RPG Forums

RPG Forums (https://forum.juhlin.com/index.php)
-   Twilight 2000 Forum (https://forum.juhlin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Aircraft/Armor Surplus Storage (https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=4055)

Askold 02-23-2015 01:58 AM

T-90 was designed in the same factory that builds T-72s. Separate factories made T-72 and T-80 and when Russia (after the collapse of Soviet Union) wanted to replace them with a more modern tank the two factories made competing models and the T-72 factory won. It has several upgrades including ones taken from T-80. (One big factor on the winner might be that T-80 was much more expensive. It was supposed to be the "quality" tank that is less numerous than the cheap T-72 and will only be given to elite units but I guess they either couldn't afford it or just decided that the idea was stupid.)

Slightly related on the topic, I tried to find a comparison between T-72 and T-90 but instead stumbled on this "non-intentional" comedy article:

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/poli...-abrams_t90-0/

Targan 02-23-2015 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly (Post 63196)
Sigh...I work as auditor for DOD, I get paid the big bucks to travel to these storage facilities just to count the gear AND what condition it is in. Trust me, the M551s in "storage" are in no condition to be locked, cocked and ready to go.

I believe you, absolutely, but what about 20 years ago?

dragoon500ly 02-23-2015 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jester (Post 63197)
I was speaking in gaming terms and desperation and imagination. Look at the vehicle guide, WWII the mods done to armor. Or even Vietnam and the "Gun Trucks."

As I said earlier, I've never even seen a Sheridan. Just going with the concept of using what is available to bring it online in some useful manner. And never was the idea of bringing it back to go toe to toe with modern 1st tier armor.

But, remember some pact nations still have T-55s and T-64/5s as their tier 1 armor. And then, how old is the T-72? Which if I recall correctly, the T-90 is just an updated T-72 since the T-80 didn't work as promised...or am I getting them reversed?

Another issue, how many US armored vehicles have been completely destroyed to the point they are written off and not sent back to be rebuilt? Unless its a catastrophic kill of course. And would this not be the case if the balloon went up? This as I recall was the case in WWII where green crews got in after the holes were patched and the blood washed out.

In the Vietnam War, the Sheridan earned a rep as a death trap for its crews. It was the first combustible case ammo tank to enter service and there problems with propellant escaping from the round and accumulating on the turret floor with dire results when the hull was penetrated by rpg/mines. Another problem was that the combustible case did not fully ignite in the chamber, when the breech was opened, this flaming debris fell back into the turret, sometimes igniting the round the loader was preparing to load. To overcome this problem, a high air pressure air line was installed to.blow this debris down the tube, this was one of the reasons for the lousy rate of fire. The missile came in for its own loading issues, it could only be loaded one way into the gun, resulting in a notch being cut into the breech...think about trying to "key in" a missile during an engagement!

The fun and joy doesn't end there! The missile was a 1st gen IR beam rider that required the gunner to maintain lock on target throughout the missile flight time. Bad enough, but the missile had a host of problems, especiallyduring sunny days, bright reflections as well as a hordes of reliability issues, bad enough when the missile doesn't fire...it's perverse desire to try go for other targets, like that bright sunny thing in the sky, just ruins a crews day.

Another problem was the electronics of the fire control system...temperamental doesn't begin to describe the issues, both Sheridan and the later M60A2 Starship spent more time in the maintenance shop than on the firing line.

Add the fact that the Sheridan would have spent almost 20 years in storage in the desert by the time of the Mexican invasion...

dragoon500ly 02-23-2015 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Targan (Post 63199)
I believe you, absolutely, but what about 20 years ago?

These tanks started being put into storage before 1980, the gun-missile launcher and it's assorted problems where the chief reason why. They were being replaced in the armored cavalry regiments with M48/M60A1, and in the divisional cavalry squadrons cavalry squadrons by M150. About the only unit with them was with the 82nd Airborne. Last armor crewman training course for the Sheridan was in 1978, after that, it was armor basic and then OJT at the battalion.

So figure in storage for about 12 or so years, no development work to correct the known issues, and very few personnel familiar with the beast.

