Stepping backward.. Lower tech.

[ArmySGT.]

What is the likelihood that NATO and Pact governments would dust off the blueprints of lower tech, but proven designs? The loss of manufacturing and more importantly the technicians that made it work is affecting everyone drastically.

The fictional M16EZ comes to mind.

The M40A1 106mm RR can hull most WP armor in side shots...... manufacturing TVS-5s or laser range finders for those would be simpler than Tankbreaker missiles.

Not any specific ideas..... just how much effort and resources would be redirected to get lower tech (still survivable and effective though) designs out? If not on the front, than to rear security, to get offensive power forward again.

[James Langham2]

I'm guesssing that retooling will take too long. However lots of old weapons will be in storage and reissued, even back to WW2 era small arms in the US - the stockpiles were discussed in another thread.

[copeab]

I'm guesssing that retooling will take too long. However lots of old weapons will be in storage and reissued, even back to WW2 era small arms in the US - the stockpiles were discussed in another thread.

You don't retool destroyed factories, you rebuild them.

[WallShadow]

You don't retool destroyed factories, you rebuild them.

One of the"cheap and dirty" methods of protecting industrial machinery was to bulldoze/front-end-load heaps of metal scraps and cuttings around and over the machines. This actually proved somewhat practicable for non-direct hit/non-ground-zero nuclear tests.

I have asked the following question in another thread long, long ago:
Assuming EMP damage has fried the semiconductors of a computer chip factory, what would be the minimum components requiring a swap-out to get the erstwhile dead machinery back to producing microchips? What's the minimum to bootstrap the industry?:confused:

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I'm assuming for this scenario that what you'd need to do is replace all the fried chips in the computers/electronics controlling the production machinery and maybe some electrical connections and while I know that sounds "obvious", it's really quite involved.
There's many different devices in use to create the chips from the furnaces that melt the sand to produce the silicon ingots to the saws that cut the ingots into wafers to the systems that layer silicon dioxide onto the wafer, coat the sections to be preserved, control the hot gasses used to scour away the undesired sections of silicon dioxide and so on to the final testing of the chip and its separation from all the other chips layered onto the individual wafer (which obviously requires a very fine & precisely controlled cutting implement!).

These would all take different chips in their controlling computers so I reckon the minimum you're going to need is someone with a good Electronics knowledge to be able to identify what chips are needed as replacements... then you gotta find 'em.
However, any fabrication plant is probably going to have spares and probably a decent amount of them. Assuming the plant didn't take physical damage they'll most likely have spares conveniently on hand because the microchip industry is too important for a fabrication plant to have to sit around waiting for a tech to come along and repair an errant computer that's holding up millions of dollars worth of production.

If you don't have the replacement chips on hand, you're going to have to find them or else you'd be stuck having to reinvent them and that would need a computer engineer so you could figure what you wanted the machinery to do and how to do it etc. etc. then you'll have to hand-craft the replacement chips and all of that's probably going to take more time than locating spare chips!

[rcaf_777]

What is the likelihood that NATO and Pact governments would dust off the blueprints of lower tech, but proven designs? The loss of manufacturing and more importantly the technicians that made it work is affecting everyone drastically.

Many NATO nations still have or use M2A1 (M101A1) 105mm Howitzer. Canada updated their holdings so it could continue its service with reserve artillery units.

[James Langham2]

You don't retool destroyed factories, you rebuild them.

Quite a few factories seem to be intact - Lima is known to exist for example

I was also possibly thinking earlier in the war - WW2 shows examples where an inferior design was left in service and production as it was immediately available

[ArmySGT.]

You don't retool destroyed factories, you rebuild them.

I have a manual from WW1 intended to be distributed to every college, high school, and trade school with a machine shop to instruct on how to produce artillery shells and timed fuzes. Downloaded off of Scribd. Blueprints for Allied artillery and not just U.S. as a way to fully exploit war production.

Some oldster with a copy and my old high school machine shop could effectively had made the mechanical fuses. The Shell bodies would have required a a far larger forging set up than my schools simple gas forge could have done.

Even mechanical time fuse is better than no fuse when the sophisticated VT shells are all used up.

Also I was thinking that the M3 grease gun and the Sten gun would see a effort to produce. If only to get all the M16s and AR-15s back from Police forces to equip Army units standing up.

I don't know if older Radar and Sonar would be worth the effort, but maybe if it set modern units free from harbor defense. The psychological positive boost could make it worth it and only the higher echelons would no it was only a placebo to boost morale in the short term.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I don't think you'd need to produce older tech sonar for harbour defence and so on because I think there would still be many commercial fathometers and civilian fishfinders/fishsounders (which work on the same principle and technology as the fathometer) available to use for that purpose.

By the early 1990s both devices were using LCD screens for their displays and they become much more widely available to the recreational fishing & boating community and commercial marine industry. They are both a type of sonar and probably more recognizable by the name "echo sounder". The commercial marine industries (fishing, cargo, passenger etc. etc.) have been using echo sounding for decades for navigation and Western maritime safety regulations typically require every large vessel (100+ tons) operating in restricted waters to have a fathometer (of the constant recording type).
Older fathometers (e.g. the strip chart recording types) used transistors so would be more resistant to EMP as well.

I reckon there would be plenty of opportunities to plunder fathometers and fishfinders from commercial vessels simply because many of those vessels would no longer be operating. I also think for the 1990s period, the number of recreational fishing boats carrying fishfinders/fishsounders would be large enough to make it worthwhile to recover and use those units for harbour defence purposes and so on.

[James Langham2]

I have a manual from WW1 intended to be distributed to every college, high school, and trade school with a machine shop to instruct on how to produce artillery shells and timed fuzes. Downloaded off of Scribd. Blueprints for Allied artillery and not just U.S. as a way to fully exploit war production.

Some oldster with a copy and my old high school machine shop could effectively had made the mechanical fuses. The Shell bodies would have required a a far larger forging set up than my schools simple gas forge could have done.

Even mechanical time fuse is better than no fuse when the sophisticated VT shells are all used up.

Also I was thinking that the M3 grease gun and the Sten gun would see a effort to produce. If only to get all the M16s and AR-15s back from Police forces to equip Army units standing up.

I don't know if older Radar and Sonar would be worth the effort, but maybe if it set modern units free from harbor defense. The psychological positive boost could make it worth it and only the higher echelons would no it was only a placebo to boost morale in the short term.

I did an article about home built weapons and had the Sten and variants being produced. One variant was the Ten gun when it was produced by a certainUS state... I might revisit that article.

[Olefin]

We already know that machine shops are making mortars and mortar shells by 1999-2000 time period - obviously they either had to reverse engineer existing designs or use existing blue prints of older designs.

And you have people scattered around the US who restore older equipment who would have various design drawings (either copies or originals) - those could be used to restart production of older equipment (at very low levels of production - i.e. basically hand built)

and you could go back to things like using rivets to make armored vehicles like they were made in WWI and early WWII instead of modern techniques - again at very low rates

I would think the place you would see old designs coming back the quickest would be either cannons as they were around the 1860's and older weapons that a gunsmith could easily make - muskets and the like - and while that means stepping back into the 19th century those weapons would still be very effective in many cases

[ArmySGT.]

I did an article about home built weapons and had the Sten and variants being produced. One variant was the Ten gun when it was produced by a certainUS state... I might revisit that article.

You might consider rolling block and dropping block breechloaders. The Remington No. 6, the High Wall, and the Martini Henry....... from .22 to 416 Rigby.

My thought was resources used to make these simpler weapons would equip security forces and allow the government to take back loaned weapons (M16s or SLRs).

[swaghauler]

We already know that machine shops are making mortars and mortar shells by 1999-2000 time period - obviously they either had to reverse engineer existing designs or use existing blue prints of older designs.

