvn reorganistion document). They're being operated by the Navy, so I'm keeping with Royal Navy tradition to name everything HMS something.

So far I have three Bedfords - HMS Baldrick, HMS Bedfordshire, and USS Enterprise (latter commanded by a US Navy officer); two Stalwarts - HMS Unsinkable and HMS Stalwart; and two Land Rovers - HMS Kylie and HMS Danni. I may add one or two more (at most).

[kato13]

and two Land Rovers - HMS Kylie and HMS Danni

Cute. Are land rovers known for their "legs"?

edit: I was thinking legs as in distance able to be traveled, but apparently
land-rover-engine-&-gearbox-specialists = l.e.g.s.

[Jason]

The Phalanx CIWS has been adapted for operation on land:

Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar (C-RAM) System

http://www.platforms-mil.de/Bilder/Air_Defence_Raytheon_Centurion%203.jpg

http://www.defensenews.com/pgf/stories19/100808_hemtt_phalanx_ausa.JPG

Seeking a solution to constant rocket and mortar attacks on bases in Iraq, the United States Army requested a quick-to-field anti-projectile system in May 2004, as part of its Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar initiative. The end result of this program was 'Centurion'. For all intents and purposes a terrestrial version of the Navy's CIWS, the Centurion was developed in record time, with a proof of concept test in November that same year, and deployment to Iraq in 2005. Currently it protects forward operating bases and other high-value sites in and around Baghdad and is deployed by the British in the south of the country. Israel has purchased a single system for testing purposes, and is reported to be considering buying the system to counter rocket attacks and defend point military installations, though the nation's investment in an indigenous system known as Iron Dome has hindered these efforts. Recently Raytheon and Oshkosh have teamed up to build a prototype C-Ram on the back of a diesel-electric, 14-ton Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT).

Each CADS consists of a modified Phalanx 1B CIWS; capable of firing 3,000 or 4,500 M-246 or M-940 rounds per minute; powered by an attached generator and mounted on a trailer or a Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT) for mobility. The HEMTT version is specially configured to accommodate the 7-ton Phalanx weapon, by removing the load-handling system; normally carried on the back of the truck; and fixed platforms on the vehicle to integrate the Phalanx. Like the naval (1B) version, the CADS uses Ku-band radar and FLIR to detect and track incoming projectiles, and is also capable of engaging surface targets, with the system able to reach a -25 degree elevation. The CADS is capable of defending a 1.2 km square area. The CADS trailer is transportable by C-17 only one at a time, whereas three to four CADS HEMTTs can fit on a C-17.

So, I guess it would be pretty easy for this weapon system to shoot down a mortar shell? If so, that is BA. I want one for my next group of PC's. :)

[Kemper Boyd]

So, I guess it would be pretty easy for this weapon system to shoot down a mortar shell? If so, that is BA. I want one for my next group of PC's. :)

Going to take about five minutes before it gets stripped for parts. Equipment like that aren't any good for an actual hot war.

[Canadian Army]

So, I guess it would be pretty easy for this weapon system to shoot down a mortar shell? If so, that is BA. I want one for my next group of PC's.

It will cost you about $7.8 million USD, but seriously I'm right now working adapting the C-RAM for Twilight 2000.

[Webstral]

First let me say that I see the Twilight game as one of survival in the ruins after WW3 so I do not see many, if any, groups having the resources to carry out major projects until they have had a few years (or decades) to stabilize and collect what they need to overcome the subsistence survival that would be the norm for the first few years after the wars end.
-----
There are still many concerns before you could take a turret such as the 5-inch and mount it on a railcar. Naval guns are typically set up with most of their machinery below deck level, certainly the majority of the ammunition handling is done below the deck. So you would have to configure the turret to allow a horizontal ammunition loader rather than the vertical loading system normally used. Lots of work there and the need for qualified personnel to do it.
Then there's the power issue, most turrets are electrically powered so you have to also supply power for that and lots of it.
There's also the issue that many modern turrets have only line-of-sight aiming mechanisms and no indirect fire aiming devices as they rely on the fire control centre for aiming information or are remotely aimed directly from the fire control centre. It seems a colossal waste to use a long-range naval gun in nothing but the direct fire role - unless you can get some fire control teams trained up to counter that.