I'd find it far more likely that it would have been stripped and melted down.

dragoon500ly 02-23-2015 05:13 AM

My own point of view with regards to scavenging equipment is that some of this gear was worn out when it was retired...and the DOD does not spend funds beyond the bare minimum to store this gear. It's a fun game idea to have the players bring such gear out to help out with the ole marauder band, but trying to keep such equipment requires a decent workshop, mechanics, power, raw material and so on. Tanks require an extensive logistical train, just to keep them running in a piece time army...In a Twilight timeline, I'm surprised that there are so many runners.

Olefin 02-23-2015 11:35 AM

Keep in mind that you only need that impressive logistical train for a lot of tanks - and by 2000 no one has a lot of tanks anymore except the French - also most fronts are pretty static so the tanks that are left arent doing a lot of movement - many of them would be static much of the time just due to a lack of fuel

and the Sheridans were highly prized in Vietnam to be able to support the infantry - and that is what they would be doing here - supporting infantry not taking on enemy tanks

also keep in mind that the majority of the Sheridans that are probably running are ones near the training centers that still used them - who had the techs, the shops, the parts, etc.. to keep Sheridans running - we arent talking about units in Alaska we are talking about California (NTC at Fort Irwin) and Louisiana/Texas (JRTC at Fort Polk)

Olefin 02-23-2015 11:43 AM

and by the way with the run up to the war and the fight that the Chinese needed vehicles I could easily see the Army getting a couple hundred Sheridans ready to send to them - and by the time they had them ready to go with ammo and working the war had started with the Soviets and they had a more pressing need for armor - at first possibly for training and then later after the TDM as better a Sheridan than nothing

jester 02-23-2015 12:46 PM

Um, there is a depot near Irwin that can do tanks....MCLB which has the facilities, it would also mean they have the talent in the community since most people try to live close to work even if its in the middle of the desert.

When I was in I spent 6 months doing vehicle maintenance just short stripping the vehicles down to nothing and rebuilding them and I was a infantryman. Our mechanics however did have that skillset. Add civilians in the community who have similar skills at mechanic and metalwork and the talent can be assembled.

Spares would be a problem, but then salvaging from destroyed vehicles could provide those parts or civilian vehicles that have similar parts, or even modifications to accept such parts.

Another place to aquire armor, The Patton Tank Museum near the Ca/AZ border on the edge of Joshua Tree National Park.

They have several dozen M48 tanks, some restored, some stripped for spares. But, again with modifications, cannibalizing and using civilian parts that would be compatible one could put together a dozen tanks. Weapons systems is another issue though. But, a moveable armored beast with the hull and working tracks and engines is a lot and any weapons systems are just icing on the cake.

ArmySGT. 02-23-2015 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 63180)
Keep in mind the thread with the very real possibility that the tanks and other armored vehicles at the Littlefield collection, many of which had live barrels and operational fire control systems, would have been used in 2000 and 2001 to get the CA MilGov units some armor

and remember that the Mexican's only real tank they had (at least based on real world info) was the Stuart tank

In all honestly I don't think at the federal level much of the Littlefield collection would matter. Most of the WW2 stuff doesn't have spares. The armor that it has is to light against even 73mm of BMP1s, and RPGS would eat them. Making ammunition would divert critical assets from making munitions for current generation stuff. Do you make 100 75mm Pak40 rounds for a Panzer IV that is probably not going to get off three rounds.

If anything the most recent generation stuff probably as someone will be around that can operate it and maintain it. WW2 and Korea would get fobbed off to state militias to guard the ports, airports, and water dams. If it can't use modern ammunition and diesel the fed governments are going to take a pass, this would just burden a logistics system that is already near collapse.

ArmySGT. 02-23-2015 06:34 PM

Come to think of it....... The Israelis would be in the market for Shermans and Halftracks..... They operate those now in 2015 in support roles. The Shermans as Trailblazer engineering vehicles and the halftracks as supply and commo vehicles with all terrain capability.

Olefin 02-24-2015 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmySGT. (Post 63209)
In all honestly I don't think at the federal level much of the Littlefield collection would matter. Most of the WW2 stuff doesn't have spares. The armor that it has is to light against even 73mm of BMP1s, and RPGS would eat them. Making ammunition would divert critical assets from making munitions for current generation stuff. Do you make 100 75mm Pak40 rounds for a Panzer IV that is probably not going to get off three rounds.

If anything the most recent generation stuff probably as someone will be around that can operate it and maintain it. WW2 and Korea would get fobbed off to state militias to guard the ports, airports, and water dams. If it can't use modern ammunition and diesel the fed governments are going to take a pass, this would just burden a logistics system that is already near collapse.