And you have people scattered around the US who restore older equipment who would have various design drawings (either copies or originals) - those could be used to restart production of older equipment (at very low levels of production - i.e. basically hand built)

and you could go back to things like using rivets to make armored vehicles like they were made in WWI and early WWII instead of modern techniques - again at very low rates

I would think the place you would see old designs coming back the quickest would be either cannons as they were around the 1860's and older weapons that a gunsmith could easily make - muskets and the like - and while that means stepping back into the 19th century those weapons would still be very effective in many cases

Actually, most of these issues have been addressed in Continuity of Government planning. Designs (and appropriate CNC programming) have been "pre-positioned" with various manufacturers. Channellock Tools in Meadville had the plans to mass produce M60 Machineguns during time of war and there were several other tool & die shops in PA with plans to make M16s, M2HBs, and other pieces of "critical equipment" as well. This was to be a defense against loss of production due to warfare or for the expansion of production (of critical equipment) in the event of a major war.

Armored vehicles would still be welded although the quality may be lower. You can stick weld using Oxy-Acetylene (or even propane) if necessary. More importantly, ONE MAN can weld up an armored vehicle given the proper materials handling equipment (jacks, come-alongs, chain pulleys, etc...). Riveting is a VERY specific skill that was only taught on a limited basis after GTAW (stick), MIG (semi-auto wire feed), and TIG (precision application stick) welding became the prevalent method of manufacture in the 1960s. There simply are not enough people left with the knowledge of HOW to properly rivet. This very complex skill requires a 3 man team (creating a manpower issue). First, you have the Riveter who drives the hot rivet's shafts flat with an air hammer. On the back side of the work, you have a Bucker who holds the rivet's head against the plates being secured with a large plate or bar. Finally, you have the Rivet Heater who heats the rivets to red-hot and throws them to the Bucker. Each of these skills is far more involved than learning to weld (and requires more resources to use). welding would still dominate manufacturing.

Things that were machined (using CNC) could still be made if it were possible to replace those machinings with an Investment Cast part. Investment Casting essentially makes a mold of said part and then the part is cast and polished (no machining needed) after removal from the mold. Ruger makes guns this way, so complex parts can be cast.

There would also be a great deal of "surplus" stuff laying in government warehouses. Older M114 Howitzers and literally hundreds of WW2 vintage M4 tank chassis are sold at auction even to this day.

A funny note about this. I had a gunsmith friend who bid on what he thought were "demilled" M4 lower receivers and won the bid for $200 each for 20 M4s. When he was asked how he wanted to handle shipping, he said, "just mail them." To which his contacting agent replied, "Sir, we cannot ship twenty M4 Sherman Tank Chassis through the mail." Only then did he realize what he had bid on. Some of them ran, others didn't and ALL of them were without turrets. Bob lost his shirt on that auction.

[copeab]

I was also possibly thinking earlier in the war - WW2 shows examples where an inferior design was left in service and production as it was immediately available

Of course, sometimes the "inferior" design was better than it's replacement, such as with the Douglas SBD Dauntless or Fairey Swordfish.

[ArmySGT.]

I don't think you'd need to produce older tech sonar for harbour defence and so on because I think there would still be many commercial fathometers and civilian fishfinders/fishsounders (which work on the same principle and technology as the fathometer) available to use for that purpose.

By the early 1990s both devices were using LCD screens for their displays and they become much more widely available to the recreational fishing & boating community and commercial marine industry. They are both a type of sonar and probably more recognizable by the name "echo sounder". The commercial marine industries (fishing, cargo, passenger etc. etc.) have been using echo sounding for decades for navigation and Western maritime safety regulations typically require every large vessel (100+ tons) operating in restricted waters to have a fathometer (of the constant recording type).
Older fathometers (e.g. the strip chart recording types) used transistors so would be more resistant to EMP as well.

I reckon there would be plenty of opportunities to plunder fathometers and fishfinders from commercial vessels simply because many of those vessels would no longer be operating. I also think for the 1990s period, the number of recreational fishing boats carrying fishfinders/fishsounders would be large enough to make it worthwhile to recover and use those units for harbour defence purposes and so on.

I agree in that it would work in only the most basic way....... Something is down there... Something large is down there. I just question the utility of something like this due to the limited range and narrow projection.

It might be my understanding is wrong, but any sonar from the 70's should give depth, speed, and an indication of mass (displacement). A system from the 90s can distinguish a whale from a school or fish, from a attack submarine.... comparing recorded acoustic profiles.

[ArmySGT.]

I'm guesssing that retooling will take too long. However lots of old weapons will be in storage and reissued, even back to WW2 era small arms in the US - the stockpiles were discussed in another thread.

It might be just the U.S. that scraps it all. ......... Does anyone know if other countries (besides Russia) preserve and store the tooling for systems taken out of service?

The possibility that many systems have had their paper schematics converted into CAD drawings for production on CNC systems....... this is certainly true for the M1911A1 and AR-15. Most of the Remington 700 is investment cast or CNC machined as appropriate. One rifle maker (HS Precision) CNC Winchester Model 70 components.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I agree in that it would work in only the most basic way....... Something is down there... Something large is down there. I just question the utility of something like this due to the limited range and narrow projection.

It might be my understanding is wrong, but any sonar from the 70's should give depth, speed, and an indication of mass (displacement). A system from the 90s can distinguish a whale from a school or fish, from a attack submarine.... comparing recorded acoustic profiles.
1980s tech fishfinders were sophisticated enough to distinguish between objects on the bottom, schools of small fish and single large fishes etc. etc. Plus they had shallow and deep water models and models that included both operating modes. 1990s tech fishfinders increased the sensitivity again and typically increased the functionality of the unit, e.g. various recording modes, projected direction of the fish (or object), adding waypoints, determining if bottom is hard or soft (e.g. rock or sand) and so on.

You also had units that were not permanently mounted on the vessel and thus could be transferred to larger or smaller vessel as needed.
Just like with any naval sonar unit, direction and projection of the scanning device can be increased by using more transducers mounted in different places on the vessel's hull (although we're talking now about a PC or NPC with at least Electronics skill to be able to set up an effective unit with multiple transducers).

While they obviously didn't have a range in the thousands of metres, they did have ranges from tens of metres up to around one hundred metres and commercial fishing models had ranges in the hundreds of metres. They are a sonar device, just not as sensitive as a naval unit as they don't have the power output and range of frequency bands available to a naval unit.
while they won't have the acoustic sophistication to distinguish between, for example, different propeller types, they would still be suitable for scanning rivers, harbours and coastlines to determine if an object is a group of fish, a rock outcrop, an object sitting on the bottom (e.g. car wreck, 44gal drums, shipwreck), a scuba diver, a whale or a submersible vehicle.

The only real limitation is the operator. They have to learn what the different indicators mean because companies creating commercial & recreational units never stuck to one standard display output like you would see on a naval sonar unit.

[swaghauler]

I agree in that it would work in only the most basic way....... Something is down there... Something large is down there. I just question the utility of something like this due to the limited range and narrow projection.

It might be my understanding is wrong, but any sonar from the 70's should give depth, speed, and an indication of mass (displacement). A system from the 90s can distinguish a whale from a school or fish, from a attack submarine.... comparing recorded acoustic profiles.

Even 1990's recreational/noncommercial DEPTH FINDERS (the universal recreational name for fish finders) were FAR SUPERIOR to 1950's MILITARY SONAR. The only difference between commercial and recreational depth finders is the software in them (from the mid 90's on anyway).

My Depth Finder is tied directly into my Chart Plotter and projects a picture of the bottom right onto my map overlay. It can also show a small "box" on the side of my plotter's display that will allow you to see sonar images from the side so that you can gauge depth off of the bottom. It has a "shoal warning" alarm that will detect a rapid shallowing of the bottom and a "fish alarm" (all depth finders can tell the difference between bottom and fish since the 90's) that detects movement under the boat.

Most subs have been designed to defeat Commercial SONAR and Depth Finders. Detecting a normal sub (WW2 to late 60's) would be ONE LEVEL MORE DIFFICULT and detecting a modern (post 60's) sub would be at least TO LEVELS MORE DIFFICULT.

