Tank graveyard

[Legbreaker]

Absolutely heartbreaking to a military enthusiast.
I wonder how many more places like it are scattered around the world.
How much drooling would the average PC group be doing if they stumbled across it? How much wailing once they realised they'd all seized up and were almost all basically irreparable?
http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2015/07/abandoned-soviet-tank-graveyard-kharkov-ukraine/

[aspqrz]

Irrepairable?

Almost certainly not.

As long as the hulls are sound all they need is a new engine, drive train, transmission, probably a new suspension, new road wheels (or can they replace the rubber rims? never been a Tanker, don't know), a new gun and fire control system, new electronics etc.

And the finished result would be fine ...

... but it would be costly.

And you could buy more modern tanks.

The real reason would be mainly because the old Soviet era idea of massed tank attacks where 2-3 cheap Soviet tanks can die for each expensive western one and yet still win ... don't cut it any more.

So, economically, there's no need to refurbish them ... it's not that it's impossible.

AIUI there were similar depots scattered across the USSR (when it was still the USSR) into the 1980s with T-34s and T-44s and late WW2 or immediate postwar armoured vehicles in mothballs, with small maintenance cadres at a TO&E level below even Category III units, all waiting for their day of need ... which, of course, never came.

If something like the Twilight War had been fought, you would have seen them back in service ... eventually ...

Different times.

Phil

[Legbreaker]

Irrepairable?

In the T2K sense I meant where the PCs only have the resources at their finger tips. In other words, maybe they'd be able to cobble together a handful of tanks out of the hundreds in the facility, but the rest would be essentially impossible with the available resources.

Of course in T2K those particular tanks wouldn't be anywhere near as deteriorated (20 years less than in the pictures) and almost certainly have already been refurbished and put back into service by 1997 at the latest. The facility, and the factory down the road the article mentioned, would also likely attract a nuke.

However, throwing something like that at PCs (perhaps a forgotten underground storage facility full of T-34s) could be fun for the more evil GM.

[rcaf_777]

Hard to say what your PC could find, in areas of recent fighting you find AFV that are awaiting salvage or repair and possible the repair recovery or salvage crew

In other areas you might find AFV hulls strip of all their usefully parts. I could see this being a business done by military and civilians, hulls would be the only thing left behind, and that would depend on the demand of scrap metal and weather someone could recycle it.

There was a Canadian LAV that a combat loss in Afghanistan after all the useable materials and components were removed the LAV was basically destroyed by an airstrike. Locals then came out cut up what they could with torches and sold it for scrap in Pakistan. There was still a lot of metal left behind as they did have anything an industrial scale.

I will look around for some pictures that I might have.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Those tanks would have all been long-before committed to the front. What they'd find is an empty, weedy lot.

[Raellus]

A lot of those tanks appear to covered in reactive armor blocks. Wouldn't that mean that there was explosive still in there? How would that hold up over time and exposed to the elements?

[Targan]

I saw that article earlier this week on a T2K page on Facebook. Incredible pictures.

[Targan]

A lot of those tanks appear to covered in reactive armor blocks. Wouldn't that mean that there was explosive still in there? How would that hold up over time and exposed to the elements?

I wondered the same thing.

[Legbreaker]

Those tanks would have all been long-before committed to the front. What they'd find is an empty, weedy lot.
Undoubtedly, but what if by some miracle they were still there? Or it was full of battle damaged tanks - not impossible since the facility was meant to refurbish tanks.

A lot of those tanks appear to covered in reactive armour blocks. Wouldn't that mean that there was explosive still in there? How would that hold up over time and exposed to the elements?

I would think the blocks are sealed from the elements, but after 20 years or so who knows? VERY slack to have left them installed I'd think, even with the guards the facility is supposed to have, but then it is in the Ukraine and nobody ever accused communist/socialist workers of being particularly efficient at anything...

[ArmySGT.]

Visit the German tank graveyard if you are playing a later timeline.

http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2015/07/rockensussra-german-tank-graveyard-dismantling-facility/

[Legbreaker]

Visit the German tank graveyard if you are playing a later timeline.

http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2015/07/rockensussra-german-tank-graveyard-dismantling-facility/

All that hardware being scrapped! I could almost cry!

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Undoubtedly, but what if by some miracle they were still there? Or it was full of battle damaged tanks - not impossible since the facility was meant to refurbish tanks.


And when the same question gets brought up about the Littlefield Collection or the Patton Museum the response is that it's an impossibility. So I would rate this junkyard the same, then.

[Legbreaker]

Museums aren't large workshops specifically intended to refurbish and repair AFVs (although they may have a small workshop attached). Therefore the likelihood of vehicles being present has to be greater (although still relatively low).
This of course presumes the facility and the factory down the road weren't targeted by nukes or bombed conventionally until they were wastelands (highly likely).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The other important distinction is that a museum like the Littlefield Collection or the Patton Museum typically has one, two, maybe three examples of a given vehicle and they have a large range of different vehicles, all with their own requirements for parts & maintenance.
A refurbishing/maintenance/repair depot has dozens upon dozens of the same vehicle moving through so the likelihood of having the right repair gear and the correct spare parts for that vehicle is much, much higher.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Museums aren't large workshops specifically intended to refurbish and repair AFVs (although they may have a small workshop attached).

Littlefield and a handful of volunteers took absolute wrecks and turned them into not only factory-fresh looking but running and fully operational examples of AFVs, and not just WWII vehicles either (and what of it if they were WWII-era: if I have a tank, even if it's very very old and you have no tank at all I win).

His "small machine shop" helped get a hundred various AFVs up and running. So discounting some of the Soviet equipment he might not have in the T2k setting and...what, that still leaves 80-90 pieces.

I'm not trying to rehash the seemingly endless debate about whether or not the MVTS is a viable resource, but I think it's utterly hypocritical for anyone to say "Oh look a bunch of non-running Soviet tanks that have been sitting in the elements for over a decade, these are totally usable" and then dismiss the MVTS as useless, or next-to as the sometimes conciliatory posts seem to be. More to the point, I reiterate: those tanks would have already been used, and would have never fallen to that state anyway. At the worst they'd have been a Category-B division, well before the bombs.

[Olefin]

Museums aren't large workshops specifically intended to refurbish and repair AFVs (although they may have a small workshop attached). Therefore the likelihood of vehicles being present has to be greater (although still relatively low).
This of course presumes the facility and the factory down the road weren't targeted by nukes or bombed conventionally until they were wastelands (highly likely).

Ok lets say this one more time since its been said ad naseum before - Littlefield's museum/collection had a fully equipped shop to repair and refurbish tanks and other armored vehicles including speciality welding fixtures, equipment that you could fit an entire tank body in and rotate it in order to make welding and armor repair more efficient, a stock of spare parts that would make most depots jealous and specially trained technicians and welders and machinists that not only could but did recreate needed spare parts from blueprints he had to bring tanks and other armored vehicles back to fully operational status including, in many cases, live barrels and breech blocks to replace ones that had been de-milled. (and if they couldnt make it he found it and bought it - and in the US its amazing what you can find - for example the Auction Hunter episode where they found a storage bin with a live tank barrel in it)

And most of the Soviet stuff he had on hand he got from places in Africa or Asia that used to operate it - including some that the Israelis had captured. Thus if the Soviets don't fall he still has most of his collection that he had in our world - not the SCUD of course but the older Soviet stuff - yup.

This wasnt a static display of equipment that was painted to look new - this was basically a fully operational tank repair facility that had a museum attached to it

[Olefin]

And fyi - a lot of military equipment gets brought back from the dead from similiar graveyards all the time by collectors and sometimes even companies like BAE - when we built M109A5+ vehicles foe Chile we had to get parts from all over - some of which were in very very bad shape but could be reclaimed still with effort. And you would be amazed what vehicles we refurbish look like when we got them back from depots - I saw M109's and M88's that literally you would think were total wrecks that we managed to restore to fully operational status

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I agree, the Littlefield Collection for example, is a very good resource. As long as you have sufficient personnel with the right skills and sufficient resources to get the parts & to refurbish them.
It is an amazing resource, but it is not the panacea that it's often presented as.

[Legbreaker]

I agree, the Littlefield Collection for example, is a very good resource. As long as you have sufficient personnel with the right skills and sufficient resources to get the parts & to refurbish them.
It is an amazing resource, but it is not the panacea that it's often presented as.

Absolutely. It's also a LOT more limited than a dedicated industrial scale facility as could be found at Karkov which is designed to handle dozens, even hundreds of AFVs virtually simultaneously.

Museums also generally hold obsolete equipment, and although T-72's aren't exactly cutting edge, they're certainly more current than Shermans, T-34's and Panthers.

Out of the two, I know which one holds more value in a military setting.

[Olefin]

Actually any tank holds value in a military setting especially by 2000-2001 - a standard WWII era Sherman tank doesnt have a hope in hell against a T-72 for instance -but against a homemade armored car, against troops that dont have anti-tank weapons (which remember have become pretty rare by 2001, especially in certain areas that didnt have a lot of them to begin with), against a BMP-C or BTR that has a non-operational gun system its more than sufficient

and keep in mind the situation in the US as per the canon -i.e. by 2000 the US military was putting anything that had a turret and an operational gun into its stocks as a tank - thus an old WWII Sherman would qualify as a tank to MilGov and CivGov

look at what just happened in the Ukraine - the rebels took an old Soviet tank from a museum, made it operational and used it in combat successfully against Ukranian troops who didnt have anti-armor weapons on them until the tank broke down and was captured by the Ukranian troops

and most US marauder groups dont have anit-tank weapons beyond a bottle of flaming gasoline - i.e. look at Alleghany Uprising - those kinds of weapons are not in the hands of the marauders - so a single old Sherman tank there would literally be something they couldnt handle unless they get to Molotov cocktail range

[Olefin]

Absolutely. It's also a LOT more limited than a dedicated industrial scale facility as could be found at Karkov which is designed to handle dozens, even hundreds of AFVs virtually simultaneously.

Museums also generally hold obsolete equipment, and although T-72's aren't exactly cutting edge, they're certainly more current than Shermans, T-34's and Panthers.

Out of the two, I know which one holds more value in a military setting.

By the way - most tank museums dont have Panthers (there are only five in the entire US, with the rest in Europe) or T-34's (unless its in Europe)- but what they do have are tanks like the Pershing, the M47, the M48, the M60, the Walker Bulldog and the M103 - and those tanks could give a T-54/T-55/T-64 a run for their money -

[ArmySGT.]

What is Rolled Homogenous Armor?

What is Layer Composite Armor?

Why is the first one obsolete since the mid 1970s?

[Legbreaker]

What is Rolled Homogeneous Armor?

What is Layer Composite Armor?

Why is the first one obsolete since the mid 1970s?

And that right there is why Karkov holds far more value than any number of museums and private collections.

[Legbreaker]

http://balashnikov.com/showthread.php?5307-Where-Israeli-Tanks-go-to-Die
Can't believe the Israeli's are scrapping AFVs, especially Merkavas (even if they are Mark 1's)!

[Olefin]

Oh I am not saying those museums and Littlefield's shop and collection are better than an actual manned depot - but they are a lot better than nothing or a blacksmith and an auto mechanic trying to bring an old M47 back to life to fight marauders or the Mexicans

[ArmySGT.]

Littlefield and a handful of volunteers took absolute wrecks and turned them into not only factory-fresh looking but running and fully operational examples of AFVs, and not just WWII vehicles either (and what of it if they were WWII-era: if I have a tank, even if it's very very old and you have no tank at all I win).

Rolled Homogenous armor, No spall liner, no fuel compartmentalization, No crew compartmentalization, no fire suppression gear, unprotected fuel lines, engine covers and compartment lack diversions for burning fuel (molotovs), most importantly no ammunition compartmentalization.

Any WW2 armor is going to be separated from infantry support and artillery then killed in detail by modern experienced infantrymen.

I give it 10 minutes if in the defense and under two if someone were to try to use one in an attack.

Tanks are not invulnerable.

[ArmySGT.]

http://balashnikov.com/showthread.php?5307-Where-Israeli-Tanks-go-to-Die
Can't believe the Israeli's are scrapping AFVs, especially Merkavas (even if they are Mark 1's)!

Even the MK 1s are a drain on resources when they a fielding the MK3 and the MK4 is in development.

Those M48s, M60s, and T55s don't stand a chance against the current ATGMs and can't fight at night anyway. Israel doesn't have a lot of friends that they can sell to any way. The ones that they would sell to can do better than this stuff at home.

[Olefin]

Rolled Homogenous armor, No spall liner, no fuel compartmentalization, No crew compartmentalization, no fire suppression gear, unprotected fuel lines, engine covers and compartment lack diversions for burning fuel (molotovs), most importantly no ammunition compartmentalization.

Any WW2 armor is going to be separated from infantry support and artillery then killed in detail by modern experienced infantrymen.

I give it 10 minutes if in the defense and under two if someone were to try to use one in an attack.

Tanks are not invulnerable.

never said they are - but most marauder forces are hardly experienced infantrymen - most dont have any training at all in how to take on tanks - and it also depends if those commanding the tanks are stupid enough to send them into an urban environment where its a lot easier to kill them - its one thing to rain Molotov's down from the rooftops its another to go after a tank sitting in the open without good cover nearby to get close - especially if the tank has sufficient machine gun ammo on board for the coax and any turret mounted machine guns - if its just main gun weaponry then that tank is dead meat

and modern anti-tank weaponry, by 2001, is getting pretty scarce outside of areas that were battlefields - you wont find many marauders with TOW's or RPG's in Iowa for instance - so again that tank resurrected from the local museum may be quite the force multiplier for the local milita

as for MilGov forces using the older tanks - now you have older tanks supported by experienced infantry and artillery - which makes them quite effective indeed

[unkated]

What is Rolled Homogenous Armor?

Rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) is a type of armor armor vehicles made of a single steel composition (thus 'homogeneous') as compared to cemented or layered armor using different compositions in different parts of the plate, which RHA is 'worked' by rollers applying pressure while the plate is hot.

It was the primary tank armor from the 1930s until the 1980s (and later for non-tank AFVs).

What is Layer Composite Armor?