The Panzer doesnt even have a live barrel so I dont expect to see that in action

But the AMX-13, the Conqueror Heavy Tank, the M50 Sherman (which can hold its own quite nicely in a tank fight against most of what the Mexicans have) and the Centurion Mk13 Tank that they have will do the job nicely - I dont expect his Stuarts, Lees and any German WWII tanks to get into the fight as they dont have live barrels but the rest have operational guns

and you would be surprised how much ammo there is around still for many of those vehicles

and they wont need to make a lot of ammo by 2000 - probably one basic load per vehicle is about all they will ever need - keep in mind that the entire Mexican Army in California has 10 AFV's by 2001 - and by that we are talking Stuarts and armored cars - and most units will be luckly to have one RPG with a couple of rounds at best

rcaf_777 02-24-2015 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 63185)
Now could you see some T-55's from Cuba and Nicaragua - possibly - but since Cuba was trying to stay under the US radar they might not have arrived till after TDM - by then the US wasn't in much of a position to stop trade from Cuba to Mexico (after all they didn't stop the Soviets being shipped from Cuba to Mexico and they were a much bigger threat than a freighter full of T-55's) - and if Nicaragua openly supported the Soviets there might not have been many of those tanks still around after a few US airstrikes

Is there any details on what the Soviet would have in the South-West US in way of Armour?

Cuba had only one ship capable of carrying armour, a Polnocny-class landing ship which could carry about 8 armored personnel carriers, Im guessing BTR-60or 70s.

I dont see the Soviet Division have much left in the way of personel or equipment left in Cuba given that the Soviet are fighting China and NATO.

I also remember reading about the Cubans wanting to get rid of Soviets, I am guessing that could do with some sort of US Airstrikes earlier in the war?

The Mexican Navy could help out too but at the time of TW 2000 the Mexican Navy had only USS Clearwater County (LST-602) Crica 1943 for sea transport

I'm not sure what if any soviet armour could fit in the Cargo Hold?

I am also thinking the cubans might be "You can leave with what ever you can carry"

just some thoughts

Olefin 02-24-2015 10:51 AM

This was an estimate I put in the Soviet Division Cuba thread based on real world data and what I figured the Soviets might get from the Cubans

As to how they got there - it really depends on if they landed the material at a friendly port versus by assault - considering the Mexicans were already in Texas I think its the friendly port situation

From the Soviet Division Cuba thread

"So at the very least you are looking at a 3000-3500 man training brigade and a motorized rifle regiment of 3000 men along with those manning the eavesdropping facility (3000 strong) and the naval personnel that manned the resupply facility for a total of 11,000 men.

That, combined with withdrawn personnel from various embassies in the area and possibly KGB and GRU personnel who were in Cuba would make for enough manpower for sure for a division.

If you look at what is written about them in the Texas module you can see they had a mix of BTR-70's and BMP's, with the BTR-70's being more prevalent which suggests it was a BTR Motorized Rifle Regiment and not a BMP one. Also what is interesting is that unless they were heavily reinforced by the Cubans with tanks, a MRR only has about 41 total tanks - a single tank battalion with an extra tank in the HQ section. Given what they had left it would mean they had only lost 26 tanks taking on the 49th which doesn't sound that realistic given the composition of the 49th. Most likely that means the Cubans reinforced them with tanks from their own units, thus resulting in the mix of tanks they have left - i.e. mostly T-72 or T-80 but also could be types the Cuban Army was equipped with.

So if you base its composition on historical information:

One Motorized Rifle Regiment - 3000 men with one tank battalion and three BTR battalions (which would have some BMP's as well) - the one on duty in Cuba

One Motorized Rifle Regiment - again about 3000 strong, most likely being the training personnel - armed with Cuban material - most likely a mix of BMP-1's and BTR-60's along with a tank battalion of T-62's

One Tank Battalion - another 40 or so tanks, again most likely Cuban T-62's or T-54/55 - 165 men

Recon Battalion and Engineering Battalion - around 350 men each

Artillery Regiment, SAM Regiment, various other support battalions - most likely formed from the signal and support troops in Cuba - about 3600 men or so if they were formed at full strength

One Helicopter Squadron of about 18 helicopters with at least some surviving to 2001, most likely heavy on attack helos, probably reinforced by captured American civilian helicopters (as mentioned in the Texas module the Soviet commander was hoping to use the fuel to get his attack helicopters back into operation) - maybe 200 men