For more information on Depth Finders just Google them or go to West Marine's website and check out the FAQ's.

[ArmySGT.]

Even 1990's recreational/noncommercial DEPTH FINDERS (the universal recreational name for fish finders) were FAR SUPERIOR to 1950's MILITARY SONAR. The only difference between commercial and recreational depth finders is the software in them (from the mid 90's on anyway).

Which I assumed right away........ I don't think it is until the 1970's (my example) that integrated a computer to run filters and make full use of a hydrophones sensitivity. The 40's and 50's are vaccuum tube systems with transistors only making units smaller, but not more efficient to the best of my limited knowledge.

Are the displays on these commercial systems even large enough to do Anti submarine or counter sabotage (anti-diver) operations without a penalty for the operator? Do they have variable modes and systems to screen out some or most noise?

[ArmySGT.]

Any thoughts on older designs like recoiless rifles making a comeback with anti tank missiles all but impossible to reproduce?

Am I the only one that thinks that the overall lack of anti tank weapons in T2k really only applies to missiles? Shells for recoilless rifles, anti tank guns, and even anti tank rockets like the AT4, LAW, and RPG-7 are not much more sophisticated to make than the fused mortar and artillery shells being produced post-2000.

Passive IR systems only need transistors..... Is it only the transducer or light gathering plate that is stop small batch production?

[CDAT]

Any thoughts on older designs like recoiless rifles making a comeback with anti tank missiles all but impossible to reproduce?

Am I the only one that thinks that the overall lack of anti tank weapons in T2k really only applies to missiles? Shells for recoilless rifles, anti tank guns, and even anti tank rockets like the AT4, LAW, and RPG-7 are not much more sophisticated to make than the fused mortar and artillery shells being produced post-2000.

Passive IR systems only need transistors..... Is it only the transducer or light gathering plate that is stop small batch production?

Any US weapon at least post Vietnam would not be easy to make in the home shop (we put way to many safeties and junk in the device) The RPG and Recoilles rifle rounds more likely HE would be much easier to make than the HEAT rounds

[Jason Weiser]

A small item: In the early 2000s, one saw at many gunshows and other such places rows upon rows of Mosin-Nagant rifles (mostly dating from the 20s and 30s) in cardboard boxes, they were wrapped in oilskin paper, and the bayonet as well as a glass bottle of oil was often enclosed. The rifles were not given any cosmoline..and were, sans a visit to the gunsmith..ready to go out of the box.

According to the fella I talked to selling them? He told me that this was the Russians clearing out all the old Soviet reserve armories. He also had captured German Mausers from the same source, in the same condition, with a Soviet headstamp overstamping the German one. In short, this might be the armament of your poor 1998 or 1999 draftee...a 50 year old rifle, with limited ammunition..that he barely knows how to use..or care for.

[WallShadow]

A small item: In the early 2000s, one saw at many gunshows and other such places rows upon rows of Mosin-Nagant rifles (mostly dating from the 20s and 30s) in cardboard boxes, they were wrapped in oilskin paper, and the bayonet as well as a glass bottle of oil was often enclosed. The rifles were not given any cosmoline..and were, sans a visit to the gunsmith..ready to go out of the box.

According to the fella I talked to selling them? He told me that this was the Russians clearing out all the old Soviet reserve armories. He also had captured German Mausers from the same source, in the same condition, with a Soviet headstamp overstamping the German one. In short, this might be the armament of your poor 1998 or 1999 draftee...a 50 year old rifle, with limited ammunition..that he barely knows how to use..or care for.
I picked up a M1938 Mosin-Nagant carbine, which had some cosmoline in the inner workings. I also picked up several boxes of 7.62x54r rounds. Checking the web, the ammo is still available in "spam-cans" of 440 rounds. One thing about a Mosin-Nagant--it makes a great club that doesn't suffer much from use. I saw a video of a firearms/reloader enthusiast that tried to push the envelope of abuse the weapon could take. After dragging it around a field by a rope behind his truck, he sand-bagged it and remote-fired a series of rounds with increasing powder charges. from standard, to max advisable, to literally filling the entire case with propellant leaving just enough room to seat the bullet.:eek: Even this last hot load didn't blow out the breech, but the bolt required the application of a mallet to get it to open.

One TOUGH weapon.

[rcaf_777]

Any thoughts on older designs like recoilless rifles making a comeback with anti tank missiles all but impossible to reproduce? Shells for recoilless rifles, anti tank guns, and even anti tank rockets like the AT4, LAW, and RPG-7 are not much more sophisticated to make than the fused mortar and artillery shells being produced post-2000.

I don't see them making a comeback as many weapons systems never left

As of 2001 the M67 Recoilless Rifle is still in production in South Korea ( Worldwide Equipment Guide 2001) Many more are still in service with avalanche control units of the National Park Service or Private Avalanche Control Companies. Apparently the ammunition stock pile was quite large as they are only now starting to run out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/us/20alta.html?_r=0

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/51744312-78/avalanche-avalanches-canyon-closed.html.csp

The US must also have a fair number still held in reserve as they were issued to troops in Afghanistan in 2011

http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2011/02/12/currahees-add-to-their-weapons-arsenal/

Although the M72 is no longer use in general service by the US Military, Many NATO, and US Allies still use it. American production of the M-72 began by Hesse-Eastern in 1963, and was terminated by 1983; currently it is produced by Nammo Raufoss AS in Norway and their subsidiary Nammo Talley, Inc. in Arizona.

http://www.talleyds.com/Talley%20Nammo%20Test%20page/products/m72_products.htm

AT-4 is still being produced in Sweden by Saab Bofors Dynamics and in US by Alliant Techsystems Inc who operates the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant having taken it over from the Olin Corporation in 2001. I’m thinking many more companies would begin making it as US and World Wide demand goes up.

As stated in my pervious post the 105 mm M2A1 (M101A1) Howitzer is still used by Canada and by over 50 other nations. This is WWII tech and it still going strong.

Your retooling is interesting but I remember this TV show on discovery called Sons of Guns. During one of episodes they work on a Soviet 152mm Towed Howitzer M1955 (D-20) I think might have I D1. Anyway they made shells at their shop while they did not go into great detail, it dose beg the question, could this be done on a small scale locally.

[bobcat]

It might be just the U.S. that scraps it all. ......... Does anyone know if other countries (besides Russia) preserve and store the tooling for systems taken out of service?

even we scrap surprisingly little. we store everything, there are depots filled with acres of deadlined humvees and other vehicles that although they are too damaged to be put back into service might have a part that can be recovered and used. several of these stockpiles go back at least as far as vietnam era equipment. the stuff that does get sraped is generaly beyond any viable use.

[ArmySGT.]

even we scrap surprisingly little. we store everything, there are depots filled with acres of deadlined humvees and other vehicles that although they are too damaged to be put back into service might have a part that can be recovered and used. several of these stockpiles go back at least as far as vietnam era equipment. the stuff that does get sraped is generaly beyond any viable use.

Sorry, I was speaking strictly of the tools and dies for making new. As far as I know... Most are destroyed, sold as scrap, or sold to someone else still using the system... the M14 is an example...... the tools and dies for those were sold to Taiwan when the M16 became the U.S. service rifle. Thousands of M14s were in stock..... (were the Clinton administration destroyed many) for decades with some few in service with the Navy, SOCOM, and some units in Alaska (bear protection along with M1s).

[ArmySGT.]

Quite a few factories seem to be intact - Lima is known to exist for example

I was also possibly thinking earlier in the war - WW2 shows examples where an inferior design was left in service and production as it was immediately available

Navy destroyers and Army tanks would be good examples.

I would say a large number of factories are intact in the U.S. and Canada. Most are outside of the commercial centers of major cities. They lack power and raw materials..... the manpower shortage, more importantly trained manpower (machinists, welders, fitters) have either been drafted or are dead from famine or disease. Concentrating the survivors with that skill set in one region to maximize their potential has to be a government goal.