Composite armour is a type of vehicle armour consisting of layers of different material such as metals, plastics, ceramics or air. Most composite armours are lighter than their all-metal equivalent, but instead occupy a larger volume for the same resistance to penetration. It is possible to design composite armour stronger, lighter and less voluminous than traditional armour, but the cost is often prohibitively high, restricting its use to especially vulnerable parts of a vehicle. Its primary purpose is to help defeat high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds.

There are several flavors of this, including British-developed Chobham armor used by the British and Americans.

However, because governments are cagey about just how tough their layered armor is, modern shell penetration is sometimes expressed in RHA equivalent, as the resistance of RHA is more consistent.

The US Army (among others) use Depleted Uranium (DU) in their penetrators 9since the late 1980s), as these are dense, allowing more mass in the volume of the penetrator - meaning it hits harder.

Why is the first one obsolete since the mid 1970s?

HEAT rounds (and AT Missile warheads) began to become the primary tank vs tank round in the 1960s & 70s, since the race for bigger guns to defeat armor was reaching the point where bigger guns wouldn't fit in a tank. (Yes, you could make a tnk beig enough, but then the vehicle weight soared and the energy needed to move it rose....

Then APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot) rounds were developed; these are kinetic kill rounds that fire a penetrator (think very tough spear that is much thinner than the round's diameter) at high speed.

Reactive armor is supposed to try to defend against these by blowing up the penetrator before it hits the tank's armor.

There is lots more detail than this; search the internet for more detail.

Uncle Ted

[Olefin]

Rolled Homogenous armor, No spall liner, no fuel compartmentalization, No crew compartmentalization, no fire suppression gear, unprotected fuel lines, engine covers and compartment lack diversions for burning fuel (molotovs), most importantly no ammunition compartmentalization.

Any WW2 armor is going to be separated from infantry support and artillery then killed in detail by modern experienced infantrymen.

I give it 10 minutes if in the defense and under two if someone were to try to use one in an attack.

Tanks are not invulnerable.

Which doesnt keep the Soviets from equipping divisions with T-54's and T-55's in the game - they are a pretty common tank - so given your above comment shouldnt they have all been destroyed long before 2001? (when in game canon they are still in deployed divisions in Europe, Korea, China and Iran and still effective)

Thus a tank that has none of the advantages and features of more modern tanks, designed during WWII, is still fighting on the battlefields of the Twilight War as an effective tank.

Let alone the M48, the M60, the Leopard I, the AMX-30, etc.. - all of which are part of the game and all of which dont have composite armor, although some were retrofitted with reactive armor blocks to help against HEAT

[ArmySGT.]

There is lots more detail than this; search the internet for more detail.

Uncle Ted

Those were rhetorical questions you understand. Meant to give the modellers insight into why the veterans keep telling them that WW2 tanks are dead meat and scrap metal in any T2K environment.

[Olefin]

and again the T-54 and T-55, M47, M48, M60, Leopard I, AMX-30, etc.. are still seen on Twilight battlefields, are still in forward deployed divisions and are still effective - all of those can kick a Sherman's butt any day of the week -but all of them basically have the same armor type and many of them very similar layouts to the WWII tanks you say would be dead meat in ten minutes - they have better guns and ammo and thicker armor but M1's and Challengers they arent

but they are better than the alternative - which is no tank at all

[Olefin]

And if you looked at Littlefield's collection, let alone at most museums, you see that we arent talking about WWII tanks -yes he has tanks from WWII - but the vast majority of what he has with working barrels and in operable condition, as well as other museums, are M47/M48/M60/M103/Centurions - i.e. Korean War and Vietnam War tanks

so while for some reason people keep fixating on WWII tanks the reality is that most of what will come out of museums to be used on the battlefield are the same tanks that we already see in the Twilight War - i.e. the second and third line older tanks that countries like Turkey had to use or that the UK pulled out of storage in 1998 or that National Guard units were equipped with when they get sent over

so if you run into a T-55 in Poland or Iran and its a handful to go up against because you dont have any anti-armor weapons then why isnt an M48 or M60 pulled out of a museum in California a similar handful to either oppose or have on your side

[ArmySGT.]

never said they are - but most marauder forces are hardly experienced infantrymen - most dont have any training at all in how to take on tanks - and it also depends if those commanding the tanks are stupid enough to send them into an urban environment where its a lot easier to kill them - its one thing to rain Molotov's down from the rooftops its another to go after a tank sitting in the open without good cover nearby to get close - especially if the tank has sufficient machine gun ammo on board for the coax and any turret mounted machine guns - if its just main gun weaponry then that tank is dead meat by T2k there are no inexperienced green troops. Those guys are dead. Marauders have military personnel mixed in, the successful ones do, the unsuccessful ones would be dead.

You can take on tanks in any environment. Forest preferably, urban is second best.
Turrets can only engage targets to their relative front. When the turret is facing away from you sprint for the tank. The -10 depression of the gun applies to the coaxial too. In close and a tank has to rely on infantry or another tank to protect it from sappers.

Tankers opening the roof hatches to engage infantry with the TC or loaders machineguns? Let them. Their dead very fast from massed small arms fire and then the hatches are open. Yes, please do that. That TC hatch or loader hatch coming open is exactly what the infantry want. The massed fired on all the periscopes and gunner sights is to blind them and force them to open up.

Let your tank sit out in the open…… That just calls down artillery or mortar fire. Roof hit and it is toast. Smoke mission and it cannot engage targets.

Bundle of C4 and WP grenades on a pole….. Slip that under the tank from up close…. If you don’t blast through the belly armor the WP is going to heat it up quick.

and modern anti-tank weaponry, by 2001, is getting pretty scarce outside of areas that were battlefields - you wont find many marauders with TOW's or RPG's in Iowa for instance - so again that tank resurrected from the local museum may be quite the force multiplier for the local milita. I agree that modern ATGMs would be scarce……. Unguided rockets like the RPG… No.

RPGS most of all, then systems that need a more sophisticated launcher like LAWS or AT4. Recoilless rifles are going to have a huge resurgence…. If you can make mortar and artillery fuzes you can make these.

You can even mount a TVS-5 on an M40A1 recoilless and give it passive night fighting capability to 1000 meters.
as for MilGov forces using the older tanks - now you have older tanks supported by experienced infantry and artillery - which makes them quite effective indeed No you have some poor bastard stuck with a fuel hungry and labor intensive beast without a trained crew, without compatible ammunition, no compatible radios except single channel and in the clear, no maintenance personnel to speak of , and a non existent supply chain relegated to one shop with hundreds of other thing to do making one off parts only when ordered that takes day or weeks to produce if all all.

Any smart commander would refuse this tank as the waste of resources it is.

[ArmySGT.]

Which doesnt keep the Soviets from equipping divisions with T-54's and T-55's in the game - they are a pretty common tank - so given your above comment shouldnt they have all been destroyed long before 2001? (when in game canon they are still in deployed divisions in Europe, Korea, China and Iran and still effective)

Thus a tank that has none of the advantages and features of more modern tanks, designed during WWII, is still fighting on the battlefields of the Twilight War as an effective tank.

Let alone the M48, the M60, the Leopard I, the AMX-30, etc.. - all of which are part of the game and all of which dont have composite armor, although some were retrofitted with reactive armor blocks to help against HEAT

All post WW2 and with one giant glaring advantage....... a logistics chain. Parts in abundance and technicians in abundance to keep them running.

Ammunition compatibility.... They use the same MG ammo as the rest of the forces.

Lastly, they have the capability to train crews. There isn't a M4 Sherman or Panzer 4 school about to train some drivers and gunners.

[ArmySGT.]

and again the T-54 and T-55, M47, M48, M60, Leopard I, AMX-30, etc.. are still seen on Twilight battlefields, are still in forward deployed divisions and are still effective - all of those can kick a Sherman's butt any day of the week -but all of them basically have the same armor type and many of them very similar layouts to the WWII tanks you say would be dead meat in ten minutes - they have better guns and ammo and thicker armor but M1's and Challengers they arent

but they are better than the alternative - which is no tank at all

The Leopard I is the only survivable one.... Composite armor and all the protective features.

I give the same odds to the rest as I do a littlefield M4 or Panzer.

[ArmySGT.]

and again the T-54 and T-55, M47, M48, M60, Leopard I, AMX-30, etc.. are still seen on Twilight battlefields, are still in forward deployed divisions and are still effective - all of those can kick a Sherman's butt any day of the week -but all of them basically have the same armor type and many of them very similar layouts to the WWII tanks you say would be dead meat in ten minutes - they have better guns and ammo and thicker armor but M1's and Challengers they arent

but they are better than the alternative - which is no tank at all

All of those still had parts being manufactured well into the 90s. Even ammunition for the M48A5s in 90mm for Turkey and a few small Asian nations. It is the logistics and the trained maintenance that would be keeping these going even when crew after crew is killed and their blood rinsed off the equipment.

[Olefin]

And you have a shop with all those parts in abundance ready to support the tanks that they put back in the field - remember its the fact that he has trained techs and equipment and facilities that most dont have - and also the fact that the days of massed armor are over - thus his shop cant support divisions with hundreds of tanks - but the reality is that those divisions dont exist - and adding six to seven tanks, in 2001, is the equivalent of adding a hundred a few years earlier

and marauders are not highly trained forces - maybe in Europe or Korea or Iran - but not in the US - basically you are looking at gangs of thugs and survivalists, most of whom the only military training they ever had was watching old episodes of Combat on TV

the logistics train you need to support a half dozen tanks is alot less than what you need to support hundreds - and thats basically what a force with tanks has nowadays in the US - so again a place like Littefields is exactly what a T2K armored force would need in 2001 to keep going - and his guys can service an M1 tank just as easily as they can an M48

in 1997, 1998, even into 1999 the Army wouldnt want older tanks

now, as per canon, they will take anything with a turret and a main gun for a tank - and thats what an old M47/M48/M41/T55 fits to a T


oh as for mortar and artillery fire called down on the hypothetical Sherman tank sitting in a field in the US - sounds like a great idea- most Mexican forces have a max of 1-2 artillery pieces and limited ammo and mortars wont do squat to a tank, not the typical 60mm and 81mm mortars that are left - and getting a hit with an unguided artillery shell on a tank with your one or two guns is basically impossible - again this is 2001 not 1997

as for RPG's - look at the Texas module - they are describing combat Mexican forces and what they are armed with - and what they dont have is anti-tank weapons - here and there but most units dont have any - so if they dont how do a bunch of marauders who raided a gun store have RPG's?

as for massed fired on periscopes - lets see marauders using hunting rifles and shotguns - again good luck getting even close enough to make a hit on a periscope or vision block let alone taking one out while the coax turns you into swiss cheese - and unless the tank is the one from Fury I dont see it just sitting there as it takes a hell of a lot of fire or waits for the artillery to get lucky and hit the roof

thats the difference between a pillbox and a tank -a tank moves

[Olefin]

The Leopard I is the only survivable one.... Composite armor and all the protective features.

I give the same odds to the rest as I do a littlefield M4 or Panzer.

except Littlefield wont be deploying any Panzers as none of them have live barrels (and most of the Shermans he has are heavily modified Super Shermans he got from Israel)

as for the rest that you mentioned as non-survivable - they must be surviveable because the M48 has been fighting in Turkey, the AMX in Germany, Africa and the US (its probably the tank the Mexicans would have), the Leopard I (the original version without the improved armor) in Europe, the M60 in a bunch of US divisions in Korea, Iran, Europe and the US - otherwise they wouldnt be in the various canon books showing them as still on the equipment rosters of those forces

[ArmySGT.]

And you have a shop with all those parts in abundance ready to support the tanks that they put back in the field - remember its the fact that he has trained techs and equipment and facilities that most dont have – You don’t have an abundance of parts. You have possibly a crew of talented fabricators….. if after all in canon any have survived the TDM, the famines, and the plagues… all per canon. After that you don’t have an abundance of parts……. You have talented fabricators that can make parts or engineer a fix on something broken. Assuming you have blueprints, not manuals blueprints with specific dimensions and materials….. You can look up in a manual that a tank gun uses part #47-B for a replacement firing pin….it is all together something else to know the dimensions in metric or English and the materials with hardening specifications to make one. A serviceable one that will function repeatedly.
and also the fact that the days of massed armor are over - thus his shop cant support divisions with hundreds of tanks - but the reality is that those divisions dont exist - and adding six to seven tanks, in 2001, is the equivalent of adding a hundred a few years earlier So their now recreating the British first use of the tank? Throwing them away in a useless gesture in singles? A tank platoon is 2-3 and a tank company is 10 to 15 depending on national doctrine. Using them any other way is a waste of combat power and resources.
and marauders are not highly trained forces - maybe in Europe or Korea or Iran - but not in the US - basically you are looking at gangs of thugs and survivalists, most of whom the only military training they ever had was watching old episodes of Combat on TV In the U.S. I would expect marauders to be formed from a core of veterans and deserters. Those motor cycle gangs you are scoffing have a great many disgruntled viet nam veterans that know which end the bullets come out of. Don’t underestimate mauraders and partisans as stupid or ineffective….. Read some German WW2 eastern front history or Japanese Burma campaign history for perspective.
the logistics train you need to support a half dozen tanks is alot less than what you need to support hundreds - and thats basically what a force with tanks has nowadays in the US - so again a place like Littefields is exactly what a T2K armored force would need in 2001 to keep going - and his guys can service an M1 tank just as easily as they can an M48

in 1997, 1998, even into 1999 the Army wouldnt want older tanks
now, as per canon, they will take anything with a turret and a main gun for a tank - and thats what an old M47/M48/M41/T55 fits to a T I have read the books….. They made up a lot of excuses to forc e the setting to work. What we see in canon is National Guard and Reserves being called up and taking those relics because in canon the huge war stocks of M1s and M2/M3 siting at 29 palms, Seneca, and Sierra have been depleted armin allies. A huge stretch but that is the way the authors painted themselves into a corner.
oh as for mortar and artillery fire called down on the hypothetical Sherman tank sitting in a field in the US - sounds like a great idea- most Mexican forces have a max of 1-2 artillery pieces and limited ammo and mortars wont do squat to a tank, not the typical 60mm and 81mm mortars that are left - and getting a hit with an unguided artillery shell on a tank with your one or two guns is basically impossible - again this is 2001 not 1997 A turret hit on a M60 or a Centurion with a impact fuzed 81mm ………I’ll take that bet….. pound for pound, kilo for kilo, mortars pack more explosives than cannon shells….. The blast is going to stun the crew, strip the MGs and and antennas off, crack or shatter the TC and loaders periscopes.. the chance is remote… but, even jamming the turret traverse gears is possible. Then the spalling as pieces of the armor roof flake off and ricochet around the interior among the crew and main gun ammunition. 105mm HE from a Mexican M101 or M102…. Pretty much the same.. a near miss is survivable….. and direct impact not so much.