You would be better off removing the gun and its cradle from the turret and mounting that on a railcar and treating it like traditional land artillery but you still need to incorporate devices to elevate and traverse and load ammunition.
I really do believe, like avantman, that this would be beyond the abilities of most groups in the Twilight world and if it is within their abilities, it is not worth the resources to make what is essentially a fairly limited use weapon - once the ammunition is gone there is no way to get more so for example if you only have 40 rounds, it is just not worth all the time and resources to make a naval gun into a land gun. That's assuming there is even any suitable ammunition left at all on the ship as most of it is probably on still serving ships rather than on damaged ships awaiting repairs in a dockyard.

The time and energy would be better spent making typical land fortifications or making simpler weapons. In fact I think you'd be better served making simple MRLS launchrails to fire blackpowder rockets.

Nicely said.

Webstral

[Rainbow Six]

Cute. Are land rovers known for their "legs"?

edit: I was thinking legs as in distance able to be traveled, but apparently
land-rover-engine-&-gearbox-specialists = l.e.g.s.

When I named the trucks I was just looking for something that was humourous in a tongue in cheek way (to me at least :))

I settled on the name HMS Kylie because Kylie Minogue was a popular figure in UK culture in the 1990's, and I figured the name was something that might appeal to the average sailor stuck in the Plymouth enclave. I decided to assign it to one of the Land Rovers because the Land Rovers are the smallest of the gun trucks and Kylie Minogue is only five feet tall...

Once I'd settled on HMS Kylie, HMS Danni after Kylie's sister, just seemed kinda logical...

(I think most of the other names are fairly obvious - for those unfamiliar with British TV / culture, Baldrick was a character in the Blackadder TV series that ran in the 1980's)

[kato13]

When I named the trucks I was just looking for something that was humourous in a tongue in cheek way (to me at least :))

I like it. If I was in the unit staff I would have likely been the one to have painted their figures of each of them onto the vehicles. My art skills are always enhanced when painting the female form. Bomber nose art was an early inspiration for me.

One note I think Danni has two 'i's. Dannii Minogue

Baldrick was a nice one as well.

[avantman42]

(I think most of the other names are fairly obvious - for those unfamiliar with British TV / culture, Baldrick was a character in the Blackadder TV series that ran in the 1980's)

You have to wonder if the crew of HMS Baldrick are known for their "cunning plans" :)

[WallShadow]

You have to wonder if the crew of HMS Baldrick are known for their "cunning plans" :)

So, when given orders to secure the "Baldrick" in its garage, the appropriate order would be, "Shut up Baldrick"? :rolleyes:

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Rainbow Six, do you know that the Bovington Tank Museum has a WW1 era Rolls Royce armoured car, one of the type as used by the Royal Navy Air Service (who were the pioneers of British armoured car use)? Bovington is a bit of a hike from Portsmouth but with a small landing craft the group could sail into Poole Harbour (all the way to Holton Heath) then follow the railway line to Wool (2km from Bovington)
While other groups would probably loot as many of the modern vehicles as they could, I'm thinking they might ignore a WW1 vehicle.

I'm thinking of the irony (and the potential morale points) of the Portsmouth garrison recovering the armoured car from the museum, repainting it in RN colours and putting it to work (as it is maintained by the museum in working order for parades and ceremonial duties). Although a bit slow by modern standards, it's a very rugged design and with modern tyres would probably be quite agile (it was apparently a good performer in it's day with the tyres of that era)

[Rainbow Six]

Rainbow Six, do you know that the Bovington Tank Museum has a WW1 era Rolls Royce armoured car, one of the type as used by the Royal Navy Air Service (who were the pioneers of British armoured car use)? Bovington is a bit of a hike from Portsmouth but with a small landing craft the group could sail into Poole Harbour (all the way to Holton Heath) then follow the railway line to Wool (2km from Bovington)
While other groups would probably loot as many of the modern vehicles as they could, I'm thinking they might ignore a WW1 vehicle.