Fix those three..... electrical power, raw material, and manpower and you can have some working plants again.... Some plants can't operate because they rely on components built at another plant hundreds or thousands of miles away.

[Olefin]

I have the BAE York plant operating again after it has power restored from Harrisburg in 2001 working on completing M88's, Bradley's, M109's and Bufords until they run out of parts. And while today you have a just in time environment and low stockpiles back then we used to have a lot of material in stock (let alone made our own harnesses and other items). Even when I was there back in 2008-2014 we used to have enough on hand at any one time to keep production going for a couple of months at a time - back in the mid-90's it was more like four to five months.

and the welders and other techs there all lived nearby - you had a lot of people there with 20-30 years experience - and York was untouched by the nuclear attacks in 1997 - so it may be the one plant that could be put back into at least low rate production pretty easily - and if you want a low tech vehicle then you would love the M88A1 or A2 - and EMP attack wouldnt faze it - about the only thing that wouldnt work on it would be the radio

[LT. Ox]

Navy destroyers and Army tanks would be good examples.

I would say a large number of factories are intact in the U.S. and Canada. Most are outside of the commercial centers of major cities. They lack power and raw materials..... the manpower shortage, more importantly trained manpower (machinists, welders, fitters) have either been drafted or are dead from famine or disease. Concentrating the survivors with that skill set in one region to maximize their potential has to be a government goal.

Fix those three..... electrical power, raw material, and manpower and you can have some working plants again.... Some plants can't operate because they rely on components built at another plant hundreds or thousands of miles away.
Just a nit pic.
What age group do you think the Machinists would be in? In my experience the largest number of Journeymen are in the 35 plus group with a substantial number in the 50 + not as likely to be drafted or gathered up. Also In all prior draft situations they and welders fitters etc have been exempt.
I do agree that a lot more quality manufacturing could be done then is assumed here.
Happy valley here in Colorado in 1990 until 2000 was putting out a lot of aerospace material contracted to larger Saint Louis and Kansas City Parent Companies.
laugh sayen.

[ArmySGT.]

Just a nit pic.
What age group do you think the Machinists would be in? In my experience the largest number of Journeymen are in the 35 plus group with a substantial number in the 50 + not as likely to be drafted or gathered up. Also In all prior draft situations they and welders fitters etc have been exempt.
I do agree that a lot more quality manufacturing could be done then is assumed here.
Happy valley here in Colorado in 1990 until 2000 was putting out a lot of aerospace material contracted to larger Saint Louis and Kansas City Parent Companies.
laugh sayen.

I would think that they would be drafted into Service to fill vital Trades skills for the Navy and the Air Force....

For Iraqi Freedom the upper limit for enlistment was raised to 42 years..... In T2K the U.S. has Corps elements fighting on everywhere, but South America and Antarctica. (not sure about S.A.)

Then I see a shortage of under 25 coming up to replace them due to famine, plagues, and no formal training programs without power and tools.

[Olefin]

the welders we had were almost all too old to be drafted - and welders who are trained in welding armor plate would have been needed on the home front for sure - plus keep in mind that York didn't just make new vehicles - it did lots of re-manufactures and upgrades as well

The Army made sure that those welders stayed right where they were after 9/11 for sure - we didnt lose any of them to call-ups, even the ones in the Guard or the Reserve - not with all the Bradley's, M88's and MRAP's we were working on

[ArmySGT.]

Iraqi Freedom isn't on par with a national mobilization like WW2. Not even with the mobilization for Desert Storm.

For comparison, look at the ages and occupations of Seabees in WW2.

None of those is any comparison for the conditions in the U.S. after the canon nuclear exchange, famines, and plagues. Those do not discriminate.

Back to older but, survivable systems that make sense to resurrect in T2k.

M113 production.... Strykers and LAVs are working, but are considerable more complex..... maybe some M113 IFV conversions? M901s?

[rcaf_777]

M113 production.... Strykers and LAVs are working, but are considerable more complex..... maybe some M113 IFV conversions? M901s?

Hmmm M113 production would already be going. IRL the M113 production for the US army ran till 1992 when the last vehicle, an M577 series
command post vehicle, rolled off the production line.

Addition orders from Kuwait and Thailand, kept the production line running till 1998 IHS Land Warfare Platforms: Armoured Fighting Vehicles
19-05-2015

[swaghauler]

Which I assumed right away........ I don't think it is until the 1970's (my example) that integrated a computer to run filters and make full use of a hydrophones sensitivity. The 40's and 50's are vaccuum tube systems with transistors only making units smaller, but not more efficient to the best of my limited knowledge.

Are the displays on these commercial systems even large enough to do Anti submarine or counter sabotage (anti-diver) operations without a penalty for the operator? Do they have variable modes and systems to screen out some or most noise?

The other issue with commercial/recreational depth finders is that they are always "active" (pinging to recover the info you need). A sub WILL know you are there because it can track YOUR depth finder's signal. And it will know it AT A MUCH GREATER DISTANCE THAN YOU CAN "SEE" THE SUB. This is one very big issue with any ACTIVE ELECTRONIC DETECTION (radar,sonar, radio sweepers, etc...).

[Olefin]

Iraqi Freedom isn't on par with a national mobilization like WW2. Not even with the mobilization for Desert Storm.

For comparison, look at the ages and occupations of Seabees in WW2.

None of those is any comparison for the conditions in the U.S. after the canon nuclear exchange, famines, and plagues. Those do not discriminate.

Back to older but, survivable systems that make sense to resurrect in T2k.

M113 production.... Strykers and LAVs are working, but are considerable more complex..... maybe some M113 IFV conversions? M901s?

M88A1 and M88A2 are about as old and survivable as it gets - very easy to maintain, come with a blade and crane, perfect for use to recover and repair vehicles you need as well as a host of engineering jobs that a T2K military would be doing

M109 SPG - based on older tech and perfect for the military to use for defending their base areas - not many marauders who could stand up to it and for those who don't know what it is it looks like the biggest tank in the world

Bradley - you may not have TOW's but that 25mm is more than enough to deal with anything most marauders or Mexican units will have

you would only be able to build what you had parts on hand for - but in those days we used to keep up to six months inventory on hand - get power going again and that's a lot of vehicles to use, built at a low rate of production, to be able to re-equip whats left

[ArmySGT.]

Since the microchips and advanced circuitry to make ATGMs is out of the question in the near term..... T2K - T2K10....

For the defense? A return to towed AT guns by the West? The 105mm and 120mm tank armaments mounted to two or four wheeled chassis?

Even the 25, 30, 35, and 40mm belt fed chain guns...... light armor and support fire.

I know these all function in much superior manner mounted on a mobile armored chassis (IFV or MBT). However, given the constraints on manufacturing and resources, a 105mm AT gun towed be a deuce and a half would be a boon for a light infantry battalion.

[Draq]

Since the microchips and advanced circuitry to make ATGMs is out of the question in the near term..... T2K - T2K10....

For the defense? A return to towed AT guns be the West? The 105mm and 120mm tank armaments mounted to two or four wheeled chassis?

Even the 25, 30, 35, and 40mm belt fed chain guns...... light armor and support fire.

I know these all function in much superior manner mounted on a mobile armored chassis (IFV or MBT). However, given the constraints on manufacturing and resources, a 105mm AT gun towed be a deuce and a half would be a boon for a light infantry battalion.

Undoubtedly. I see this world war era tactic making a quick comeback in order to save the fancy tech stuff for emergencies.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And don't forget the portee concept - a truck slightly modified to allow it to carry and use an artillery piece on its bed. This gives the advantage of leaving the gun in its original configuration so that it can be used in the conventional manner but also allowing it to be used from the truck that transports it allowing the gun a modest shoot & scoot ability. The gun on truck combination also has better mobility than a conventional truck with towed gun.