Add it up its about 11,000 men - which matches what Gorbachev said was there in 1991

Plust that gives the Soviets around 120 tanks of various types at the start - which gives them more than enough to engage the 49th with a real possibility of victory when you add in the BTR's and BMP's that are with them"

rcaf_777 02-24-2015 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 63225)
One Motorized Rifle Regiment - again about 3000 strong, most likely being the training personnel - armed with Cuban material - most likely a mix of BMP-1's and BTR-60's along with a tank battalion of T-62's

One Tank Battalion - another 40 or so tanks, again most likely Cuban T-62's or T-54/55 - 165 men

Add it up its about 11,000 men - which matches what Gorbachev said was there in 1991


Two to think about

1. As stated above, how do you transport BTR and Tanks with only two ships? Mexico has one old LST for cargo and troops and Cuba has the other one that will have to many runs to haul the BTRs, not sure if it can haul any tanks. And its Cuban, not sure they would let them the Soviet use or take away equipment they are going to need. Cuban might worried about rebel or later US invasion. Think about the problems with Op Omega?

2. In 1991 there was 11,000 men in Cuba, after war with China and NATO how many would be left and fit to fight? I mean your not going to keep a fully equipment division with top of line gear, on a small island when you need troops at home are you? How about resupply too? do you think once the shooting starts the US is going to let the soviet resupply of any kind in Cuba?

Olefin 02-24-2015 03:13 PM

Actually I have a feeling they were stranded there and the US had a lot more issues to worry about - plus they probably didnt think things would get so bad that any Soviet troops from Cuba even had a chance to make it to US soil

as for transport - you can load APC's into freighters and other kinds of ships as well - but you are right about the tanks - one possible source could be a Soviet transport that can take tanks being "interned" by the Cubans - or possibly even some neutral ships - once the nukes started flying I could see a Liberian flagged vessel, for instance, decide that any port is better than eating a torpedo in the Gulf or risk docking in any port anywhere near oil facilities in the US or Mexico or Venezuela

Its one of the deus ex machina aspects of the timeline

Stuff like

How did they transport Soviet Division Cuba without the proper ships or fuel with enough tanks to hand 49th Armored its head before it got Stingray tanks and Peacekeeper Armored Cars as replacements for all the tanks they lost against Soviet Division Cuba?

How did the Greek Navy's light ships destroy the escorts of the convoy to Turkey when most of their ships were WWII retreads or missile ships that have about a five minute survival time against a task force with Harpoons?

How did the Soviets somehow have more ships in the Pacific than the USN did to where they could succesfully pull off an assault on the Candaian coast and then try and drive on Seattle?

ArmySGT. 02-24-2015 04:18 PM

I am not buying it that private collections like the Littlefield collection would have 60s, 70s, and 80s vintage equipment in any T2K timeline. To many actions and brushfire wars plus a strong Soviet Union backed by a Warsaw Pact makes that stuff to valuable to sell to collectors when Third world nations are so vulnerable.

Most of the WW2 / Korea era is of dubious capability as it can be killed with 80s and 90s models of rifle grenade, 40mm HEDP, and any LAW or RPG. The soviets were / are making new munitions for WW2 calibers like 57mm, 76mm, and 85mm I don't think anyone in the West bothered and focused solely on inservice calibers.

Olefin 02-24-2015 04:48 PM

He was collecting stuff back when the Cold War was still hot - and he got a lot of his Soviet stuff from places like Egypt and Israel that either didnt need it anymore or who had captured it in fighting

Look at his tank's that still have live barrels

Conqueror - long out of service with the British even during our Cold War

AMX-13 - being phased out by the French

Super Sherman - he got that in trade for some stuff that an Israeli museum wanted

the Centurion Mk13 - again out of service when he got it

all you need is a guy with a lot of money and a lot of interest and a lot of passion and connections - Littlefield had them all

as for ammo - again lots of money can do wonderous things to find hard to get items - if he had the money to buy the tanks then getting a small quantity of shells is probably well within his means - maybe one complete ammo load per vehicle worth - but I wouldnt bet against it

and frankly if you can believe a lot of the other things in the T2K timeline then Littlefield having a Conqueror and Mk13 Centurion is a pretty small pill to swallow

and he had a shop and technicians who could and did take tanks and equipment that were basically wrecks and restore them to operation on a regular basis - pretty handy guy to have around

ArmySGT. 02-24-2015 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 63232)
as for ammo - again lots of money can do wonderous things to find hard to get items - if he had the money to buy the tanks then getting a small quantity of shells is probably well within his means - maybe one complete ammo load per vehicle worth - but I wouldnt bet against it

I would. The BATF considers each round of ammunition a "Destriuctive Device" that must be applied for separately. So whatever the cost, and additional $200 per shell, and additional costs for storing them in a BATF approved secure facility.