I’ll take that bet.
as for RPG's - look at the Texas module - they are describing combat Mexican forces and what they are armed with - and what they dont have is anti-tank weapons - here and there but most units dont have any - so if they dont how do a bunch of marauders who raided a gun store have RPG's? They have IEDs…… and they don’t attack when the tank has the advantage… They wait for night when the tank is at a disadvantage. They deploy mines and deception to lure the tankers into kill zones, then kill or force the protecting infantry off with mortars, machineguns, and artillery. Then Mexican infantry with White phosporuous, pole charges, satchel charges under smoke and protective machine gun fire kills the tank.

Infantry units world wide practice anti tank tactics without AT rockets or ATGMs as core infantry skills.
as for massed fired on periscopes - lets see marauders using hunting rifles and shotguns - again good luck getting even close enough to make a hit on a periscope or vision block let alone taking one out while the coax turns you into swiss cheese - and unless the tank is the one from Fury I dont see it just sitting there as it takes a hell of a lot of fire or waits for the artillery to get lucky and hit the roof You are giving me civilian hunting rifles! Ok I’ll take that bet too! Those are going to be topped with x4, x6, x8, and even x10 magnified scopes…….. I am going to detail 4-6 guys widely dispersed and give them a dedicated sector with the gunners primary site and the drivers periscope as primary targets.

Read the “Siege of Grozny” and how the Chechens stopped Russian armor attacks cold.
thats the difference between a pillbox and a tank -a tank moves No, a tank CAN move if not disabled……. Which isn’t impossible for infantry supported by artillery. Most importantly all of these have unstabilized sights and have to stop to move..... the M60A3 being an exception with the Leopard I

[ArmySGT.]

except Littlefield wont be deploying any Panzers as none of them have live barrels (and most of the Shermans he has are heavily modified Super Shermans he got from Israel) That puts an end to the Littlefield machine shop being able to produce anything theory.

as for the rest that you mentioned as non-survivable - they must be surviveable because the M48 has been fighting in Turkey, the AMX in Germany, Africa and the US (its probably the tank the Mexicans would have), the Leopard I (the original version without the improved armor) in Europe, the M60 in a bunch of US divisions in Korea, Iran, Europe and the US - otherwise they wouldnt be in the various canon books showing them as still on the equipment rosters of those forces

The Leopard I has always had composite armor as original armor...it is a product of the MBT - 70 program.

As for the rest.... the authors made a lot of interesting and imaginative but, sadly now canon choices....... like the Navies for example.

If those are around, functional, with trained crews, fuel, and ammunition then they must be part of Division and Corps reserved in case the other guy commits his armor to a massed attack to achieve a break through and deep battle.

This and many WW2, Korea, and Viet Nam fighting vehicles were repaired and returned to service even after entire crews have been killed more than once..... if it wasn't fire or a catastrophic ammo detonation repair was probable given trained maintenance personnel and new or cannibalized parts.

[Olefin]

Sgt - I go by canon - in canon the armored units that are left have very few tanks left - so what is a platoon today is basically everything they have left in the whole division by 2001 - so that waste of combat power and resources isnt happening because they are the British or French in 1940 - its because thats all there is left

thats why what Littlefield has would be a big deal - if all you have left is seven tanks and suddenly you can have that number doubled to 14 by adding seven of his tanks you now have an actual tank company and go back to doctrine - even if they have old style armor - its a real tank company again

and you really need to read up on what Littlefield had and what the auction had as to parts - he had a pretty good amount of spare parts for his collection - if he found six spare parts for an M48 he didnt buy one -he bought them all - and if his guys made a part because there werent any left they made a few spares while they were at it

Think of why tanks and APC's are getting rare - lack of skilled techs and equipment - he has both - meaning now those 7 tanks you have left get repaired and those six "pillboxes" you have back at base get to be operational again - thats what he has to offer - its great if you have all these spare parts (which by 2000 no one has) - you still need a place to use them, the right equipment to use them and men who know how to use it

and your idea of marauders in the US is way off - I agree totally with you in the combat zones in Europe or Alaska or Iran or Korea or China - but here in most of the US they are made up of desperate refugees, criminals, biker gangs, survivalists and anyone else who had a gun and needed food - read the US modules and you dont see large numbers of deserters and veterans - that happened more in places like Europe and Iran

sure some of them have old half remembered military training but not the vast majority of them - one read of the NYC module shows you what you are looking at - and most of them wouldnt have the first idea on how to take on a tank

as for artillery and mortars - the chance of hitting a moving tank with an unguided mortar round or artillery round fired from a group of three or four weapons is basically nil

and while the books made up a lot of excuses thats the scenario we have to work with - and its why tank graveyards in T2K are potential supply depots and not just wastes of good tanks like they are here in our world

[Olefin]

That puts an end to the Littlefield machine shop being able to produce anything theory.



The Leopard I has always had composite armor as original armor...it is a product of the MBT - 70 program.

As for the rest.... the authors made a lot of interesting and imaginative but, sadly now canon choices....... like the Navies for example.

If those are around, functional, with trained crews, fuel, and ammunition then they must be part of Division and Corps reserved in case the other guy commits his armor to a massed attack to achieve a break through and deep battle.

This and many WW2, Korea, and Viet Nam fighting vehicles were repaired and returned to service even after entire crews have been killed more than once..... if it wasn't fire or a catastrophic ammo detonation repair was probable given trained maintenance personnel and new or cannibalized parts.

no those tanks are in front line units - one of the best units in the Soviet forces in Iran, per the RDF and Kings Ransom, is armed with T-55's and its a frontline unit facing US and Iranian forces - ditto many other Soviet forces

and I never said he could make live barrels - the vehicles with those either had them to begin with or he bought them when they were available and had them in storage waiting to refit the vehicles - not everything he had was live - but there were enough to form a nice composite mech battalion when you add in the APC's and SPG's that worked and were functional as well - and none of them were Panzers

and live barrels are out there - Auction hunters found one in a storage bin for a M3 Stuart in Mass

[ArmySGT.]

Sgt - I go by canon When you are in agreement with canon material. However, when you are not such as the discussion on Naval units, Division Cuba, the Mexican campaigns, Howling Wilderness, Armies of the Night, Red star Lonestar, or Urban Guerilla you will depart fast.
- in canon the armored units that are left have very few tanks left - so what is a platoon today is basically everything they have left in the whole division by 2001 - so that waste of combat power and resources isnt happening because they are the British or French in 1940 - its because thats all there is left Yes, if you are using them in ones and twos like 1917 or 1940 then you invite defeat in detail. That would be a waste of tanks as a combat multiplier and the resources put into furnishing them and the trained crews. If a platoon of tanks is all there is in the entirety of a division in 2001, then those tanks are the division reserve and used when and where the division commander needs them. That is not a resource left to the decisions of a company, battalion, or brigade commander.
The Division Commander will hold that small number of tanks to counter an enemy armor break through or to exploit a gap made by his own infantry with artillery support to free those tanks to get into the enemy rear and kill the enemy logistics train or support troops.
thats why what Littlefield has would be a big deal - if all you have left is seven tanks and suddenly you can have that number doubled to 14 by adding seven of his tanks you now have an actual tank company and go back to doctrine - even if they have old style armor - its a real tank company again No you have a ersatz made on the spot unit of tanks without training, without ammo, and without integral support that would be sketchy for any commander to use in a dedicated defense let alone in a attack. A unit made of mismatched armor, incompatible parts, fuel use different in consumption and type. A nightmare for a commander and enough trouble to make a S4 OIC to desert his post.
and you really need to read up on what Littlefield had and what the auction had as to parts - he had a pretty good amount of spare parts for his collection - if he found six spare parts for an M48 he didnt buy one -he bought them all - and if his guys made a part because there werent any left they made a few spares while they were at it I have seen it and read about it…… It is neat, it is a wonderful preservation of history….. What it is not is the huge resource you claim it will be in T2k or T2K+1,+2, or +3. There isn’t a power grid to run it, or the industrial and supply infrastructure to keep it going with cutters, bits, welding gas, and material. Those factories and power plants died in the exchange and no matter how much the Littlefield collection has on hand; when the attempt to get that much equipment repaired those stock are going fast.

This is even assuming,,,,, it is a huge assumption that all these technicians who are retirees and such are have survive the TDM, famines, and plagues. Then to come to work at what has become in your vision a militarily significant target. I posit that they are dead or have departed to care for their families as best they can just like any other civilians. Dollars don’t mean much in T2K.
Think of why tanks and APC's are getting rare - lack of skilled techs and equipment - he has both - meaning now those 7 tanks you have left get repaired and those six "pillboxes" you have back at base get to be operational again - thats what he has to offer - its great if you have all these spare parts (which by 2000 no one has) - you still need a place to use them, the right equipment to use them and men who know how to use it If the techs are alive, if the shop has power, if you have consumables, if government forces haven’t destroyed them to prevent others from using them. The reasons against the Littlefield collection being anything but another repair depot and one that can be replicated at any truck stop with the lift and cranes, are to many and too damning.
and your idea of marauders in the US is way off - I agree totally with you in the combat zones in Europe or Alaska or Iran or Korea or China - but here in most of the US they are made up of desperate refugees, criminals, biker gangs, survivalists and anyone else who had a gun and needed food - read the US modules and you dont see large numbers of deserters and veterans - that happened more in places like Europe and Iran Nope, those bikers and survivalists will have at their core veterans from wars and actions prior to 1997. Knowing what they know, probably not going to show up for any muster or recall. Refugees? Likely as not you are right; the other groups you name will have veterans who will teach the others skills and any actions will reduce the unskilled and stupid. War is it’s own Darwinian sieve.
sure some of them have old half remembered military training but not the vast majority of them - one read of the NYC module shows you what you are looking at - and most of them wouldnt have the first idea on how to take on a tank All it takes is one to teach… What is the Siege of Warsaw, for example.
as for artillery and mortars - the chance of hitting a moving tank with an unguided mortar round or artillery round fired from a group of three or four weapons is basically nil You lead them like any other target. Flight time is in seconds from the call for fire from a known point. This is a core forward observer skill so I don’t know where you are coming up with your example.
and while the books made up a lot of excuses thats the scenario we have to work with - and its why tank graveyards in T2K are potential supply depots and not just wastes of good tanks like they are here in our world Which is why the article and the title are a misnomer….. Those are Depots. Those are undamaged, nearly complete vehicles. A tank graveyard is filled with battle damaged vehicles to difficult for company and battalion assets to return to service. A graveyard like that is a Corps collection point far, far, far to the rear. These would be wrecks with a very low probability of any serviceable parts.

[swaghauler]

and your idea of marauders in the US is way off - I agree totally with you in the combat zones in Europe or Alaska or Iran or Korea or China - but here in most of the US they are made up of desperate refugees, criminals, biker gangs, survivalists and anyone else who had a gun and needed food - read the US modules and you dont see large numbers of deserters and veterans - that happened more in places like Europe and Iran

sure some of them have old half remembered military training but not the vast majority of them - one read of the NYC module shows you what you are looking at - and most of them wouldnt have the first idea on how to take on a tank



The FBI tracks various criminal groups in the US. Most "motorcycle clubs" are comprised almost entirely of veterans (many with combat experience).
The Sovereign Citizen movement is comprised of at least 50% veterans and the movement has a "basic training" program for new members. The KKK also has a "basic training" program run by former vets. The various "Militias" throughout the north east and the south are usually headed by vets. There was even a report by the Feds about various gangs in CA and TX joining the Army and then going AWOL after basic. These "bangers" would then come home to their fellow gangsters bragging about "infiltrating" the Army and getting "trained to kill." This doesn't even cover private citizens who attend classes at places like Thunder Ranch, Gunsite, Tactical Response, Valor Ridge, or DTI; Many of these "paramilitary" by nature.

[swaghauler]

as for artillery and mortars - the chance of hitting a moving tank with an unguided mortar round or artillery round fired from a group of three or four weapons is basically nil

and while the books made up a lot of excuses thats the scenario we have to work with - and its why tank graveyards in T2K are potential supply depots and not just wastes of good tanks like they are here in our world

Any forward observer worth his salt would "prefire" on a tank (call fire on where he thought the tank would be in about 5 seconds). Starting in the late 80's, Fire Direction took an order of magnitude increase in capability (even with WW2 M114s or Vietnam era M102s) due to the invention of laser rangers and GPS.
Even in the aftermath of an Exchange; It would be possible to equip a forward observer with a civilian laser rangefinder (the kind you find at gun shops) and a GPS. These devices used together (if GPS signal is present) will give even an average Forward Observer a pinpoint CEP (1 to 3 meters).

We have the advantage of Hindsight, unlike the Devs. We should use our hindsight to improve the game. The devs believed that M48s and M60s would "soldier on" in mothballs. We know that they did not. This doesn't change the premise of the game; We should strive to "modernize" Twilight with our 20/20 view of the last years depicted in the game.

[Panther Al]

The Leopard I has always had composite armor as original armor...it is a product of the MBT - 70 program.


You have your Leo's confused. :)

The Leo 1 Predates the MBT70 program, where as the Leo 2 program was built off of the German successor to the failed MBT70. So, no, the Leo 1 has no composite armour as originally built (later marks did on the turret, after a fashion).

[Raellus]

Those M48s, M60s, and T55s don't stand a chance against the current ATGMs and can't fight at night anyway. Israel doesn't have a lot of friends that they can sell to any way. The ones that they would sell to can do better than this stuff at home.

It's surprising that they haven't repurposed those hulls. The Israelis still field heavy APCs based on the T-55 hull (the "Achzarit"*) and they use other obsolete MBT hulls for dedicated combat engineering vehicles. Those must be bottom-of-the-barrel examples to be completely discarded.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF_Achzarit

[ArmySGT.]