I'm thinking of the irony (and the potential morale points) of the Portsmouth garrison recovering the armoured car from the museum, repainting it in RN colours and putting it to work (as it is maintained by the museum in working order for parades and ceremonial duties). Although a bit slow by modern standards, it's a very rugged design and with modern tyres would probably be quite agile (it was apparently a good performer in it's day with the tyres of that era)

Thanks Stainless, I've looked at Bovington a few times, but hadn't noticed that before. In my T2K World Bovington is the most westerly part of HMG's main enclave in the south of England and is occupied by Falcon and Ajax Squadrons of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment (I had 2 RTR as the resident Regiment at the Royal Armoured Corps Centre at Bovington Camp at the time of the nuclear exchanges; the Regiment's Cyclops Squadron is also in the UK, but is operating in an infantry role).

The two Squadrons have around a dozen operational MBT's (including some taken from the Tank Museum) plus a number of other lighter armoured vehicles, making them the largest armoured unit in the British Isles in the summer of 2000 (in my T2K World).

[Matt W]

Having lived in Plymouth, I recommend the Crownhill Fort http://www.palmerstonforts.org.uk/pav1/plym.htm
it has working cannon. ahh.. nostalgia. At one time I had a dozen copies of the free tourist guide to this place. It was an outpost of the Royal Marines in my Morrow Project (or rather Atlantis Project) game

If you have forces in Plymouth (South Devon) they should really make a quick trip to Umberleigh (North Devon) and have a word with the owner of the Cobbaton Combat collection. Alternatively, RAF Chivenor might make a visit

http://cobbatoncombat.co.uk/

The website's pretty lousy - but it does show some of the vehicles. A Sherman and - I think - a T34.

I don't know how desperate the Royal Navy might be, but there is another Sherman just up the coast at Slapton Sands in Somerset. It IS a memorial , but that might not stop them

http://www.shermantank.co.uk/recovery3.ikml

[Ramjam]

Don't quote me on this, but I sure I remember one of my army cadet instructors telling me years ago that someone down in Cornwall have a very private collection of military hardware on his estate.

I can't remember the details and I have tried Google'in it but no luck.

No sure what he/she had but it was more than a small arms collection.

[kato13]

Don't quote me on this, but I sure I remember one of my army cadet instructors telling me years ago that someone down in Cornwall have a very private collection of military hardware on his estate.

I can't remember the details and I have tried Google'in it but no luck.

No sure what he/she had but it was more than a small arms collection.

The "Dinscott Military Collection (http://dinscottmilitary.co.uk)"? . Have not found any real details though.

[Ramjam]

That might be it Kato. I'll keep digging.

And funny you should mention Crownhill Fort. My plan was to use either Tregantle Fort (which is still used by the MOD and in superb order) or Scraesdon Fort (which would need alot of work done to it) or either both as a kind of FOB into Cornwall. They could be used for guarding the sea and land on the Cornwall side of the Tamar against the Dukey forces and as FOBs for raids into Cornwall.
As air-power is not a huge problem in TW2000 the solid granite walls would make a nice bit of cover.

Here's a picture of what I mean.

http://www.cyber-heritage.co.uk/tregantle.jpg

[pmulcahy11b]

Don't quote me on this, but I sure I remember one of my army cadet instructors telling me years ago that someone down in Cornwall have a very private collection of military hardware on his estate.

I can't remember the details and I have tried Google'in it but no luck.

No sure what he/she had but it was more than a small arms collection.

There's more than a few ranchers here in Texas who have that kind of collection...

[jturfitt]

Several in Mississippi also, a friend has 4 armored vehicles, 2 2 1/2 trucks, a Gamma Goat, and several A2 Jeeps.