HE and other things don't store forever even in ideal conditions.

ArmySGT. 02-24-2015 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 63232)
He was collecting stuff back when the Cold War was still hot - and he got a lot of his Soviet stuff from places like Egypt and Israel that either didnt need it anymore or who had captured it in fighting

Look at his tank's that still have live barrels

Conqueror - long out of service with the British even during our Cold War

AMX-13 - being phased out by the French

Super Sherman - he got that in trade for some stuff that an Israeli museum wanted

the Centurion Mk13 - again out of service when he got it

all you need is a guy with a lot of money and a lot of interest and a lot of passion and connections - Littlefield had them all

Egypt would still have been a Soviet allied nation at that time.

These would be out of service with the armies in 1st world countries of Europe and North America , but they are not for Africa, Asia, countries like Iran. Countries that field them because they inherited them from the last government and can't afford better and need spare parts anyway.

Not buying it. There are smaller players in the proxy wars of the cold war that would be extremely happy to get these.

The only one of those you mention I would accept would be the M50 because no one, but Israel or a collector would have wanted it at that time in history.

swaghauler 02-24-2015 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmySGT. (Post 63233)
I would. The BATF considers each round of ammunition a "Destriuctive Device" that must be applied for separately. So whatever the cost, and additional $200 per shell, and additional costs for storing them in a BATF approved secure facility.

HE and other things don't store forever even in ideal conditions.

Not to mention that while solid shot is fine; you have to get a testing/development exemption from the BAFT for possession of explosive or armor piercing rounds. Otherwise it would be illegal to possess, transport, buy, or use said rounds.

swaghauler 02-24-2015 07:00 PM

This thread does bring up an interesting thought. What if the locals decided to "upgun" an APC or "rearm" an old tank with a gun they could actually make powder charges and ammo for? Be pretty funny seeing an old WW2 tank with a Civil War era black powder muzzle loading cannon mounted in it. These "Destructive Devices" are both common and popular (which means they could turn up anywhere) and come in both "old school" Civil War era models and new manufacture versions. The locals could make both the shot and powder it uses with relative ease. It may be only a one shot weapon, but it could dominate a force with only small arms. Any thoughts?

Targan 02-25-2015 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swaghauler (Post 63239)
This thread does bring up an interesting thought. What if the locals decided to "upgun" an APC or "rearm" an old tank with a gun they could actually make powder charges and ammo for? Be pretty funny seeing an old WW2 tank with a Civil War era black powder muzzle loading cannon mounted in it. These "Destructive Devices" are both common and popular (which means they could turn up anywhere) and come in both "old school" Civil War era models and new manufacture versions. The locals could make both the shot and powder it uses with relative ease. It may be only a one shot weapon, but it could dominate a force with only small arms. Any thoughts?

As you can imagine with a group that's been around this long, some ideas and discussions circle back around from time to time. I'll see if I can dig through the archives and find some of the discussions we had on the exact same subject a few years back.

Targan 02-25-2015 03:04 AM

Here are some old threads that talk about reloading ammo and have some references to the use of black powder:

Improvised ammunition

Ammo reloading

Pictures of homemade guns

Improvised weapons and equipment

Post-exchange gunpowder production

Black powder

And here's a few threads that talk about modifying military vehicles:

Modified vehicles in T2K

Gun trucks

Using captured vehicles

M551A2 Sheridan

Questions about home guard/militia units

And this thread has elements of both:

Surplus armor in T2K

jester 02-25-2015 05:07 AM

Division De Cuba:

Had me wondering about Gitmo. What would of become of the Navy Facility there? Does the timeline show it abandoned? Or would they have reinforced like their did during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Or, did the personel die in a blaze of glory and the radio went silent?

That could be a source of some US weapons for the Division.