It's surprising that they haven't repurposed those hulls. The Israelis still field heavy APCs based on the T-55 hull (the "Achzarit"*) and they use other obsolete MBT hulls for dedicated combat engineering vehicles. Those must be bottom-of-the-barrel examples to be completely discarded.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF_Achzarit

They are just making purpose built engineering and breeching equipment on newer hulls. The obsolete systems are probably running out of parts and it would be expensive and redundant to make parts for those and Merkava Mk3 and Namurs. That and they have been going heavy on wheeled armored MRAP types lately.

[Raellus]

They are just making purpose built engineering and breeching equipment on newer hulls. The obsolete systems are probably running out of parts and it would be expensive and redundant to make parts for those and Merkava Mk3 and Namurs. That and they have been going heavy on wheeled armored MRAP types lately.

That makes sense. They have so many old T-54/55 chassis, though, a lack of spare parts probably isn't prohibitive. And I reckon that the unit cost of the Achzarit is considerably lower than that of the Namer.

That said, the Namer looks badass. I'd take a Namer over an Achzarit any day. It was evaluated by the U.S. as a Bradley replacement. I kind of wish it'd won.

[Raellus]

An HE or WP 81mm mortar round can take out even the most modern MBTs. A direct hit on the engine deck can cause a total mobility kill. A hit close enough to the wheels/track/track return can cause a temporary mobility kill.

[ArmySGT.]

You have your Leo's confused. :)

The Leo 1 Predates the MBT70 program, where as the Leo 2 program was built off of the German successor to the failed MBT70. So, no, the Leo 1 has no composite armour as originally built (later marks did on the turret, after a fashion).

You're probably right. I am thinking of some cut away views of various tanks and Leo I's where a part of that. Might be a later model of Leo I that I am thinking of.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Even the MK 1s are a drain on resources when they a fielding the MK3 and the MK4 is in development.

Those M48s, M60s, and T55s don't stand a chance against the current ATGMs and can't fight at night anyway. Israel doesn't have a lot of friends that they can sell to any way. The ones that they would sell to can do better than this stuff at home.

The Israelis rebuilt their M48s as ATGM carriers. They apparently still think enough of them to keep them in the line in that role.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I see such places as the Littlefield collection as a great resource but for their workshops, not so much for the vehicles.
I think this because I see the major issue with trying to bring older armoured vehicles back to life is simple economics - how many resources are you going to consume to bring back a very mixed fleet of vehicles with limited potential?

I think the newer vehicles might be brought back for direct combat and the older vehicles for recce work depending on the perceived threat but they all will be subject to the economics - is it really worth pouring all these resources into a vehicle that could be fuel hungry, has no ammo, has limited spares, is a maintenance hog etc. etc.
I think the answer can be yes but on a very limited scale. If not, they're going to be destroyed so the enemy can't get them.

These places simply don't have the resources that a proper vehicle maintenance facility has access to. If you end up committing serious quantities of materiel on a vehicle or three that you are a bit nervous of sending into combat for any of the reasons mentioned above - then yes, sometimes no vehicle is better than any vehicle.

Plus any armoured vehicle recovered from a museum/collector's fleet may not be as armoured as it looks. There's no telling how much damage the armour took before it was restored because these places want a vehicle that looks as though it's working, they don't need to replace damaged armour plates with new armour plates. In most cases it would either be too expensive or they simply wouldn't be allowed to buy armour plate - if you want it, you cut up a donor vehicle for it.

Like I say, I think the workshops are the real treasure in these places, all those tools and POL stores, stocks of basic metal and various fasteners (rivets, bolts etc. etc.) They'll be worth more for keeping current vehicles running than they will be for resurrecting older types.

[CDAT]

You can take on tanks in any environment. Forest preferably, urban is second best.
Turrets can only engage targets to their relative front. When the turret is facing away from you sprint for the tank. The -10 depression of the gun applies to the coaxial too. In close and a tank has to rely on infantry or another tank to protect it from sappers.

Yes, but if you can not sneak up on them, or do not know they are there it will be murder on the troops on the ground. One experience I know of my brother was in the battalion command tank section (two tanks) they were parked behind the TOC when an infantry company came out of the woods to take the command post, the two when the CP saw the troops coming up the hill they let the tanks know and the two tanks destroyed the company with no losses on there side. Now yes this was in training with MILES gear but if it had been live the results most likely would have been the same. Infantry can do anything, but with out the right tools they can not do everything. No anti-tank weapons, you are going to have a very hard time taking out a tank, even a WWII one. As for if you get to close for the weapons, if it is a single tank maybe. If there is more than one we can just shoot the troops as it will not do any damage to the tank. Also some tricks that some used, fire your smoke grenades they are WP. WP will not hurt the tank but does the infantry. Some tankers have put Claymores around the tank with the controls ran to the driver so if you get close just fire it off, and say good night to the troops. Again it does not real damage to the tank (messes up the paint and that is about it).


Tankers opening the roof hatches to engage infantry with the TC or loaders machineguns? Let them. Their dead very fast from massed small arms fire and then the hatches are open. Yes, please do that. That TC hatch or loader hatch coming open is exactly what the infantry want. The massed fired on all the periscopes and gunner sights is to blind them and force them to open up.

You do know that not all tanks have to expose them self to use some/all of there machine-guns. For example both the M1 and the M60 can fire there Commanders MG from inside with out exposing them self at all. Some other thoughts when I was in basic (early 90's) they were still using some M60 and so we took some classes where they talked about them. The M1 was the worlds deadliest tank (you can argue other nations equivalents), and the M60 was considered the worlds best defensive tank, it did not have the mobility the M1 had, but had a better thermal sight, more ammo and from prepared positions would have torn up any tank in the world at the time.


Let your tank sit out in the open…… That just calls down artillery or mortar fire. Roof hit and it is toast. Smoke mission and it cannot engage targets.

Artillery yes, mortar I do not think so. One of my drill sergeants talked about how his tank in Desert Storm drove through an anti-personnel mine field, they were part way in before they noticed it, after they got out looked for damage. All that it did was take some rubber off the tracks. Tanks are very tough (not invulnerable but very tough). As for the smoke, if it is not thermal smoke do not expect it to give you any cover, we can see through smoke.


Bundle of C4 and WP grenades on a pole….. Slip that under the tank from up close…. If you don’t blast through the belly armor the WP is going to heat it up quick.

As already covered WP does not really affect the tanks, C4 you are going to have to spend some time placing it if you want it to do more than just mess up the paint. Good luck with that if you have a half way competent tank section.

[robert.munsey]

<snip>
"You can take on tanks in any environment. Forest preferably, urban is second best. "

Spoken like a true 'light fighter'. While you 'can' take on any tank in any environment and you name the two best environments to do so, most of what you write is based on old tactics and the fact that you have an inexperienced crew.
An 'experienced' crew is one that has trained together for no less than six months. Once you get an experienced crew, most of what you point out is null in void.

"Turrets can only engage targets to their relative front. When the turret is facing away from you sprint for the tank. The -10 depression of the gun applies to the coaxial too. In close and a tank has to rely on infantry or another tank to protect it from sappers."

Wow...this assumes that the tank will sit still and let the 'sapper' to close with the tank. No tanker worth his salt will fight closed hatch. I never did so. I have watched units in NTC (Ft. Irwin) get slaughtered trying to fight open protected when I was an O/C. In Iraq we never fought closed hatch and we were in a 'Urban' environment. Don't get me wrong, a tank can get killed, especially when you don't have support, but to say all you need is a set of brass balls and some C4, is stupid and short sighted.

"Tankers opening the roof hatches to engage infantry with the TC or loaders machineguns? Let them. Their dead very fast from massed small arms fire and then the hatches are open. Yes, please do that. That TC hatch or loader hatch coming open is exactly what the infantry want. The massed fired on all the periscopes and gunner sights is to blind them and force them to open up."

Lots of assumptions there buddy...and spoken like a true light fighter.....once the snaps of hornets (incoming fire) starts I drop down and tell the gunner to hose the area with coax and light the grunts up with fifty, all while the driver is moving. Why do you think we have TUSK kits and SCWS or 'Pope' glass. It is snipers, not massed infantry or smalls arms fire. SNipers killed one of our lieutenants during our last few months in Habbaniyah, Iraq, when the insurgents got smart and started having trained snipers shoot at us. When just mounted the windscreen glass in ad-hoc side shields. That allowed us to operate open hatch and not get shot, but it still could happen.

Let your tank sit out in the open…… That just calls down artillery or mortar fire. Roof hit and it is toast. Smoke mission and it cannot engage targets.


Yeah, yeah heard this allot too. You know it tanks over 54 rounds from 8 155mm howitzers to concentrate the rounds to knock out a tank (mostly mobility kills mind you). Look at the studies from Sill on this, 432 rounds and one tank kill out of four tanks to show for it and those tanks were STATIONARY.
Granted in the Ad-Hoc stateside Museum quality tanks you could rain death and get a few more, but be serious.

Bundle of C4 and WP grenades on a pole….. Slip that under the tank from up close…. If you don’t blast through the belly armor the WP is going to heat it up quick.

Dang boy, use an IED, it is much better. That old Nam trick doesn't work any more. The WP grenade does nothing to the tank but piss the crew off. I think you meant M8 Thermite grenade.
Also take a look at the amount of explosive in anti-tank mines to get an idea of the amount of power you need. Hand Grenades don't do it.

I agree that modern ATGMs would be scarce……. Unguided rockets like the RPG… No.

I think there would be a lot more RPGs then most people think. In the states however I would agree, that they would be scarce. Now homemade rockets, ok but they would not have ready made EFP warheads, unless you have a machine shop and a ready supply of copper.

RPGS most of all, then systems that need a more sophisticated launcher like LAWS or AT4. Recoilless rifles are going to have a huge resurgence…. If you can make mortar and artillery fuzes you can make these.

By fuzes I take you mean simple fuzes (point detonating) right? Because many modern (even WW2) fuses use very sophisticated arming systems to get them to explode at the right height. above the ground.

You can even mount a TVS-5 on an M40A1 recoilless and give it passive night fighting capability to 1000 meters.

Wow that is an OVER statement of the TVS-5. I have never seen one that good, Even with the rebuilt depot ones with the new image tubes. The TVS-5 sucks donkey urine (and I am being nice).

No you have some poor bastard stuck with a fuel hungry and labor intensive beast without a trained crew, without compatible ammunition, no compatible radios except single channel and in the clear, no maintenance personnel to speak of , and a non existent supply chain relegated to one shop with hundreds of other thing to do making one off parts only when ordered that takes day or weeks to produce if all all.

I think we are explaining the what ifs, but the same could be said about the IED makers in Iraq and A-stand (or even the IRA or Columbia). The person supporting and keeping the beast running is a very special person and is part of the battlefield equation that a Commander in T2K will have to weigh on keeping a tank around.

Any smart commander would refuse this tank as the waste of resources it is.

Your words, and lets just say that we disagree. I will take a tank any day. However I am biased as I am a crust old DAT.

Now where is that can of fuel.......

[LT. Ox]

Here goes...
Thermite, I can make it right here in my little shop. I am near 67 years old but I can get close enough to a tank in this part of the world to use said thermite in one of perhaps a dozen locations on any armor.
Now is that just wishful thinking? I think not but then I have been in the field for a week or two at a time, I got tired. How many hours do you think anyone will sit in our presumed world of 2000 to 2013 in a tank?
If you separate the foot soldier from armor even in our modern tech world it is a target for a number of tactics to render it ineffective.
I can also make a claymore, now said separation is a fact. What personnel are still around will be buttoned up. I know what they taught us a long time ago about staying buttoned up without infantry support. They taught us the positon we were to assume was our head between our legs and kissing our well you should say a prayer cause your goin to judgment soon.
A note on who will or will not be roaming around in the States. Just because a person has taken an oath to defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic does not mean that person will not take whatever he can. I have spent a good deal of time in study and observation of organized crime and served with two states taskforces related to them. Those being California and Colorado and they were related to drug trafficking. The major players were Motorcycle outlaw groups and Latin and Hispanic groups IE MS13 etc.
Weapons; way more than any prepper groups I ran across and the outlaws have the willingness to use them.
Training; both groups had a large number of prior service personnel and they worked at training others in the “clubs”.
Money; or the means to procure needed equipment, that goes without question.
My take is the threat posed by such groups is perhaps more serious than ANY other and more so her in the States than any other area of the
World (except down under, I had to put that in!!)

[Legbreaker]

...(except down under, I had to put that in!!)

We only have to worry about the wildlife down here. Anyone you meet is more likely to call you a dick head and then hand you a beer (a real one, not that weak arse camel piss you've got in the US).

[ArmySGT.]

Yes, but if Oh the “What if” game. This is when “discussion” spirals into the ground.
Yes, but if you can not sneak up on them, or do not know they are there it will be murder on the troops on the ground. Pre dawn darkness and engine idling to charge batteries is an excellent time. Among others.
One experience I know of my brother was in the battalion command tank section (two tanks) they were parked behind the TOC when an infantry company came out of the woods to take the command post, the two when the CP saw the troops coming up the hill they let the tanks know and the two tanks destroyed the company with no losses on there side. Now yes this was in training with MILES gear but if it had been live the results most likely would have been the same. Actually, No. This is a training scenario…. Everything is forced to produce that force on force contact. Find a CP and call artillery on it. Not a good example of what happens…. Weapons like the M203 and the grenades can’t be simulated in MILES. As for training, better than none! Not a good example for this discussion though.
Infantry can do anything, but with out the right tools they can not do everything. No anti-tank weapons, you are going to have a very hard time taking out a tank, even a WWII one. As for if you get to close for the weapons, if it is a single tank maybe. If there is more than one we can just shoot the troops as it will not do any damage to the tank. Infantry trains to get it done without ATGMs being available. It is one of these “Nuclear Battlefield” training points. EMP could destroy the gunners sights of the Dragon and TOW. Fire, satchel charges, pole charges, command detonated mortar rounds, AT mines rigged to command detonate, using detonation cord and mortar rounds to drop trees or walls on tanks. With more preparation and engineer support then you get AT traps like pits and trenches.