While it's been stated (notably on the wiki page for portee) that the modern terms for such a setup are "gun truck" or "technical", I disagree. The "en portee" concept doesn't have the gun mount permanently fixed to the truck bed as is typically the case gun trucks and technicals.
The concept has been resurrected a few times over the decades with the last one I know of being the M777 Portee from BAE Systems in 2005.
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/m777_portee.htm

This image shows a New Zealand Army Austin K5 truck with an Ordnance QF 6-pounder AT gun in portee configuration as used in the North Africa campaigns of WW2. The website states, "These vehicles were adapted to serve as platforms for a 6pdr Anti Tank gun in the desert when battles were very fluid affairs moving over considerable distances and the guns were required to be put into action quickly."
Website link http://www.shoplandcollection.com/heavy-vehicles/85-heavy/98-austin-k5-gun-portee

http://www.shoplandcollection.com/images/Austin%20K5%20Gun%20Portee/Portee.jpg

Note that in this case, the gun has simply been chained to the bed, some trucks were modified with wheel channels to make loading and unloading the gun easier such as in this picture https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/The_British_Army_in_North_Africa_1942_E12643.jpg/461px-The_British_Army_in_North_Africa_1942_E12643.jpg

The K5 from the first image had a payload of up to 3 tons so the 6-pdr used less than half that capacity leaving enough spare for the crew and a decent ammo load. So even with the weight of a modern artillery piece, the more capable trucks of the 1970s onwards, should be able to handle the portee configuration with ease.

[Targan]

My father's father was a New Zealand Army infantry captain when he fought in the North Africa campaigns. He was commanding a unit of Bren Gun Carriers when they relieved Tobruk. He fought in Crete too. His war ended when he had half his moustache shot off.

[unkated]

Iraqi Freedom isn't on par with a national mobilization like WW2. Not even with the mobilization for Desert Storm.

For comparison, look at the ages and occupations of Seabees in WW2.

None of those is any comparison for the conditions in the U.S. after the canon nuclear exchange, famines, and plagues. Those do not discriminate.

Back to older but, survivable systems that make sense to resurrect in T2k.

M113 production.... Strykers and LAVs are working, but are considerable more complex..... maybe some M113 IFV conversions? M901s?

None of these make sense to me.

By the time things get bad enough for a a national production board to consider such a reconfiguration (post TDM), the ability to coordinate and execute the creation of a brand new production line for this simpler product (and that's what it would be; M113 production lines are long gone by 1997) is gone.

Promulgating simpler weapon designs that could be produced at a workshop level (such as the Sten or M3 Grease Gun) is one thing; an M113 is quite another.

Remember that the production line for an M113 or a cannon is NOT one workshop or even one factory. For the M113, the engine is built and assembled elsewhere; the shipped for inclusion in the M113; the transmission another; track components are forged in one (or more) locations; assembled in another; then shipped to the M113 assembly point; armor panels are assembled elsewhere.

I think post TDM things are falling apart too fast. The new (old) component assembly lines would never have completed. That's 6 months to a year of time when they are being built, producing nothing.

Rather than trying to coordinate retooling several factories in the face of growing chaos, I'd suggest a better plan would be to simplify the existing designs, such as cheaper electronic components (targeting, radio,radar, etc) - though I think these too would slow and break down due to failures in the transportation network.

Uncle Ted

[Apache6]

I think a good model to look at for real world capabilities would be the "up-armoring kits" shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan once IEDs were recognized as THE threat.

Units in theater did a lot with existing materiel. At least the Marine Corps responded pretty quickly in developing and shipping armoring kits (I'm not saying the Army didn't, but I know the USMC did).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mak.htm

"Strapping" on extra armor to an already existing fleet of HMMWV or other vehicles is 'easier' then producing a whole new fleet. I think a lot of hillbilly armor would be used by stateside units. Some of that hillbilly armor might be applied to 'standard' commercial heavy duty trucks (like FORD F250 or larger).

Look at what the Mexican Narco Cartels have been able to produce in underground facilities. I'm certain that many US cities/or states could produce something at least as good. The USMC depots at Albany, Ga and Barstow, CA would be able to produce some interesting vehicles since they store a LOT of semi obsolete kit and have a very good supply of machine tools, skilled machinists and 'stock materiel.'

[ArmySGT.]

None of these make sense to me.

By the time things get bad enough for a a national production board to consider such a reconfiguration (post TDM), the ability to coordinate and execute the creation of a brand new production line for this simpler product (and that's what it would be; M113 production lines are long gone by 1997) is gone.

Promulgating simpler weapon designs that could be produced at a workshop level (such as the Sten or M3 Grease Gun) is one thing; an M113 is quite another.

Remember that the production line for an M113 or a cannon is NOT one workshop or even one factory. For the M113, the engine is built and assembled elsewhere; the shipped for inclusion in the M113; the transmission another; track components are forged in one (or more) locations; assembled in another; then shipped to the M113 assembly point; armor panels are assembled elsewhere.

I think post TDM things are falling apart too fast. The new (old) component assembly lines would never have completed. That's 6 months to a year of time when they are being built, producing nothing.

Rather than trying to coordinate retooling several factories in the face of growing chaos, I'd suggest a better plan would be to simplify the existing designs, such as cheaper electronic components (targeting, radio,radar, etc) - though I think these too would slow and break down due to failures in the transportation network.

Uncle Ted

What you say is true, and I am not going to dispute that.... My point is that the M113 is simpler and easier to get back into production. Take the Sherman as a model, mediocre in every category. Spam the war with 100,000 of them and things go quickly into their favor.

The Continental engine and the Allison transmission of the A2 are the same as those in quite a few pieces of heavy equipment (bulldozer, front loaders, etc). Those are going to be built regardless of the war effort.

Most of the engines / transmissions in U.S. fighting vehicles are found in civil engineering equipment.

The one piece that is most difficult to produce in fact is the cast hull....

I might well be very wrong... but, I don't think the U.S. can even make a cast hull in 2016 with the current environmental laws and other compliance issues.

[swaghauler]

And don't forget the portee concept - a truck slightly modified to allow it to carry and use an artillery piece on its bed. This gives the advantage of leaving the gun in its original configuration so that it can be used in the conventional manner but also allowing it to be used from the truck that transports it allowing the gun a modest shoot & scoot ability. The gun on truck combination also has better mobility than a conventional truck with towed gun.

While it's been stated (notably on the wiki page for portee) that the modern terms for such a setup are "gun truck" or "technical", I disagree. The "en portee" concept doesn't have the gun mount permanently fixed to the truck bed as is typically the case gun trucks and technicals.
The concept has been resurrected a few times over the decades with the last one I know of being the M777 Portee from BAE Systems in 2005.
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/m777_portee.htm

This image shows a New Zealand Army Austin K5 truck with an Ordnance QF 6-pounder AT gun in portee configuration as used in the North Africa campaigns of WW2. The website states, "These vehicles were adapted to serve as platforms for a 6pdr Anti Tank gun in the desert when battles were very fluid affairs moving over considerable distances and the guns were required to be put into action quickly."
Website link http://www.shoplandcollection.com/heavy-vehicles/85-heavy/98-austin-k5-gun-portee

http://www.shoplandcollection.com/images/Austin%20K5%20Gun%20Portee/Portee.jpg

Note that in this case, the gun has simply been chained to the bed, some trucks were modified with wheel channels to make loading and unloading the gun easier such as in this picture https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/The_British_Army_in_North_Africa_1942_E12643.jpg/461px-The_British_Army_in_North_Africa_1942_E12643.jpg

The K5 from the first image had a payload of up to 3 tons so the 6-pdr used less than half that capacity leaving enough spare for the crew and a decent ammo load. So even with the weight of a modern artillery piece, the more capable trucks of the 1970s onwards, should be able to handle the portee configuration with ease.