Another issue, since Cuba liked to export and share with the world the joys of socialism with the like of good ol Che. Do you all think there could be a battalion of volunteers that would go with the Russians to fight those evil imperialist Yankees? Or, as Cuba tends to do, a light "Boatlift" in an effort to get rid of undesirables? Sending them as "support" for the Russians.

Olefin 02-25-2015 08:18 AM

At 200 a round for the license Littlefield could afford to have quite the arsenal - remember we are talking about a multi multi millionaire here - this isnt some guy with an old M113 in his garage - this is a guy who had more tanks and armored vehicles than most countries have

Oh and by the way - Sadat threw the Soviets out of Egypt long before the timeline ever deviated from ours - Egypt is a US allied nation in this timeline - they were buying US equipment and by 1989 were considered a US ally - so getting ex-Soviet stuff from Israel and Egypt would have been easy to do

one thing that also could be done would be to use any vehicles as pure gun platforms - i.e. turn them into the equivalent of a WWII tank destroyer or self propelled gun without a turret - mount a small cannon or AA gun or heck a helicopter gunship rocket pod on it and send it into combat

ArmySGT. 02-25-2015 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 63247)
At 200 a round for the license Littlefield could afford to have quite the arsenal - remember we are talking about a multi multi millionaire here - this isnt some guy with an old M113 in his garage - this is a guy who had more tanks and armored vehicles than most countries have

Oh and by the way - Sadat threw the Soviets out of Egypt long before the timeline ever deviated from ours - Egypt is a US allied nation in this timeline - they were buying US equipment and by 1989 were considered a US ally - so getting ex-Soviet stuff from Israel and Egypt would have been easy to do

one thing that also could be done would be to use any vehicles as pure gun platforms - i.e. turn them into the equivalent of a WWII tank destroyer or self propelled gun without a turret - mount a small cannon or AA gun or heck a helicopter gunship rocket pod on it and send it into combat

Since Mr. Littlefield did not buy munitions, machinery to manufacture munitions, or even chemicals to produce even propellants, is proof enough to me that he never intended to in the first place. Let alone the federal laws that would have to be overcome.

I don't like hand wave things just to hand wave them. People I have played with want plausible excuses for things not their intelligence insulted. Billionaires that buy fantastic weapons and never have bureaucratic government problems is a movie called Iron Man.

It is reasonable and plausible in the T2K timelines that a hobbyist like Littlefield would have Korean war and earlier vehicles and equipment. Given the radical changes in the timeline that differ from our own; I find it implausible that operational 60s and later equipment would have gone to a collector.

swaghauler 02-25-2015 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Targan (Post 63243)
As you can imagine with a group that's been around this long, some ideas and discussions circle back around from time to time. I'll see if I can dig through the archives and find some of the discussions we had on the exact same subject a few years back.

Thanks for the links to the old threads. I really enjoyed them.

Olefin 02-26-2015 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmySGT. (Post 63257)
Since Mr. Littlefield did not buy munitions, machinery to manufacture munitions, or even chemicals to produce even propellants, is proof enough to me that he never intended to in the first place. Let alone the federal laws that would have to be overcome.

I don't like hand wave things just to hand wave them. People I have played with want plausible excuses for things not their intelligence insulted. Billionaires that buy fantastic weapons and never have bureaucratic government problems is a movie called Iron Man.

It is reasonable and plausible in the T2K timelines that a hobbyist like Littlefield would have Korean war and earlier vehicles and equipment. Given the radical changes in the timeline that differ from our own; I find it implausible that operational 60s and later equipment would have gone to a collector.

sorry but an old M60A2 Starship and a Conqueror tank are hardly fantastic weapons - and you can own live shells in this country for a license fee that is very affordable - and for the right price you can get anything in this country -

and if you use the V2 timeline then he could have gotten everything he had basically - even the original timeline is totally plausible for 90% of his collection - and the T2013 timeline means he got it all

and either way the man had exactly what you need to maintain and rebuild tanks and armored vehicles including a very loyal and dedicated staff

but again either way its how you approach the game versus how I approach it - and everyone's campaign is different in how non-canon is handled

Silent Hunter UK 02-26-2015 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 63247)
Oh and by the way - Sadat threw the Soviets out of Egypt long before the timeline ever deviated from ours - Egypt is a US allied nation in this timeline - they were buying US equipment and by 1989 were considered a US ally - so getting ex-Soviet stuff from Israel and Egypt would have been easy to do

Indeed, a number of the MiGs used in CONSTANT PEG are believed to be ex-Egyptian ones.