ATGMs are like a crescent wrench in an overflowing tool box.
Also some tricks that some used, fire your smoke grenades they are WP. WP will not hurt the tank but does the infantry. Some tankers have put Claymores around the tank with the controls ran to the driver so if you get close just fire it off, and say good night to the troops. Again it does not real damage to the tank (messes up the paint and that is about it). This scenario is discussion the relics in the Littlefield and other collectors……… These don’t typically have smoke dischargers. By T2K smoke grenades for those are probably as scarce as anything else.

Now those are valid defenses…… But they are also one shots….. You are not going to get many properly using the terrain.


You do know that not all tanks have to expose them self to use some/all of there machine-guns. For example both the M1 and the M60 can fire there Commanders MG from inside with out exposing them self at all. Some other thoughts when I was in basic (early 90's) they were still using some M60 and so we took some classes where they talked about them. The M1 was the worlds deadliest tank (you can argue other nations equivalents), and the M60 was considered the worlds best defensive tank, it did not have the mobility the M1 had, but had a better thermal sight, more ammo and from prepared positions would have torn up any tank in the world at the time. Of those in the discussion this applies to the M48 and the M60 so I agree with you. However, only the M60A3 TTS has a thermal sight for the gunner. The periscopes do not. Blind those periscopes and this doesn’t matter.
Artillery yes, mortar I do not think so. One of my drill sergeants talked about how his tank in Desert Storm drove through an anti-personnel mine field, they were part way in before they noticed it, after they got out looked for damage. All that it did was take some rubber off the tracks. Tanks are very tough (not invulnerable but very tough). As for the smoke, if it is not thermal smoke do not expect it to give you any cover, we can see through smoke. Those in discussion do not have thermal sights, possibly passive / active infrared though.

AP mines sure. They have a charge measured in ounces. Not going to affect a tank tread by itself.

I did the hole deeper, cluster there 81mm HE rounds, remove the fuzes, pack the wells with C4, add a blasting cap just to be redundant, then cap it with the AP mine and weather proof….. I have a mobility kill. Then I wait to engage the recovery team from long range with MG fire and mortars. I want to kill those mechanics and their M88 as badly or more than one line tank.

I separate the tanks from infantry, I separate the tanks from mutual support, then destroy them in detail, usually when and where I can get them to dismount.
As already covered WP does not really affect the tanks, C4 you are going to have to spend some time placing it if you want it to do more than just mess up the paint. Good luck with that if you have a half way competent tank section. Spread out around the tank, sure. Detonated beneath the hull where the affect is contained another crispy, smoky story. A 8, 10, 15 kilo charge in a satchel under the belly is going to do a lot. Placed against the last road wheel and the belly, the road wheel and torsion bars are coming off. I also have time to make shaped charges or use the cratering charges used to destroy roads, bridges, and bunkers. All depends on what can be carried or what it tanks to lure the tank right up onto it.

[ArmySGT.]

Your words, and lets just say that we disagree. I will take a tank any day. However I am biased as I am a crust old DAT.

Now where is that can of fuel.......

I am not going to spend time editing that to reply.

Here is how you do it.


Ok, I am very guilty or compulsive about this.

How to...... Well, I use the "Quote" button of course just as normal. such as this.


and you get that.

Now the operative part that makes it a "Quote" is what is between the square brackets [ or ].

Now I will Quote again replacing [ with an elliptical bracket ( so you can see the code.
(QUOTE=ArmySGT.;35723) (/QUOTE)

So I can chop up a lengthy post into manageable pieces and reply to each part I simply put the (QUOTE=ArmySGT.;35723) and (/QUOTE)

ahead of each sentence or paragraph I wish to quote as a separate piece.

Note, that each quote must be proceeded by (QUOTE=ArmySGT.;35723) and then by (/QUOTE) to function as a "Quote".

[ArmySGT.]

Here goes...
Thermite, I can make it right here in my little shop. I am near 67 years old but I can get close enough to a tank in this part of the world to use said thermite in one of perhaps a dozen locations on any armor. Steel wool from the cleaning aisle in supermarkets and big box supply stores burned in a metal pan with some alcohol removes the soap and renders this into ferrous oxide. The best source for powdered aluminum is an auto paint shop. The glitter in fleck paint is powdered aluminum that comes in big bags. You can make any size or shape thermite charge you like. They largest I have seen was on the internet…. A .50cal ammo can filled nearly to the top with a road flare for a fuse. Something that could cut a steel bridge support that was easy to carry and easy to use.
Now is that just wishful thinking? I think not but then I have been in the field for a week or two at a time, I got tired. How many hours do you think anyone will sit in our presumed world of 2000 to 2013 in a tank?
If you separate the foot soldier from armor even in our modern tech world it is a target for a number of tactics to render it ineffective.
I can also make a claymore, now said separation is a fact. What personnel are still around will be buttoned up. I know what they taught us a long time ago about staying buttoned up without infantry support. They taught us the positon we were to assume was our head between our legs and kissing our well you should say a prayer cause your goin to judgment soon. Those and the improvised grape shot charges with drain pipe, spent brass, C4, and a way to detonate. Command detonating something like CS to scatter the infantry protecting the tank happens too.
A note on who will or will not be roaming around in the States. Just because a person has taken an oath to defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic does not mean that person will not take whatever he can. I have spent a good deal of time in study and observation of organized crime and served with two states taskforces related to them. Those being California and Colorado and they were related to drug trafficking. The major players were Motorcycle outlaw groups and Latin and Hispanic groups IE MS13 etc.
Weapons; way more than any prepper groups I ran across and the outlaws have the willingness to use them.
Training; both groups had a large number of prior service personnel and they worked at training others in the “clubs”.
Money; or the means to procure needed equipment, that goes without question.
My take is the threat posed by such groups is perhaps more serious than ANY other and more so her in the States than any other area of the
World (except down under, I had to put that in!!) Yeah, all this. X2

[Raellus]

There are literally dozens of ways to kill a tank. No one is claiming that it's easy to kill a tank, or that every method is 100% effective 100% of the time. That said, I can't believe we're having this argument. Why is it that, for so many people, an issue needs to be either black or white?

If you don't believe that infantry can take out an MBT without dedicated AT weapons, read up on Japanese tactics on Okinawa, or recent insurgent IED use in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and/or Gaza. If you don't believe that mortars and/or WP are hazardous to MBTs, read literally any book on ground combat in WWII.

Don't get me wrong, if I was a grunt in the T2KU, I'd love to have an MBT on my team. That said, I'd do everything in my power to make sure that that tank used appropriate tactics and was always supported by dismounts before rolling into trouble. The minute you start rumbling around in your tracked and armored beast like you're invincible is the minute some teenager with a Molotov cocktail sets your engine on fire.

[LT. Ox]

There are literally dozens of ways to kill a tank. No one is claiming that it's easy to kill a tank, or that every method is 100% effective 100% of the time. That said, I can't believe we're having this argument. Why is it that, for so many people, an issue needs to be either black or white?

If you don't believe that infantry can take out an MBT without dedicated AT weapons, read up on Japanese tactics on Okinawa, or recent insurgent IED use in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and/or Gaza. If you don't believe that mortars and/or WP are hazardous to MBTs, read literally any book on ground combat in WWII.

Don't get me wrong, if I was a grunt in the T2KU, I'd love to have an MBT on my team. That said, I'd do everything in my power to make sure that that tank used appropriate tactics and was always supported by dismounts before rolling into trouble. The minute you start rumbling around in your tracked and armored beast like you're invincible is the minute some teenager with a Molotov cocktail sets your engine on fire.
And In a nut shell!
That is why tactics keep evolving and why they are followed.

Laugh, by the way I did not say I would like to try any of the above methods.

[Olefin]

Never said tanks are invincible - there are lots of ways to take them out. The question is will they be facing people who know how to take them out.

The Mexican Army is not trained to take on armored forces - they are basically an anti-insurgency force, not a force trained to take on tanks. Now could they have been trained to do this - yes, at least the initial forces that were sent into the US. However I am betting that by 2001 the replacement conscripts that make up most of their forces didnt get much in the way of training before they got sent into the US.

The typical guy on the street is not trained in how to take out tanks or armored vehicles either. And marauders in general in the US are probably not all full of deserters and ex-veterans - and remember this is the mid 90's - meaning that not everyone had access to the internet like today and could just type in "how to take out a tank" on google

as for artillery and mortars - very few tanks have ever been taken out of action by artillery and mortar barrages unless you are talking about massed barrages by dozens of guns and even then you are lucky to do much in the way of damage - now I am not saying a tank is invulnerable to cannon or mortar indirect fire - they make all kinds of nasty guided weapons for the artillery

but by 2001 those are all gone - or so few in number that the chances of running into a unit that has any is very small - and certainly not something a marauder or barely supplied Mexican unit is going to have

I sure as hell wouldnt want to be driving around in an older tank in 1997-98 in the Twilight War - not against the modern weapons of that era

but by 2001 any tank is definitely something to be feared because most of those weapons are gone which makes taking one out a lot harder - and yes there are lots of ways to take out tanks that experienced veterans know about even if they dont have guided weapons or missiles or other nasty items to use - but give the tank infantry support and a lot of those ways are going to be pretty hard to put into effect - i.e. its one thing to get up close and personal and blow the treads off the tank or put explosives under it if its unsupported - its another when you try that against the tank with infantry support along for the ride

and you would have to be the artillery Davey Crockett to nail a moving tank with a single artillery piece or mortar on its roof with unguided shells - especially since said tank as part of a MilGov force would probably have its own artillery support doing its best to nail said enemy artillery

as for laser guided rounds - yes those would be quite effective - and also very very rare per the equipment lists in ever version of the original game by 2001 - so even with a civilian laser designator you need the rounds to make it useful - which are as rare as hens teeth

go thru the modules and see how many foes have such weapons outside of possibly the armies in Iran and maybe Division Cuba in Texas - certainly not the Mexican Army - if they did the Soviets would have lost a hell of a lot more equipment taking Brownsville because with the backing that force had they would have had the rounds if they were around - but they werent

[Olefin]

Oh and Sgt - yes I do have my disagreements with canon - there are a lot of holes in it you could drive any tank of your liking right thru - but the basic premise of what tanks are still in operation, how many are left and why by mid July of 2000 is one that I find believeable - and the fact that MilGov and CivGov were calling anything in the US with a turret and a gun a tank by mid July of 2000 even more so tells me they would be raiding museums, collections, graveyards to get anything into operation they could get their hands on

If they are calling M728 CEV's tanks (as the US Army guide specifies) then I dont see them being too picky as to what they would take for tanks in that situation

And the US Army still had war stocks of 90mm ammo for the M48 in the real world into the time frame of the game

[Raellus]

I guess the argument is not that tanks are invulnerable, but that the "typical" marauder, c.2000, wouldn't know how to kill them. That's not a black or white issue either.

Certainly, this would be true of some marauders- completely inexperienced and ill-equipped forces. These folks would probably experience what the Germans called "tank fright". They would be much more likely to panic when encountering any kind of heavy armor; they probably wouldn't know how to destroy a tank without dedicated AT weapons.

That said, not all marauders are going to have that little experience/training when it comes to dealing with armor.

In every Europe-based campaign module I've looked at, most marauder groups are described as being, in effective, deserters- men with military experience. Many of these guys would have enough experience with armor not to freak out when encountering one or two tanks. Furthermore, they might know a couple of tricks to disable or destroy armor. I'm sure that at least some Mexican/Cuban/Soviet marauder groups operating in CONUS would be similarly capable.

Another variable is access to AT weaponry. Even an old 1st gen. LAW could take out WWII and most Cold War era MBTs, if used correctly. Heck, the Germans were handing out Panzerfausts to 14-year-old Volksturm units in the last days of WWII. With very little training and no experience, some of these kids managed to kill T-34 and JS-2 MBTs.

[robert.munsey]

Yes I agree that tanks are not invincible, but t seems that a few are posting that it is very easy to do so with A, B and C and viola you have a smoking ruin. It is not that easy. However I have seen some stupid tankers get them selves into trouble.
So the tank grave yard or Museum would allow a force to acquire something that 'could' tip the balance. That item maybe a tank or just an APC, but the point is that it will tip the balance until the other side figures out how to restore the balance if they have lost. That is the GM's role in the game.
That aside, any infantry men that say they can whip out a tank with all the items mentioned, I will say that depends on a few factors, but it is not as simple as put together some home made C4 and put it on a bundle and blow the tank up. Nor is it easy to pull the tank off the VFW yard and fill it up with fuel and send it on it's way either.
However at least all posters here are thinking how a item from a tank grave yard would effect their game. Also others have posted tactics a player group could use to overcome the obstacle, after they put some steel back into their spines of the NPCs that just faced the metal monster.

I have to be nice to the infantry, but remember you guys hate to admit, but you need us tankers......and you cannot do it all yourselves.
Crusty old tanker......

[robert.munsey]

I guess the argument is not that tanks are invulnerable, .

Yes the tanks are! Don't listen to the "light Fighter" Hype!

We just need grunts as much as they need us.......

[Olefin]

By the way older tanks aren't all equipped like WWII Shermans FYI

M48A3 - spall liner for the crew, infrared fire control system installed

M60A3 had a laser rangefinder, solid state ballistic computer, and crosswind sensor and a tank thermal sight. They were also fitted with a muzzle reference system, a Halon fire extinguishing system, a vehicle engine exhaust smoke system, and hardware to allow the mounting of equipment such as chemical alarms.

[Legbreaker]

Tank crews do not have eyes in the back of their heads. They have some MASSIVE blind spots, especially when buttoned up. Therefore, with a bit of patience and some small amount of skill, it's not that hard to sneak up close enough to use improvised AT weapons against them.
Yes, it takes balls, but it can be done.
This is why tanks should NEVER operate in close country without infantry support.
https://youtu.be/V7fZ4wxWP1Q

And older tanks are much more vulnerable to improvised weapons than newer one. Isn't that one of the reasons tank design is always being improved? Taking a 50+ year old AFV onto a modern battlefield is just begging for destruction.