The one issue we have here is that outside of the 57mm Pack Howitzer (which is still being used for ceremonies), we don't have a howitzer or gun small enough to mount on the bed of a truck. We'd be relegated to Mortars, Recoilless Rifles, and Autocannon as truck guns.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

You have the M119 howitzer, a licence produced version of the British L119 Light Gun. At just under 2000kg it could be carried by trucks of 3-ton or more capacity.
To be fair though, there wouldn't be a lot of them, they entered service in 1989 with the 7th Infantry Division.

[WallShadow]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/060d4ead-f77a-3fb1-8c5c-cc9742392b2a/the-us-army-needs-some-help.html

Now, to get a six-shooter chambered for these...:cool:

[rcaf_777]

What you say is true, and I am not going to dispute that.... My point is that the M113 is simpler and easier to get back into production. Take the Sherman as a model, mediocre in every category. Spam the war with 100,000 of them and things go quickly into their favor.

The Continental engine and the Allison transmission of the A2 are the same as those in quite a few pieces of heavy equipment (bulldozer, front loaders, etc). Those are going to be built regardless of the war effort.

Most of the engines / transmissions in U.S. fighting vehicles are found in civil engineering equipment.

The one piece that is most difficult to produce in fact is the cast hull....

I might well be very wrong... but, I don't think the U.S. can even make a cast hull in 2016 with the current environmental laws and other compliance issues.

As stated above the M113 was in production at FMC San Jose facility in California with assistance by Aiken, Steel Products Division until 1998

[rcaf_777]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/060d4ead-f77a-3fb1-8c5c-cc9742392b2a/the-us-army-needs-some-help.html

Now, to get a six-shooter chambered for these...:cool:

Good info I remember someone asking what if there was any ammo left for the Iowa Class Big Guns. Now you know, and Knowing is Half the battle

[swaghauler]

You have the M119 howitzer, a licence produced version of the British L119 Light Gun. At just under 2000kg it could be carried by trucks of 3-ton or more capacity.
To be fair though, there wouldn't be a lot of them, they entered service in 1989 with the 7th Infantry Division.

Yes but only an HEMTT could carry it (in a ready-to-fire condition) because of the gun's 21+ft length. Carrying an M119 on a 5-ton would "weight" the truck's tailgate (because of barrel overhang) and cause the steering to feel
"light" (unresponsive). You couldn't fire it without destabilizing the 5-ton with the recoil either. You'd be better off shooting modified 105mm howitzer rounds out of a recoilless rifle. Before someone screams foul... Yes, 105mm cannon rounds CAN BE modified to fire in a Recoilless Rifle of the same caliber. There was a tail fin and propellant assembly developed to do just this. It was a "bolt on in the field" modification kit made by the same company that competed in the JADAM tail kit trials. I don't know if the Army ever adopted the kit, though.

[ArmySGT.]

Found this.... and I think this stays with the spirit of the thread.

P1Fn3SIqqp8

[.45cultist]

What you say is true, and I am not going to dispute that.... My point is that the M113 is simpler and easier to get back into production. Take the Sherman as a model, mediocre in every category. Spam the war with 100,000 of them and things go quickly into their favor.

The Continental engine and the Allison transmission of the A2 are the same as those in quite a few pieces of heavy equipment (bulldozer, front loaders, etc). Those are going to be built regardless of the war effort.

Most of the engines / transmissions in U.S. fighting vehicles are found in civil engineering equipment.

The one piece that is most difficult to produce in fact is the cast hull....

I might well be very wrong... but, I don't think the U.S. can even make a cast hull in 2016 with the current environmental laws and other compliance issues.

Are the older machines still in storage? The KCK GM plant still has parts of it's WWII bomber assembly line in storage, but with out men who know the tooling and its age I doubt its value. A better track is making gun trucks and stripping cannon from hulks. Perhaps a plant making partial wood, metal trucks like the German Opel-Blitz of WWII.

[ArmySGT.]

Are the older machines still in storage? The KCK GM plant still has parts of it's WWII bomber assembly line in storage, but with out men who know the tooling and its age I doubt its value. A better track is making gun trucks and stripping cannon from hulks. Perhaps a plant making partial wood, metal trucks like the German Opel-Blitz of WWII.

It has been my experience that much of the equipment is sold as scrap. There are dealers that buy up equipment for resale but, often there isn't any support from the original manufacturer........ Sometimes you have to manufacture your own parts.

[.45cultist]

A massive technical college program also seems to need creation. The machinists and welders will need to expand their numbers.

[swaghauler]

Found this.... and I think this stays with the spirit of the thread.

P1Fn3SIqqp8

That is actually a really nice system! The two big issues with doing this to the light gun would be:
1.) The Light Gun uses a normal gas recoil system. This new system uses the "reduced recoil system" pioneered on the 105mm Tank Gun and that would be a MAJOR retrofit to the Light Gun (to avoid overwhelming the 5-Ton's suspension). One way to "overcome" this issue would be to "dismount" the 105mm Howitzers from Spectre Gunships. These already have a similar "recoil reduction system" fitted.
2.) Removing the Light Gun's carriage ALSO REMOVES ALL OF THE GUN'S SIGHTING SYSTEMS. The mounts for new sights would have to be engineered and PRECISELY PLACED in relation to the barrel in order to achieve any accuracy at all.

This is why I made the suggestion above.

All of that being said, I really think that the current Army SHOULD look at a system like the one above. You could run a 6 man Section with just TWO 5-Ton trucks (the gun truck and an uparmored ammo carrier). This system would be cheap AND mobile for use in "Insurgent Theaters" where you need enhanced mobility OVER firepower/range. These would have been great to deploy to Afghanistan during the "surge."

[rcaf_777]

All of that being said, I really think that the current Army SHOULD look at a system like the one above.

They are already are looking at a system. In 2004 U.S. Army's Picatinny Arsenal developed the HUMVEE Scorpion

The mortar itself can fire on single shots or on automatic using 4 round clips. Range for direct fire is 1,000m and indirect fire is 4,000m.

The US Army is also working on a 120mm system using Elbit Systems SPEAR - Autonomous Recoil Mortar System (RMS)120mm Mortar System

http://www.hmmwvinscale.com/hmmwvprototypes.htm
http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1122823663/US+army+installs+Russian+Vasilek+mortars+on+humvee s,+calls+it+the+Scorpion

[rcaf_777]

Here is the production numbers and dates of the M113 which ran form 1964 to 1992, and then restarted again in 1994 and ceased in 1997.

Interesting Points

1. The US Army still has and operates 6,000 M113
2. Over 4,500 were produced in Italy under licence, for their army and export

[ArmySGT.]

They are already are looking at a system. In 2004 U.S. Army's Picatinny Arsenal developed the HUMVEE Scorpion

The Mortar in the back is a Vasilek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B9_Vasilek) mortar purchased from a former Warsaw Pact ally. Maybe this can be introduced into a game as a homebrew? A marauder unit of mixed NATO/pact troops possibly.

geGtS0157_0


9JwgbkqJ_Xo

[rcaf_777]

The Mortar in the back is a Vasilek mortar purchased from a former Warsaw Pact ally. Maybe this can be introduced into a game as a homebrew? A marauder unit of mixed NATO/pact troops possibly.

That's what I was thinking, could also be captured equipment too. I wonder how hard the project was?

[swaghauler]

They are already are looking at a system. In 2004 U.S. Army's Picatinny Arsenal developed the HUMVEE Scorpion

The mortar itself can fire on single shots or on automatic using 4 round clips. Range for direct fire is 1,000m and indirect fire is 4,000m.