[pmulcahy11b]

This is a tangential thought, but a lot of ex-Special Forces troops retire in the area of El Paso, since there is (or as least was) a National Guard SF unit there, and the base (Ft Sill) is decent-sized. They probably have access to some interesting stuff and connections.

[Rainbow Six]

Having lived in Plymouth, I recommend the Crownhill Fort http://www.palmerstonforts.org.uk/pav1/plym.htm
it has working cannon. ahh.. nostalgia. At one time I had a dozen copies of the free tourist guide to this place. It was an outpost of the Royal Marines in my Morrow Project (or rather Atlantis Project) game

If you have forces in Plymouth (South Devon) they should really make a quick trip to Umberleigh (North Devon) and have a word with the owner of the Cobbaton Combat collection. Alternatively, RAF Chivenor might make a visit

http://cobbatoncombat.co.uk/

The website's pretty lousy - but it does show some of the vehicles. A Sherman and - I think - a T34.

I don't know how desperate the Royal Navy might be, but there is another Sherman just up the coast at Slapton Sands in Somerset. It IS a memorial , but that might not stop them

http://www.shermantank.co.uk/recovery3.ikml

Thanks Matt. I have Crownhill occupied by B Company of the 1st Battalion, Green Howards.

(In my T2K World the Green Howards were part of 24th Airmobile Brigade and were pulled back to the UK in late 98 to help the authorities maintain order' B Company were detached from the rest of the Battalion in 1999, reinforced with an ad hoc collection of TA, HSF, and non combat arms personnel and sent to Plymouth to reinforce the Navy. The rest of the Battalion is at Bovington with elements of 2 RTR, where amongst other things they are providing security for the Wytch Farm onshore oil field).

The Cobbaton collection is interesting. Whilst I have the RAF pulling out of Chivenor sometime in late 1998 / early 1999, Cobbaton looks like it would be a treasure trove for local militia units, particularly the 200 plus deactivated firearms. It might not be possible to reactivate these, but a milita force armed with guns that don't work is better than one with no guns at all...after all if marauders see a village defended by a group armed with Lee Enfields, Stens, etc, would they want to hang around to see whether they worked or not? Personally, I doubt it.

Another option is to have Cobbaton plundered by marauders. I've been trying to do something involving escaped prisoners from HM Prison in Dartmoor, so that might be an option for them.

Thanks again.

[pmulcahy11b]

One thing I just thought of is that the North Koreans have put some naval guns on tank chassis for use as land artillery. IIRC, they are 175mm guns.

[waiting4something]

One thing I just thought of is that the North Koreans have put some naval guns on tank chassis for use as land artillery. IIRC, they are 175mm guns.

Jesus! How big is the tank? I would hate to be the loader for sure.:(

[pmulcahy11b]

Jesus! How big is the tank? I would hate to be the loader for sure.:(

They actually look very similar to the 203mm self-propelled howitzers the US used until about 10 years ago. The North Koreans did bob the gun barrels quite a bit -- IIRC (digging back into the non-classified recesses of my memory), the parent chassis is a T-55.

[Dog 6]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/m-1978-170.htm


It's a 170mm gun on a T-54

"The M-1978 (KOKSAN) 170mm self propelled (SP) gun, of North Korean design and manufacture, is probably mounted on a T-54 chasis, a Chinese Type 59 hull or a T62 Chassis. The 170mm gun has no superstructure, and it has 2 large spades at the rear. The 170mm (~6.69") gun itself is a previously unknown type, possibly Russian coastal-defence or ex-naval weapon. The M-1978 Koksan gun was first noted publicly in a parade in 1985. The Koksan is named after the city in North Korea where it was first seen by the West in 1978. The M-1978 version carried no on-board ammunition supply.

The M1989 KOKSAN is a later version or modified M1978 which carries 12 rounds on-board ammunition supply. North Korea used them in batteries of 36 vehicles & supplied them to Iran when missiles became available as replacements. "

[StainlessSteelCynic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koksan
Includes a decent quality picture of a damaged gun in Iraq

[pmulcahy11b]

Shows the general lack of quality of my memory...:o