[Olefin]

and again - I highly doubt that MilGov and CivGov would go thru the effort of bringing older tanks back to life and deploying them in combat and forget that they need infantry support

if you read this thread it sounds like that marauders are all experienced veterans who can knock out tanks with ease and that the organized military forces of the US are rookies who send tanks out with no infantry support of any sort to fight infantry, which no one has tried since 1943 since the Germans found out the hard way why that didn't work at Kursk

thus the tankers don't need eyes in the back of their heads - that's what the sergeant leading a couple of squads of infantry is there for while the tank uses its main gun to take out fun things like other tanks, APC's, pillboxes etc..

Plus tanks have become something of a rarity by 2001 - so while there may be people who know how to take out tanks they may not be ready to do so - its one thing if you have been facing tanks for years - its another when one shows up out of nowhere to support that pesky infantry you are used to fighting

[swaghauler]

Tank crews do not have eyes in the back of their heads. They have some MASSIVE blind spots, especially when buttoned up. Therefore, with a bit of patience and some small amount of skill, it's not that hard to sneak up close enough to use improvised AT weapons against them.
Yes, it takes balls, but it can be done.
This is why tanks should NEVER operate in close country without infantry support.
https://youtu.be/V7fZ4wxWP1Q

And older tanks are much more vulnerable to improvised weapons than newer one. Isn't that one of the reasons tank design is always being improved? Taking a 50+ year old AFV onto a modern battlefield is just begging for destruction.

That's why track drivers call mechanized infantry, "Crunchies!"

[swaghauler]

A quick question while we are putting all these older AFVs back into service. Where is all the gas (or if its European, diesel) coming from? An M4 Sherman (indeed most WW2 AFVs from the US) use older gas engines. These had points, carbs and floats that would have to be changed to enable the use of ethanol (methanol won't work in these older engines). Who's fabricating the new piston rings, bucket tappets, and lifter springs that will be needed to withstand the higher burn temps of ethanol? There is this idea out there that all of these older vehicles are "plug and play" with alternative fuels just like the newer "FlexFuel" cars mandated in the US today. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the major reason the US didn't switch to ethanol or a gas/ethanol mixture during the Oil Crisis was the inability of older gas engines to use ethanol without damage. I remember the old jeeps and gamma-goats; They wouldn't run properly if there was too much water in the gas.

[ArmySGT.]

Never said tanks are invincible - there are lots of ways to take them out. The question is will they be facing people who know how to take them out. I think they wil. They war has been going for a long time. There will be people who have been rotated back from other fronts to form the core of green units and to be the trainers in regional schools. Those “Recondo” and other schools built by Divisions and Corps. Then there are men and women mustered out missing limbs or broken backs that find themselves civilians again.

The Mexican Army is not trained to take on armored forces - they are basically an anti-insurgency force, not a force trained to take on tanks. Now could they have been trained to do this - yes, at least the initial forces that were sent into the US. However I am betting that by 2001 the replacement conscripts that make up most of their forces didnt get much in the way of training before they got sent into the US. Ridiculous. The Mexican infantry trains for anti-armor missions just like any other. They field an assortment of anti-armor weapons throughout their organization. The Mexicans in real life field recoilless rifles and these is a far easier round and fuse to manufacture. The Mexicans may have a far more robust AT defense in T2K given M40A1 106mm RRs in the force structure. M3 Carl Gustaf RRs at company level too, again a far easier round to manufacture. Both are essentially fuse superquick and the warhead is HEAT.

The typical guy on the street is not trained in how to take out tanks or armored vehicles either. And marauders in general in the US are probably not all full of deserters and ex-veterans - and remember this is the mid 90's - meaning that not everyone had access to the internet like today and could just type in "how to take out a tank" on google Mid 90s I could pull down material like this from BBS and archives at many .edu address while on staff duty in Taegu, ROK.

I routinely got Army and Air Force manuals at yard sales and used book stores because getting some through Army publishing was a wish and a dream. This was the heyday of Paladin Press and all their adventure and military books. In the 80s had books on military equipment, tactics, and history even in the crunchy pot smoking hippy town I grew up in. This and the VFWs and American Legions have millions of WW2, Korea, and Viet Nam vets in their 40s – 60s… Those marauders can damn well find the experience as can local militias and mutual defense groups.
as for artillery and mortars - very few tanks have ever been taken out of action by artillery and mortar barrages unless you are talking about massed barrages by dozens of guns and even then you are lucky to do much in the way of damage - now I am not saying a tank is invulnerable to cannon or mortar indirect fire - they make all kinds of nasty guided weapons for the artillery The very first ever destruction of a tank in combat is WW1, a British tank killed by German artillery. Armor survives most artillery barrages because there is enough armor to shrug off shrapnel given that the artillery round detonates a certain number of meters distant. Light armored vehicles still get penetration at ranges under 10 meters especially the very thin Russian APCs. That is just VT or variable time fuse that detonate overhead to maximize shrapnel. HE shells with superquick and concrete penetrating fuses are what you shoot at armor when you see it. These detonate in contact with the hull or penetrate lighter armored areas like the roof or engine cover before detonating inside.

but by 2001 those are all gone - or so few in number that the chances of running into a unit that has any is very small - and certainly not something a marauder or barely supplied Mexican unit is going to have Sure you’re out of “Copperhead” and ICM probably by this point those are the kind of rounds that Commanders tend to horde though. Doesn’t matter as HE with fuse superquick is common as dirt and any battery by T2K has abundant practice putting those in the circle. Three shells per tube from a battery is going to ruin any tanks day

I sure as hell wouldnt want to be driving around in an older tank in 1997-98 in the Twilight War - not against the modern weapons of that era Probably goes for most anyone.
but by 2001 any tank is definitely something to be feared because most of those weapons are gone which makes taking one out a lot harder - and yes there are lots of ways to take out tanks that experienced veterans know about even if they dont have guided weapons or missiles or other nasty items to use - but give the tank infantry support and a lot of those ways are going to be pretty hard to put into effect - i.e. its one thing to get up close and personal and blow the treads off the tank or put explosives under it if its unsupported - its another when you try that against the tank with infantry support along for the ride That is why I and others have stressed again you have to separate the enemy infantry dismounts from the enemy armor first. You hammer them area with artillery, mortar, and plunging MG fire and killed them, wound them, or send them looking for overhead cover. It isn’t easy and you’re going to be on the receiving end of the other guys indirect fire too. Infantry in the defense with prepared defenses is tough to dig out.

and you would have to be the artillery Davey Crockett to nail a moving tank with a single artillery piece or mortar on its roof with unguided shells - especially since said tank as part of a MilGov force would probably have its own artillery support doing its best to nail said enemy artillery If forces are in contact and organized in fighting units then the counter recon battle is ongoing as is the counter artillery battle. Commanders have 2/3s the artillery tasked to their scouts and 1/3 tasked as counter battery fire to get the other guys tubes. On going with or without fancy counter battery radar systems to use. Russians task rocket battalions and saturate grid squares just to kill NATO artillery. Who is using single tubes? Batteries are at a minimum 2/3 their standard range without RAP rounds from the forward line of troops in contact. Those artillery units will be dug in and with a dedicated trans units in support. Even towed artillery in going to be in abundance with only ammo, trucks, and fuel being an issue. I always kept the grids for artillery battalions written down. Arty being far to the rear almost always had their field kitchens up and there was hot coffee.

as for laser guided rounds - yes those would be quite effective - and also very very rare per the equipment lists in ever version of the original game by 2001 - so even with a civilian laser designator you need the rounds to make it useful - which are as rare as hens teeth To my knowledge the is no such animal as a “Civilian Laser Designator”….. I think you are using the wrong nomenclature for a civilian laser range finder mentioned earlier. Laser range finders give you exact distance to a target often including the azimuth / declination too. A laser designator is shines a beam onto a target visible to the operator, the laser guided round homes in on the reflected laser light. When that laser is in the proper spectrum and strobing in the correct time, that way rounds are not missing targets with multiple laser signatures in the area or counter measure dazzlers in use.

Yes, I agree that laser guided munitions by T2K would be rare, mostly expended, and with the loss of industrial capacity small chance of replacement. Those are few to begin with, most designated for high value targets like command vehicles and FO vehicles any way. Sometimes for high pay off targets like a bridge or bunker in a valley out of direct fire and without air support to kill it for you.
go thru the modules and see how many foes have such weapons outside of possibly the armies in Iran and maybe Division Cuba in Texas - certainly not the Mexican Army - if they did the Soviets would have lost a hell of a lot more equipment taking Brownsville because with the backing that force had they would have had the rounds if they were around - but they weren’t That is plot device…. The necessities of the narrative dictated that to have the outcome the authors wanted. Like an awful lot of the events described to bring about the game setting.

[ArmySGT.]

Yes the tanks are! Don't listen to the "light Fighter" Hype!

We just need grunts as much as they need us.......

What do you call four tankers and a frag grenade? Spam in a Can!

What do you call four tankers and WP grenade? Extra crispy

What do you call four tankers without ammo? Passengers

What do you call four tankers without fuel? Foot patrol

What do you call four tankers and a Molotov cocktail? Southern fried!

What do you call an idling tank? Clothes drier.

What do you call a tank stuck in mud? Opportunity knocks!

What is closed up tight, covered in oil, and stinks to high heaven? You might have said tankers, but I meant canned fish.

[ArmySGT.]

Oh and Sgt - yes I do have my disagreements with canon - there are a lot of holes in it you could drive any tank of your liking right thru - but the basic premise of what tanks are still in operation, how many are left and why by mid July of 2000 is one that I find believeable - and the fact that MilGov and CivGov were calling anything in the US with a turret and a gun a tank by mid July of 2000 even more so tells me they would be raiding museums, collections, graveyards to get anything into operation they could get their hands on

If they are calling M728 CEV's tanks (as the US Army guide specifies) then I dont see them being too picky as to what they would take for tanks in that situation

And the US Army still had war stocks of 90mm ammo for the M48 in the real world into the time frame of the game

Then by all means be forth coming..... saying "I follow canon" when you don't is ridiculous. Everyone here has their own biases and feelings about the game material. Just come out with you opinion and be prepared for others to scoff or laugh at it as you do theirs. It is to be expected, understood, and respected.

[Raellus]

Hey guys, this is starting to get pretty chippy. Let's all dial it down a couple notches, take a deep breath, and consider agreeing to disagree. It's pretty clear by now that no one involved in this argument is going to change his mind.

[CDAT]

I was basing my comments on my real life experience, I spent about half my time as a Tanker, before moving over to EOD. In the late 2000's last time I did a large ammo destruction, the US still had ammo for weapons that we no longer have (some WWII) so I do not think getting ammo for them would be as hard as some think. I also think that if you want to set it up so that the side with tanks has troops that do not know there job, and the other side has super troopers then yes you can take out the tanks. But if both sides are the battle harden vets with the limited amounts of ammo the game provides you will have a very hard time taking out the tanks. Make a HEAT round is not something you are going to do in a garage shop, most likely you are not going to be able to make many fuzes in the garage shop. There is a reason that you do not see many homemade fuzes besides point detonating in the sand box.

[ArmySGT.]

I was basing my comments on my real life experience, I spent about half my time as a Tanker, before moving over to EOD. In the late 2000's last time I did a large ammo destruction, the US still had ammo for weapons that we no longer have (some WWII) so I do not think getting ammo for them would be as hard as some think. I also think that if you want to set it up so that the side with tanks has troops that do not know there job, and the other side has super troopers then yes you can take out the tanks. But if both sides are the battle harden vets with the limited amounts of ammo the game provides you will have a very hard time taking out the tanks. Make a HEAT round is not something you are going to do in a garage shop, most likely you are not going to be able to make many fuzes in the garage shop. There is a reason that you do not see many homemade fuzes besides point detonating in the sand box.

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/06/diy-weapons-of-the-libyan-rebels/100086/

Pictures #20 and #21 is guy reusing RPGs.

[Legbreaker]

Make a HEAT round is not something you are going to do in a garage shop, most likely you are not going to be able to make many fuzes in the garage shop.
Perhaps not somebodies backyard shed, but there's plenty of workshops in any town, even some villages with the necessary machinery for small scale production.
Skill and knowledge/plans are the big issue - that and fuses.

[Legbreaker]

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/06/diy-weapons-of-the-libyan-rebels/100086/

Hmm, so why is a supposedly Russian made rocket pod (#23 for example) clearly printed in English?

[Olefin]

A quick question while we are putting all these older AFVs back into service. Where is all the gas (or if its European, diesel) coming from? An M4 Sherman (indeed most WW2 AFVs from the US) use older gas engines. These had points, carbs and floats that would have to be changed to enable the use of ethanol (methanol won't work in these older engines). Who's fabricating the new piston rings, bucket tappets, and lifter springs that will be needed to withstand the higher burn temps of ethanol? There is this idea out there that all of these older vehicles are "plug and play" with alternative fuels just like the newer "FlexFuel" cars mandated in the US today. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the major reason the US didn't switch to ethanol or a gas/ethanol mixture during the Oil Crisis was the inability of older gas engines to use ethanol without damage. I remember the old jeeps and gamma-goats; They wouldn't run properly if there was too much water in the gas.

You would have to switch them over to run on ethanol and methanol - just as was done with thousands of other vehicles in the game. I didnt say you would be able to just fire them up and take them out (now if you had gasoline or diesel thats different - and most of the older vehicles I am talking about ran on diesel by the way - unless you are talking WWII vehicles only)

By the way FYI - the Super Sherman that Littlefield has that has the live barrel and is 100% operational that he got from Israel - it has a diesel engine

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin
The Mexican Army is not trained to take on armored forces - they are basically an anti-insurgency force, not a force trained to take on tanks. Now could they have been trained to do this - yes, at least the initial forces that were sent into the US. However I am betting that by 2001 the replacement conscripts that make up most of their forces didnt get much in the way of training before they got sent into the US.

Ridiculous. The Mexican infantry trains for anti-armor missions just like any other. They field an assortment of anti-armor weapons throughout their organization. The Mexicans in real life field recoilless rifles and these is a far easier round and fuse to manufacture. The Mexicans may have a far more robust AT defense in T2K given M40A1 106mm RRs in the force structure. M3 Carl Gustaf RRs at company level too, again a far easier round to manufacture. Both are essentially fuse superquick and the warhead is HEAT. "


Its one thing to be trained in how to use a weapons system - its another to be trained to use alternate ways to take out a tank other than a bottle of flaming gasoline. And the Mexican Army, as per multiple canon references and also real life references, is mostly a conscript army that is specifically trained to take on rebels, not armored forces.