The US Army is also working on a 120mm system using Elbit Systems SPEAR - Autonomous Recoil Mortar System (RMS)120mm Mortar System

http://www.hmmwvinscale.com/hmmwvprototypes.htm
http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1122823663/US+army+installs+Russian+Vasilek+mortars+on+humvee s,+calls+it+the+Scorpion

Looking at the mount in this photo, It would be a relatively easy modification. The Hummer mount uses an easily manufactured central strut that mounts right up to the stock carriage mount on the trunion assembly. The recoil is "counter mitigated" by the gas shocks (Long travel 10-Ton gas shocks?) on either side of the mount. Why? Because they point almost perpendicular to the trunnion assembly at max elevation and "oppose" the trunion assembly when the weapon is at lower angles of elevation. This allows them to act as a "surrogate carriage" and reduce the recoil stroke to an acceptable level that the central strut (and the Hummer) can withstand. The gas shocks also "support" the weight of the assembly for ease of barrel elevation and traverse. This is an elegantly simple mount made possible by the short recoil trunion of the 82mm Vasilek mortar.

[swaghauler]

The Mortar in the back is a Vasilek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B9_Vasilek) mortar purchased from a former Warsaw Pact ally. Maybe this can be introduced into a game as a homebrew? A marauder unit of mixed NATO/pact troops possibly.

geGtS0157_0


9JwgbkqJ_Xo

I'd like to get one of these to shoot woodchucks in the back yard. Then all I'd need to buy is a 20mm Phalanx for the d****d crows.

[Draq]

This is the way of the apocalypse https://youtu.be/v-XS4aueDUg

[ArmySGT.]

This is the way of the apocalypse XS4aueDUg

I see your Cuban tinkers and shade tree mechanics, and raise you Colombian narco submarines. :)
yqYoif-9c64

[ArmySGT.]

A massive technical college program also seems to need creation. The machinists and welders will need to expand their numbers.

FEMA would be in charge of this through the Executive Orders giving them this authority........... hampered by the muddy waters of the divided MilGov and CivGov situation.

[rcaf_777]

Looking at the mount in this photo, It would be a relatively easy modification. The Hummer mount uses an easily manufactured central strut that mounts right up to the stock carriage mount on the trunion assembly. The recoil is "counter mitigated" by the gas shocks (Long travel 10-Ton gas shocks?) on either side of the mount. Why? Because they point almost perpendicular to the trunnion assembly at max elevation and "oppose" the trunion assembly when the weapon is at lower angles of elevation. This allows them to act as a "surrogate carriage" and reduce the recoil stroke to an acceptable level that the central strut (and the Hummer) can withstand. The gas shocks also "support" the weight of the assembly for ease of barrel elevation and traverse. This is an elegantly simple mount made possible by the short recoil trunion of the 82mm Vasilek mortar.

What kind of Twilight skills and tasks are we looking at?

[ArmySGT.]

-5i7AzcNbsU

[Draq]

None of the attachments are loading

[kato13]

None of the attachments are loading

Are you not seeing attachments or are you not able to upload attachments?

[.45cultist]

FEMA would be in charge of this through the Executive Orders giving them this authority........... hampered by the muddy waters of the divided MilGov and CivGov situation.

Thanks for understanding my mistake, "creation" instead of "created". What could a community and local forces do with high school, VoTech shops and staff? could it be the basis of a "Wojo" style factory? Combine this with a salvage yard and a fleet of technicals might be possible.

[ArmySGT.]

Thanks for understanding my mistake, "creation" instead of "created". What could a community and local forces do with high school, VoTech shops and staff? could it be the basis of a "Wojo" style factory? Combine this with a salvage yard and a fleet of technicals might be possible.

Sorry, I actually thought you meant at the macro scale...


My high school had x10 arc welders, x6 MIG welders, x3 Oxy/Ace welders, and a gas forge. In the shop side...... x6 10 inch lathes, one knee mill, one power hack saw, x2 metal cutting band saws, one metal shear, and one bending brake.

With absolutely no way to generate power. Totally dependent upon the electricity generated at the Bonneville dam.

[.45cultist]

Sorry, I actually thought you meant at the macro scale...


My high school had x10 arc welders, x6 MIG welders, x3 Oxy/Ace welders, and a gas forge. In the shop side...... x6 10 inch lathes, one knee mill, one power hack saw, x2 metal cutting band saws, one metal shear, and one bending brake.

With absolutely no way to generate power. Totally dependent upon the electricity generated at the Bonneville dam.

We now have 3 or 4 high schools, but I noticed the Missouri DOT vehicle facility had a generator the size of an Conex box next to its building. It is the yellow and black paint used on heavy equipment and easy to spot.

[Draq]

Are you not seeing attachments or are you not able to upload attachments?

Not seeing, good sir

[WallShadow]

Thanks for understanding my mistake, "creation" instead of "created". What could a community and local forces do with high school, VoTech shops and staff? could it be the basis of a "Wojo" style factory? Combine this with a salvage yard and a fleet of technicals might be possible.

From my point of view, such a core of tools and cadre of students and instructors, this would, at first, best be used as a Machine-tool-bulding set-up, to make more jigs, frames, etc., to allow more tools to be manufactured; a boot-strap sort of arrangement. Once enough drill-presses, lathes, milling machines were manufactured, a larger percentage of machine tool usage could be allotted to production of spare parts, remanufacturing firearms, trade goods, etc.

[ArmySGT.]

Thanks for understanding my mistake, "creation" instead of "created". What could a community and local forces do with high school, VoTech shops and staff? could it be the basis of a "Wojo" style factory? Combine this with a salvage yard and a fleet of technicals might be possible.
Sorry, I actually thought you meant at the macro scale...
My high school had x10 arc welders, x6 MIG welders, x3 Oxy/Ace welders, and a gas forge. In the shop side...... x6 10 inch lathes, one knee mill, one power hack saw, x2 metal cutting band saws, one metal shear, and one bending brake.
With absolutely no way to generate power. Totally dependent upon the electricity generated at the Bonneville dam.
From my point of view, such a core of tools and cadre of students and instructors, this would, at first, best be used as a Machine-tool-bulding set-up, to make more jigs, frames, etc., to allow more tools to be manufactured; a boot-strap sort of arrangement. Once enough drill-presses, lathes, milling machines were manufactured, a larger percentage of machine tool usage could be allotted to production of spare parts, remanufacturing firearms, trade goods, etc.

All of this equipment belongs typically to the State, even the stuff in High School VoTech (Vocational Technology, for non-Americans). Since the U.S. has functioning governments to some degree, I think this would all be collected up and transported somewhere else for the Reconstruction.... or a if there was power available, put to work on the spot for Reconstruction projects.

But, this is serious thread drift. Maybe a Mod can clip it out and start an American Wojo Factory thread with it all?

[swaghauler]

-5i7AzcNbsU

Using the above video that ArmySGT provided, I can get a better idea of the mount's construction. First, let's talk materials needed for this project:

1) Two Large gas struts. I'd use 10-Ton LONG TRAVEL shocks (like the various military trucks in a number of armies use), but any large gas strut (like the ones used on the hatches of AFVs or aircraft ramps) will work.

2) High tensile steel to make the Uni-strut Assembly that bolts to the mortar's circular trunnion/carriage mounts. I'd use the girders from a modern multi-story building or a bridge deck strut. This will give you half of the structure without having to fabricate it.

3) High Tensile nuts and bolts. I'd cannibalize these from a bridge as well (you can also take them from a ship or transportable heavy crane).

4) One HIGH STRENGTH RING (with bearings and races) to mount to the truck bed. This would be a NIGHTMARE to have to fabricate (because of the precision fit of the bearings and races) so I would "cut" a complete turret ring out of a small AFV like a BRDM or the reinforced turret ring mounts found on some updated M113's. This ring would then be reinforced with a steel plate to mount the uni-strut to.

You would need:
-A welder
- power supply (for both the welder and tools)
-An Oxy-acetylene torch or a plasma cutter (and air compressor, of course)
-Powered hand tools such as grinders, die grinders, angle cutters, a belt sander and a large drill.
-hand tools to tighten the mounts bolts
-hydraulic's kit (found in a tracked vehicle mechanic's toolkit)
-prybars and pins for moving and setting large weights.

The strut would be a Routine (1.5 x Skill) Welding and Fabrication task taking about 8 hours (for a two man team).