Thats why in the game they needed Division Cuba - because the Soviets in Cuba had what they didnt have - a fully armed and equipped division armed with tanks and anti-tank weapons. Thats what stopped the 36th in its tracks during the counterattack.

And if the Mexicans are so well trained against tanks then why does a force that includes APC's and anti-tank weapons basically get butchered by the Soviets during the taking of Brownsville - per the module if they get there they only lose a single BTR against a large well equipped marauder force?

By what is being said here by several people that Soviet force, which only included BTR's and trucks, no tanks of any sort, which had no artillery support by the way, with all its infantry mounted in vehicles, should have been butchered left and right by all those veteran soldiers that were part of what was described as a very well equipped and trained Mexican marauder force (they were Mexican Army that had went marauder) - so that shows the reality of what armor does to marauder forces in the game

If they couldnt stop a small force of BTR's in an urban assualt that were unsupported by artillery then I highly doubt they could have handled tanks

[Olefin]

And as for parts and ammo - keep in mind that the US in real life had a lot of old M48's still sitting in storage or waiting for transfer to other armies or for disposal as well as ammunition for those tanks in storage - and one of the biggest of those stowage yards is in Northern California

and the M48 and M60 tank share a lot of parts -meaning that its not that big a logistical leap to keep M48's going that come out of the tank graveyards, storage areas or museums

remember the M88 recovery vehicle had a lot of parts that came from both the M48 and the M60 - meaning that parts procured for that vehicle will also work to repair and keep going an M48 in the field

so those old M48's and older model M60's would actually be quite easy to keep going in the field once you brought them back into action - including ammo and spare parts - not as easy as an M1 - but it could be done for a country desperate for tanks and armored vehicles - which pretty much describes the US after Omega

[ArmySGT.]

Its one thing to be trained in how to use a weapons system - its another to be trained to use alternate ways to take out a tank other than a bottle of flaming gasoline. And the Mexican Army, as per multiple canon references and also real life references, is mostly a conscript army that is specifically trained to take on rebels, not armored forces.

Thats why in the game they needed Division Cuba - because the Soviets in Cuba had what they didnt have - a fully armed and equipped division armed with tanks and anti-tank weapons. Thats what stopped the 36th in its tracks during the counterattack.

And if the Mexicans are so well trained against tanks then why does a force that includes APC's and anti-tank weapons basically get butchered by the Soviets during the taking of Brownsville - per the module if they get there they only lose a single BTR against a large well equipped marauder force?

By what is being said here by several people that Soviet force, which only included BTR's and trucks, no tanks of any sort, which had no artillery support by the way, with all its infantry mounted in vehicles, should have been butchered left and right by all those veteran soldiers that were part of what was described as a very well equipped and trained Mexican marauder force (they were Mexican Army that had went marauder) - so that shows the reality of what armor does to marauder forces in the game

If they couldnt stop a small force of BTR's in an urban assualt that were unsupported by artillery then I highly doubt they could have handled tanks

I don't understand what you are trying to say. This has no coherent beginning, middle, or end.

[ArmySGT.]

And as for parts and ammo - keep in mind that the US in real life had a lot of old M48's still sitting in storage or waiting for transfer to other armies or for disposal as well as ammunition for those tanks in storage - and one of the biggest of those stowage yards is in Northern California

and the M48 and M60 tank share a lot of parts -meaning that its not that big a logistical leap to keep M48's going that come out of the tank graveyards, storage areas or museums

remember the M88 recovery vehicle had a lot of parts that came from both the M48 and the M60 - meaning that parts procured for that vehicle will also work to repair and keep going an M48 in the field

so those old M48's and older model M60's would actually be quite easy to keep going in the field once you brought them back into action - including ammo and spare parts - not as easy as an M1 - but it could be done for a country desperate for tanks and armored vehicles - which pretty much describes the US after Omega


Sierra Army Depot is in Northern California.. It is a huge ammunition and vehicle depot. If it wasn't heavily nuked in canon it should have been.

The majority of M48s I have seen are used as targets on live fire ranges.

I have shot them up with Mk19s and AT-4. The Air Force drops bombs on them and the Artillery uses them as armor in the open targets and for FOs to practice lasing a target.

That is where the majority of U.S. M48s not transferred in sales to foreign countries reside. Live fire impact areas.

[Olefin]

yes they did use them as targets in real life - but they also held a lot of them for sale to foreign nations - in that time period the US still had hundreds of them in storage in Italy for instance

So they definitely still had them available for their own forces - and for people like the Turks and Koreans who still operated them

[Olefin]

I don't understand what you are trying to say. This has no coherent beginning, middle, or end.

Actually it has a very coherent point

According to you and others marauder forces, especially those composed of trained military men, should be able to deal with tanks easily, especially if they arent supported by artillery. You can easily peel off their supporting infantry and take them out.

So what do you have at Brownsville in the Texas module - a very well armed marauder force which was a Mexican Brigade that had turned marauder but which was still organized and had officers and NCO's. They had APC's, anti-tank missiles and were well equipped per the module.

They got attacked by a small column of Russian armored vehicles who had no artillery or air support.

With what has been said here that Russian force should have been butchered. But what happened - they lost a single BTR in the attack, butchered the Mexican force and took Brownsville with very low casualties

thus, in the minds of the people who created the game, they didnt see Mexican Army or typical marauders able to take on armor and win

and while they mentioned the characters, who had fought in Europe, knew how to take on tanks, the Mexicans and marauder forces in Texas specifically were mentioned as not knowing how to deal with them because they hadnt been exposed to armored warfare as in Europe

I.e. they may have had guys who had seen old movies on throwing a bottle of flaming gasoline at tanks and they had a few guys trained to fire RPG's - but other than that all they knew how to do when armor showed up was run - and those were Mexican troops

[ArmySGT.]

Actually it has a very coherent point

According to you and others marauder forces, especially those composed of trained military men, should be able to deal with tanks easily, especially if they arent supported by artillery. You can easily peel off their supporting infantry and take them out.

So what do you have at Brownsville in the Texas module - a very well armed marauder force which was a Mexican Brigade that had turned marauder but which was still organized and had officers and NCO's. They had APC's, anti-tank missiles and were well equipped per the module.

They got attacked by a small column of Russian armored vehicles who had no artillery or air support.

With what has been said here that Russian force should have been butchered. But what happened - they lost a single BTR in the attack, butchered the Mexican force and took Brownsville with very low casualties

thus, in the minds of the people who created the game, they didnt see Mexican Army or typical marauders able to take on armor and win

and while they mentioned the characters, who had fought in Europe, knew how to take on tanks, the Mexicans and marauder forces in Texas specifically were mentioned as not knowing how to deal with them because they hadnt been exposed to armored warfare as in Europe

I.e. they may have had guys who had seen old movies on throwing a bottle of flaming gasoline at tanks and they had a few guys trained to fire RPG's - but other than that all they knew how to do when armor showed up was run - and those were Mexican troops

Because the authors wanted it to happen that way. Simply because for all the points you mention they should have slaughtered the Russians.

.50 BMG passes right through what little armor a BTR has.

Actually it has a very coherent point

Now, back to what I said earlier...... I can't make sense of that post. I read it three times. Could you edit that and clarify it? One subject per paragraph, one sentence with the argument and main point, then supporting evidence in other sentences. Please.

Seriously, it is like an episode of drunk history. I thought I was bad about automatic writing and spilling it out as it has come to mind.

[unkated]

A quick question while we are putting all these older AFVs back into service. Where is all the gas (or if its European, diesel) coming from? An M4 Sherman (indeed most WW2 AFVs from the US) use older gas engines. These had points, carbs and floats that would have to be changed to enable the use of ethanol (methanol won't work in these older engines). Who's fabricating the new piston rings, bucket tappets, and lifter springs that will be needed to withstand the higher burn temps of ethanol?

The easiest way would be to pull the engine and replace it with a more modern truck engine of comparable power.

Now, note that I said "easiest", not that it would be easy. It would take a well-equipped garage and a knowledgeable team to do so. But it would probably be easier than to locate working antique replacement parts, or get the specs to some mechanical artist with a well-equipped machine shop to make them from scratch.

Uncle Ted

[unkated]

Legbreaker, next time post pictures that are less controversial, like scantily clad women, or perhaps political cartoons. Those never cause trouble :rolleyes:

Uncle Ted

[ArmySGT.]

Hmm, so why is a supposedly Russian made rocket pod (#23 for example) clearly printed in English?

You know, that is curious. I would just have to guess that English was better understood by the plethora of international techs that Qaddafi had to hire to keep shit in the air.

[Olefin]

Because the authors wanted it to happen that way. Simply because for all the points you mention they should have slaughtered the Russians.

.50 BMG passes right through what little armor a BTR has.

Now, back to what I said earlier...... I can't make sense of that post. I read it three times. Could you edit that and clarify it? One subject per paragraph, one sentence with the argument and main point, then supporting evidence in other sentences. Please.

Seriously, it is like an episode of drunk history. I thought I was bad about automatic writing and spilling it out as it has come to mind.

Army SGT - what I posted makes very good sense to me and there is nothing wrong with my writing style - and frankly if you are trying to bait me to break the board rules you are not going to get anywhere

[Olefin]

The easiest way would be to pull the engine and replace it with a more modern truck engine of comparable power.

Now, note that I said "easiest", not that it would be easy. It would take a well-equipped garage and a knowledgeable team to do so. But it would probably be easier than to locate working antique replacement parts, or get the specs to some mechanical artist with a well-equipped machine shop to make them from scratch.

Uncle Ted

or just do a straight convert to allow it run on alcohol - if the Soviets did it with T-55's then you can do it with an M48

[CDAT]

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/06/diy-weapons-of-the-libyan-rebels/100086/

Pictures #20 and #21 is guy reusing RPGs.

Yes as a HE not HEAT round.

[Olefin]

and HE is much easier to make in a backyard/small machine shop environment than a HEAT round

[CDAT]

Because the authors wanted it to happen that way. Simply because for all the points you mention they should have slaughtered the Russians.

.50 BMG passes right through what little armor a BTR has.

Now, back to what I said earlier...... I can't make sense of that post. I read it three times. Could you edit that and clarify it? One subject per paragraph, one sentence with the argument and main point, then supporting evidence in other sentences. Please.

Seriously, it is like an episode of drunk history. I thought I was bad about automatic writing and spilling it out as it has come to mind.

With the .50 is that first hand experience or just hearsay? I ask because several things that I had been told were fact, when we got the chance to test for our self found out to be untrue. I was told that within one magazine of 5.56 you would chew through the armor of a M113, the 7.62X51 would go in and bounce around, and the .50 would make Swiss cheese out of it. When we go the chance to shoot one (OK it was an old ITV), after hundreds of rounds of 5.56 you were hard pressed to find any place that looked like it had taken any real damage. The 7.62 just left tiny little marks, and the .50 BMG left pock marks. This was with green/black tip. Right before us was some Brits and there Warriors with TP ammo did not even penetrate, it did leave nice sized dents were each round hit, had it been war stock ammo I have no doubt that it would have penetrated.


Olefin I also thought that it made sense, if you are looking at this objectively. If you are looking at it with rose colored lenses it may not.

[swaghauler]

The easiest way would be to pull the engine and replace it with a more modern truck engine of comparable power.

Now, note that I said "easiest", not that it would be easy. It would take a well-equipped garage and a knowledgeable team to do so. But it would probably be easier than to locate working antique replacement parts, or get the specs to some mechanical artist with a well-equipped machine shop to make them from scratch.

Uncle Ted

This is where I have major problems with the cannon (and changed my game's history accordingly). If Russia wanted to prevent the US from supplying/directing the war in Europe; They would have detonated several large nukes at altitude over the US and let the EMP destroy the computer modules present in almost all the machines (including engines) from the early 90's on (and we would have retaliated accordingly). You would need one of these newer engines (built to take the higher operating temperatures of ethanol) in order to build a motor that lasts. The EMP effect would have rendered most "soft-skinned" military vehicles "dead" as well. These vehicles were too numerous for even the US Army to "harden" the chips in their engine control module. There would be as many soft skinned vehicles left (not many) as armored vehicles (those vehicles being "hardened"). On the upside, there would be plenty of non-computerized parts for the remaining vehicles. This also speaks to the use of older vehicles (which were not computerized) by everyone. These older vehicles would still see limited use because they suffer damage from the use of ethanol (shortening their lifespan very quickly). Also, contrary to the cannon, gas powered vehicles cannot use methanol; There's not enough energy in methanol for effective combustion to occur. Methanol can be used in the manufacture of biodiesel (replacing the pint of ethanol per gallon of oil needed to enhance combustion) but it reduces the effectiveness of the fuel (biodiesel made with ethanol has the same economy as regular diesel). Diesel engines would be the true "workhorse" in Twilight because any fuel the engine can atomize, it can burn (including kerosene, methanol/ethanol & vegetable oil, fuel oil, old motor oil cut with dry gas, and even Propane or natural gas). The problem would be that newer 90's diesel engines were computerized (and are now not operational). This approach makes a vehicle a rare and valuable resource to be treasured.
If you would like more information on fuel and alternative fuels for military operations; Get a copy (you can download them) of the Petroleum Specialist's Handbook (MOS 77Fox) from the Army. The American Petroleum Institute also has information on fuels and their uses.

[swaghauler]

Yes the tanks are! Don't listen to the "light Fighter" Hype!

We just need grunts as much as they need us.......

And when the s*** really hits the fan, who do you BOTH call.... The KING OF BATTLE... The Field Artillery! Infantry...ICM. Tanks...ICM-DP or HEAT.

1-800-REDLEG..... When it ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, HAS TO BE DESTROYED! :)

[Olefin]

And when the s*** really hits the fan, who do you BOTH call.... The KING OF BATTLE... The Field Artillery! Infantry...ICM. Tanks...ICM-DP or HEAT.

1-800-REDLEG..... When it ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, HAS TO BE DESTROYED! :)

Actually I will agree with you there if you have the guns

Nothing says "Goodbye Ivan!" like several batteries of 105's and 155's doing a time on target mission

[ArmySGT.]

Army SGT - what I posted makes very good sense to me and there is nothing wrong with my writing style - and frankly if you are trying to bait me to break the board rules you are not going to get anywhere

No. I am asking you to write it again, to clarify. I can pick the parts out of it, but it is a very confusing read. You're jumping back and forth. Editing that would make it readable and your point clear.

[ArmySGT.]

Yes as a HE not HEAT round.

HEAT is an inverted cone with a detonator affixed in front equal to the depth of the cone. This focuses the blast like a Fresnel lens..... no magic or complicated machining.... The copper cone the HE is applied to on the back side is a stamped sheet of copper.

This is late 1930's refined bazooka or late 1940s panzerfaust technology not Javelin or Bill.

[unkated]

This is where I have major problems with the cannon (and changed my game's history accordingly). If Russia wanted to prevent the US from supplying/directing the war in Europe; They would have detonated several large nukes at altitude over the US and let the EMP destroy the computer modules present in almost all the machines (including engines) from the early 90's on (and we would have retaliated accordingly).

This is where I have a problem with how many of you interpret the exchange of nukes:

According to cannon, the use of nukes was limited and stopped before it became large or excessively threatening to either side. Neither side launched so large or threatening a strike that the opposition felt they had no choice but massive retaliation.

Had they done so, we'd be playing Midnight:2000, which would be short, as characters would wander for a few months until they died of radiation poisoning.

So, in this case, for example, the Soviets did not launch an EMP strike out of fear of immediate retaliation - and as a power that was trying to coordinate a two front war, had more to lose from an EMP strike. Or worse, scaring the US into a major counterstrike before US communications degraded beyond the point where they could command one. You avoid that by not degrading the US communications via EMP strikes.

Uncle Ted

[ArmySGT.]

The EMP effect would have rendered most "soft-skinned" military vehicles "dead" as well. These vehicles were too numerous for even the US Army to "harden" the chips in their engine control module.

The control modules on HMMWVs is hardened against EMP since the beginning in the 80s. Even without the computer the HMMWV will run with its mechanical fuel pump. The 2 1/2s and 5 tons are also hardened against EMP.. big solid state component on the starters and control modules.

The computers help them to run BETTER, be more fuel efficient, and in better compliance with EPA emissions regulations. The still run without them.

[CDAT]

HEAT is an inverted cone with a detonator affixed in front equal to the depth of the cone. This focuses the blast like a Fresnel lens..... no magic or complicated machining.... The copper cone the HE is applied to on the back side is a stamped sheet of copper.

This is late 1930's refined bazooka or late 1940s panzerfaust technology not Javelin or Bill.

You may want to look a bit more into this, in a nut shell you are right, however the angle of the cone and the stand off must be just right or it will not work well, maybe even less effective (depending on how off they are) than just basic HE. Getting the timing right so that when the round goes off by the time the jet is formed it is at the correct distance is complicated.

[ArmySGT.]

You may want to look a bit more into this, in a nut shell you are right, however the angle of the cone and the stand off must be just right or it will not work well, maybe even less effective (depending on how off they are) than just basic HE. Getting the timing right so that when the round goes off by the time the jet is formed it is at the correct distance is complicated.

It isn't.........it is the opposite of the depth of the cone. This is why cratering charges and limpet mines have legs.

[robert.munsey]

What do you call four tankers .......<snip>
What is closed up tight, covered in oil, and stinks to high heaven? You might have said tankers, but I meant canned fish.

You really are a Infantry troll aren't you?

[CDAT]

It isn't.........it is the opposite of the depth of the cone. This is why cratering charges and limpet mines have legs.

Well I am done trying to help you, as you know more then those of us who this is what we did. Long live the Light Infantry they can do more than anyone else.

[robert.munsey]

It isn't.........it is the opposite of the depth of the cone. This is why cratering charges and limpet mines have legs.

You idiot, it is not the distance outside the cone, it is the depth of the cone that has to be right. Along with the angle.
The road cratering charges are built a certain way and the legs are not part of the stand off. When was the last time you employed one? Get your facts straight.

[ArmySGT.]

You idiot, it is not the distance outside the cone, it is the depth of the cone that has to be right. Along with the angle.
The road cratering charges are built a certain way and the legs are not part of the stand off. When was the last time you employed one? Get your facts straight.

Didn't I just say that? Inverted and opposite....... If the cone is 6 inches deep and 30 degrees the focus point is opposite of this ........ 6 inches in front.

Oh.........that is exactly why the legs exist.......the stand off for the plasma jet from the shaped charge.

http://pl.b5z.net/i/u/6070324/i/Inert_M3_40_LB_DEMO_Shaped_Charge.jpg

[ArmySGT.]

Well I am done trying to help you, as you know more then those of us who this is what we did. Long live the Light Infantry they can do more than anyone else.

My secondary MOS in 11B, my primary is 95B..... Which I think became 31B in the force restructure. Which means I had to learn to do more with even less.

No artillery, no Manpads, No mortars, AT4 and AT mines in the defense.

I got a truck and pistol though.

I support the Three, Follow Me!

[ArmySGT.]

With the .50 is that first hand experience or just hearsay? I ask because several things that I had been told were fact, when we got the chance to test for our self found out to be untrue. I was told that within one magazine of 5.56 you would chew through the armor of a M113, the 7.62X51 would go in and bounce around, and the .50 would make Swiss cheese out of it. When we go the chance to shoot one (OK it was an old ITV), after hundreds of rounds of 5.56 you were hard pressed to find any place that looked like it had taken any real damage. The 7.62 just left tiny little marks, and the .50 BMG left pock marks. This was with green/black tip. Right before us was some Brits and there Warriors with TP ammo did not even penetrate, it did leave nice sized dents were each round hit, had it been war stock ammo I have no doubt that it would have penetrated. Now I am talking about the BTR-60 and BTR-70. Can't say for the -80 or -90 from the side.

The M113 is rated for 7.62N AP ammo.... So that is what is supposed to happen. 7.62N in AP has black tips.

.50 BMG does penetrate especially SLAP to ricochet around the inside, still takes more than one strike at zero degrees deflection in the same place. M113s are also rated against 155mm / 152mm shell fragments though I can't remember if it is 20 meters or 50 meters from point of detonation.


Olefin I also thought that it made sense, if you are looking at this objectively. If you are looking at it with rose colored lenses it may not. Let's stick to the discussion.

[robert.munsey]

Didn't I just say that? Inverted and opposite....... If the cone is 6 inches deep and 30 degrees the focus point is opposite of this ........ 6 inches in front.

Oh.........that is exactly why the legs exist.......the stand off for the plasma jet from the shaped charge.

They existed for the old M3 not the current cratering charges brother. The legs on the old M3 Cratering charge did not exist for stand off.
Check your facts, it is not for the plasma jet. Ask your C-IED trainers in your unit for the real facts on EFP warheads.

[robert.munsey]

Now I am talking about the BTR-60 and BTR-70. Can't say for the -80 or -90 from the side.

Let's stick to the discussion.

At what range is the US M61 AP going to penetrate the side of a BTR-60?

[ArmySGT.]

Well I am done trying to help you, as you know more then those of us who this is what we did. Long live the Light Infantry they can do more than anyone else.

I have a solution!
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/New%20Picture%202.png

[ArmySGT.]

They existed for the old M3 not the current cratering charges brother. The legs on the old M3 Cratering charge did not exist for stand off.
Check your facts, it is not for the plasma jet. Ask your C-IED trainers in your unit for the real facts on EFP warheads.

When did Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFP)s, formerly called platter charges..... Become cratering charges?

EFPs are for attacking armor from the side by punching a slug through the armor not burning a hole in armor with a hot plasma jet.

So before you want to insult me........and tell me what is what.....

[ArmySGT.]

At what range is the US M61 AP going to penetrate the side of a BTR-60?

Welded steel[2]
7 mm at 86° hull upper front[2][6]
9 mm at 47° hull lower front[2][6]
7 mm hull sides[6]
5 mm hull upper rear[6]
7 mm hull lower rear[6]
5 mm hull floor[6]
7 mm hull roof[6]
10 mm turret front[9]
7 mm turret sides[6]
7 mm turret sear[6]
7 mm turret roof[6]

[Olefin]

When did Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFP)s, formerly called platter charges..... Become cratering charges?

EFPs are for attacking armor from the side by punching a slug through the armor not burning a hole in armor with a hot plasma jet.

So before you want to insult me........and tell me what is what.....

actually you have been doing that quite enough on your own - lets dial it down a little shall we?

[robert.munsey]

Now I am talking about the BTR-60 and BTR-70. Can't say for the -80 or -90 from the side.


Welded steel[2]
7 mm at 86° hull upper front[2][6]
9 mm at 47° hull lower front[2][6]
7 mm hull sides[6]
5 mm hull upper rear[6]
7 mm hull lower rear[6]
5 mm hull floor[6]
7 mm hull roof[6]
10 mm turret front[9]
7 mm turret sides[6]
7 mm turret sear[6]
7 mm turret roof[6]

Wow ok, you can quote the armor thickness of the BTR. You still did not answer the question.
So I will repeat it;
What range does the 7.62mm M61 penetrate the side of the BTR-60 (we will keep it easy for you).

[ArmySGT.]

actually you have been doing that quite enough on your own - lets dial it down a little shall we?

No. I have stuck deliberately to the subject without the name calling. Stick to the subject.

Ok, the Branch jokes I will take responsibility for. Those are unspecific to the individual.

[ArmySGT.]

Wow ok, you can quote the armor thickness of the BTR. You still did not answer the question.
So I will repeat it;
What range does the 7.62mm M61 penetrate the side of the BTR-60 (we will keep it easy for you).

.50 BMG passes right through what little armor a BTR has.

Let me keep it easy for you. I didn't say 7.62N even AP when I spoke of hull penetrations through the side armor of BTR-60s and 70s....

So you misquoted me to begin with.

[robert.munsey]

Let me keep it easy for you. I didn't say 7.62N even AP when I spoke of hull penetrations through the side armor of BTR-60s and 70s....

So you misquoted me to begin with.

No, I asked you at what range does the the M61 7.62mm AP round penetrate since you know so much.

However if you want to go to the .50 caliber penetration, ok start quoting. Which round? M8 AP? M20? M2 Ball? What range do you have penetration and what range will you not have penetration?

Also don't quote the M962 and other exotic rounds, lets keep it simple for you.

[Raellus]

Hey guys, this is starting to get pretty chippy. Let's all dial it down a couple notches, take a deep breath, and consider agreeing to disagree. It's pretty clear by now that no one involved in this argument is going to change his mind.

I posted this yesterday. It holds doubly true today. Either folks chill themselves out or this thread will be shut down.

[ArmySGT.]

No, I asked you at what range does the the M61 7.62mm AP round penetrate since you know so much.

However if you want to go to the .50 caliber penetration, ok start quoting. Which round? M8 AP? M20? M2 Ball? What range do you have penetration and what range will you not have penetration?

Also don't quote the M962 and other exotic rounds, lets keep it simple for you.

With that attitude.

No.

[Olefin]

actually I have stuck the subject - the one who has been making unneccesary comments has been, by and large, yourself ArmySgt

and back to the subject - so obviously looking at how the canon modules were written marauders aren't quite the deadly tank killers that they have been painted to be here by some people - which makes sense -

One thing to keep in mind is the conscript nature of many of the armies that make up T2K - while those with Special Forces or explosives training had a lot of ideas on how to take out tanks your average conscript did not have that kind of training - so while a Ranger or Green Beret or Spetsnaz trained soldier or combat engineer who has worked with explosives may have all kinds of nasty surprises your typical conscript is probably going to not have much beyond "throw the Molotov" as a way to take out tanks or armored vehicles once the unit has expended any anti-tank weapons they have

that goes for the Soviet, Mexican and Chinese armies - so marauders from those forces are probably going to not be the best improvised armor killers unless they fought a lot of armor

in other words a Mexican conscript that spent his war years fighting SWAT teams, National Guard or reserve infantry with no armor or guerrillas isnt going to have much experience to draw on when that tank comes over the hill - whereas marauders in Poland who have spent years surviving tank assaults are probably going to be the ones who come up with all kinds of ways to take you on

a great example of this would be in the Caribbean - the Cubans who took Grenada over again are having a real fun time there - not because of whats left of the police - its because of several ex- Special Forces guys who retired there making improvised explosives

again read the description of the attack on Brownsville - the marauders, with no experience facing down armor, get their heads handed to them - but the character party, who is assumed to have survived all the fun in the sun in Poland and Germany, is expected to have all kinds of ways to brew up armor

but I dont see Special Forces types or lots of European vets in marauder forces - at least not in late 2000-early 2001 when much of the game is set - those Omega guys have a long way to go to get to CA - so if Littlefields tanks do show up, most likely those who take them on are going to be the same type of troops that panicked at Brownsville -i.e. conscript Mexican forces who havent taken on any kind of real armored force and dont have guys with them with all kinds of experience fighting tanks or marauders who may be great at spraying a lot of bullets around terrorizing farmers and small communities but who wouldnt know the first thing about taking on tanks

[Legbreaker]

What is it about this forum where anyone who disagrees with your point of view and actually shows some actual subject knowledge gets stomped on?
So many armchair warriors!!!:pissed:

HEAT rounds can be made in small workshops, provided the maths is right. They are at the most basic just another form of shaped charge. The real issue is, as I said, getting the maths right to maximise effectiveness.

Hell, you don't even need a workshop for a shaped charge! I know because I've made them with my own hands out of scrap found around the barracks (nothing you could stick on an RPG though).

Tanks are vulnerable to any number of tactics and weapons. They are not now, in the past, or anytime in the foreseeable future particularly difficult to knock out by a determined opposition. That said, infantry (and I was one of them) are just so much red mist if caught out in the open - it's up to the unit commanders to be aware of their units limitations (of ALL types) and avoid putting them into suicidal situations.

[Raellus]

And this is why we can't have nice things.

Private warnings have been issued. If any of you plan to continue ignoring forum guidelines and take this nastiness to another thread, temporary bans will be issued. Consider this a final warning.