The turret ring removal and plate installation would be an Easy (2 x Skill) Welding and Fabrication Skill and also take 8 hours (for two men). You can halve the time by doubling the laborers on this task (it involves a lot of heavy lifting).

Manufacturing a ring base from scratch would be a Difficult (0.5 x Skill) Welding and Fabrication AS WELL AS a Difficult (0.5 x Skill) Machining Skill. and take two men about 24 hours to properly fabricate.

All of this can be done "in the field," IF you have the resources.

[rcaf_777]

I know we talk about heavy weapons and APC/IFV but what about small arms?

Here is a website about Post WWII Commercially Manufactured M1 Carbines

http://www.m1carbinesinc.com/carbines.html

I had no idea they were still being produced or after the war so many number were produced

A few examples

From 1962 to 1978, the PLAINFIELD MACHINE CO., INC. of Middlesex, New Jersey made about 112,000. The Iver Johnson Arms Company bought the Company in 1978 and made another 92,000 until 1992.

I always wonder why the weapon was in NATO weapons book.

[swaghauler]

I know we talk about heavy weapons and APC/IFV but what about small arms?

Here is a website about Post WWII Commercially Manufactured M1 Carbines

http://www.m1carbinesinc.com/carbines.html

I had no idea they were still being produced or after the war so many number were produced

A few examples

From 1962 to 1978, the PLAINFIELD MACHINE CO., INC. of Middlesex, New Jersey made about 112,000. The Iver Johnson Arms Company bought the Company in 1978 and made another 92,000 until 1992.

I always wonder why the weapon was in NATO weapons book.

Kahr Arms bought out Auto Ordinance and makes both the M1 Carbine AND semi-auto Thompson submachine guns (more properly carbines? in semi-auto?). It is popular to make the 16" barreled Thompson into an NFA SBR since a good quality full-auto can command $50K in the US.
Inland also makes the M1 Carbine as well. The popularity of WW2 reenacting has driven the market for the last 20 years or so.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I've seen references in some gun magazines to the semi-auto Thompsons as carbines regardless of barrel length. I think it's a safe enough label to apply to the semi-auto versions.
I have a vague recollection that during the 1950s to about the 1980s the M1 Carbine was reasonably popular as a hunting gun for light-medium game.

[bobcat]

well for small arms if you need a cheap and easy shotgun you can't get any more simplistic than the Cobray Terminator. decent enough for hunting small game but there is a reason it beats the street sweeper in the worlds worst shogun category.

Video Review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnpOis10NyQ)

[ArmySGT.]

Why not coindicence range finder? A watch maker and optician can make the lenses and small gears.

wXRtj4Hripo

Or the donkey ears style trench binoculars/rangefinders.
http://tedbrink.webs.com/ast%201%20(650%20x%20870).jpg

No batteries required.

Note, that in the case of T2K several Warsaw Pact countries were fielding these still as regular equipment in active units at the start of the conflict.

It is NATO that went the more high tech (and efficient) route that is suffering with the collapse of economy and industry.

[rcaf_777]

You can also add

The Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk 1 and Mk 2, although production has ceased it off shoots are still going strong and it is still issued to some para military units like the Canadian Rangers. With an estimated 17 million rifles made in six countries, this rifle is second to only the Mosin–Nagant in terms numbers produced and length of service. The models still in service are:

Ishapore 2A1 rifle, a converted rifle which fires 7.62mm NATO round. They are still being made in India.

L42A1 Sniper Rifle, another conversion like the Ishapore 2A1, used by the British Army in frontline service till the early 90’s

Lee Enfield Envoy, conversation of Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk 2 in a sport version firing 7.62mm

Enfield Enforcer, Same as the Envoy but used by the UK Metropolitan Police, not common place but still possible is used by a small police detachment in the UK around twilight.

De Lisle Commando carbine, both Valkyrie Arms and Special Interest Arms make replica of this rifle.

Mosin–Nagant is the most produced rifle in history and the longest continuously serving rifle in history, at more than 120 years. Only the British Brown Bess Musket (1720-1865) has been in service longer. As the Soviet Union grew into a world power it gave away tens of thousands of these weapons to anyone claiming to be a communist fighting the evil capitalist of the west.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I'd like to point out that the Ishapore 2A rifles are conversions of the design but the rifles themselves are new builds and are not conversions of .303 Lee Enfields to 7.62x51mm.

[ArmySGT.]

I'd like to point out that the Ishapore 2A rifles are conversions of the design but the rifles themselves are new builds and are not conversions of .303 Lee Enfields to 7.62x51mm.

Beat me to it..... An Ishapore is also derived from the No 3.

I own one. It is fun to shoot. Course, some old Fudd at the range will either complain about my military rifle or that I should shoot American ammo.

Ishapores were manufactured at the Ishapore plant wherein Lee Enfields were made for colonial units. When India was making the transition to 7.62 NATO FALs ......... there weren't enough to go around.... These were intended for Border, Police, and Militia units in India's mixed up crazy quilt of internal States and Territories.

forgot to add....... the No8 is the conversion of .303s to 7.62NATO

[James Langham2]

Beat me to it..... An Ishapore is also derived from the No 3.

I own one. It is fun to shoot. Course, some old Fudd at the range will either complain about my military rifle or that I should shoot American ammo.

Ishapores were manufactured at the Ishapore plant wherein Lee Enfields were made for colonial units. When India was making the transition to 7.62 NATO FALs ......... there weren't enough to go around.... These were intended for Border, Police, and Militia units in India's mixed up crazy quilt of internal States and Territories.

forgot to add....... the No8 is the conversion of .303s to 7.62NATO

No8 in UK service is usually a similar weapon but in .22 for training use.Very common in cadet units at the time but rarer in TA and regular unirs who had access to HK conversion kits for the SA80. They are JUST about to leave service.

[ArmySGT.]

No8 in UK service is usually a similar weapon but in .22 for training use.Very common in cadet units at the time but rarer in TA and regular unirs who had access to HK conversion kits for the SA80. They are JUST about to leave service.

Sorry... it is L8.... not No8

[unkated]

It is not exactly pertinent to this topic as a whole, but....

Can someone tell me what the L in British kit designations since WW2 stands for?

Much of the world uses 'M' (boringly) for Model (in various European languages), but Britain started using L - anyone know why?

Uncle Ted

[RN7]

It is not exactly pertinent to this topic as a whole, but....

Can someone tell me what the L in British kit designations since WW2 stands for?

Much of the world uses 'M' (boringly) for Model (in various European languages), but Britain started using L - anyone know why?

Uncle Ted


I believe the L designation in British Army weapons stands for Land Service and started to be used in the 1950's.

British Royal Navy weapons systems are designated by N and stand for Naval Service. Canada also uses C for Canadian, and the Australians use F for Forces.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Now I can't say for certain what the letters actually stand for but I can add that from what I remember they were jointly decided upon by Australia, Canada, the UK & the USA (essentially, all the major English-speaking allies) as part of a unified designation system to readily distinguish and also identify the origin of allied equipment.

It certainly could prove interesting at times as for example, in Australia at one point we were using the M60 machinegun on the L3 tripod with a C2 sight for indirect fire while using F4 ammunition.
And it's exactly the reason why our SLRs were called L1A1, because it was initially a British design (as in, it's a semi-auto only variant of the FAL) but our shortened SLRs (designed for the PNG military) were designated L1A1-F1

[.45cultist]

All of this equipment belongs typically to the State, even the stuff in High School VoTech (Vocational Technology, for non-Americans). Since the U.S. has functioning governments to some degree, I think this would all be collected up and transported somewhere else for the Reconstruction.... or a if there was power available, put to work on the spot for Reconstruction projects.

But, this is serious thread drift. Maybe a Mod can clip it out and start an American Wojo Factory thread with it all?

Factories, one for each region would minimize the dangers of transport and alieve worries that region X is being slighted for region Y.