ArmySGT. 02-26-2015 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 63268)
sorry but an old M60A2 Starship and a Conqueror tank are hardly fantastic weapons - and you can own live shells in this country for a license fee that is very affordable - and for the right price you can get anything in this country -

That M60A2 would have been recycled into an M60A1 or sold to Israel that would have done the same. Jordan would have liked to have the Conqueror, South Africa, even Israel again. Israel would have converted the conqueror to one of the turretless counter IED engineer vehicles that sweep between one kibbutz and the next.

Old and obsolete to the 1st world powers like NATO is still adequate to those not so advanced. In any of these timelines without a collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact to economic difficulties means a continuance and escalation of brushfire wars in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 63268)
and if you use the V2 timeline then he could have gotten everything he had basically - even the original timeline is totally plausible for 90% of his collection - and the T2013 timeline means he got it all

So your saying all these smaller 3rd world nations like those in south America still using M24s, M41s, and M48s would not have been snapping any of these things up for spares if nothing else.
I don’t think so.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 63268)
and either way the man had exactly what you need to maintain and rebuild tanks and armored vehicles including a very loyal and dedicated staff

Maintaining museum quality sure….. I think he could have a reasonable collection of WW2 and Korean era equipment. The items from the 60s forward would be in the hands of 3rd world countries in local conflicts fueled by money from either NATO or the Warsaw Pact…… Afghanistan, Angola, Eritrea, Sinai, Cyprus, Vietnam, Laos, Chad, Libya, Pakistan, India, as examples.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 63268)
but again either way its how you approach the game versus how I approach it - and everyone's campaign is different in how non-canon is handled

I don’t like to insult my players with far fetched per case scenarios. If bad guy needs to be stronger to counter a powerful PC team or to give the PC a target worthy of their efforts, then a reasonable and plausible means for a tank or APC to be there can be better devised than because billionaires like tanks.

Millionaires and billionaires didn’t get that way spending money. Sure Mr. Littlefields collection was worth a lot, and gained in value as other vehicles were scrapped. What doesn’t give it value is live ammunition at $200 per shell above the base cost, plus the outrageous monthly insurance.
Then ammunition doesn’t sit infinitely, propellants and explosives naturally decay. Is he going to shoot 10% to 50% per year from every vehicle to rotate stock? Not a chance. The wear and tear on the vehicles alone would be unacceptable.

Ordnance isn’t built or maintained by mechanics no matter how clever they are. Fuses, even of the impact type, have little to nothing at all incommon with anything on the tank, but another fuse.
Any Twilight timeline is a violent place and I doubt anything would sit around as surplus to be collected by hobbyists.

Olefin 02-27-2015 07:26 AM

ArmySgt - the timeline isnt that much more violent than our current timeline up until the start of the Soviet Chinese war - there would still be surplus equipment to be had by those who had enough money

and there is always surplus equipment to be had for the serious collector who has enough money and he was both

keep in mind that many third world nations don't operate much in the way of tanks - like Mexico for instance

and many of the vehicles he had he rebuilt from the ground up - these werent pristine vehicles that drove up ready to fire - these were lovingly rebuilt by him over the years - if you are a Third World nation you are going to want to buy fully operational tanks and armored vehicles - not ones that need a year in a rebuild shop to bring them back up to spec while you search spare parts collections and use old drawings to make parts one at a time

he didnt buy this tanks right off the lot - that Panzer IV that he had looked literally like a piece of crap when he got it - and it took years to fix it -

Frankly if you dont like the Collection then dont use it in your campaign -heck unless you are playing in CA or AZ it would never even come into play

And while you keep talking about how crappy it would be to have a WWII or Korean era tank in a fight, the Croats, Serbs and Bosnians used a bunch of old WWII tanks in the fight in Yugoslavia in the mid 90's - and they worked quite well

ArmySGT. 02-27-2015 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 63282)
ArmySgt - the timeline isnt that much more violent than our current timeline up until the start of the Soviet Chinese war - there would still be surplus equipment to be had by those who had enough money

and there is always surplus equipment to be had for the serious collector who has enough money and he was both

keep in mind that many third world nations don't operate much in the way of tanks - like Mexico for instance

and many of the vehicles he had he rebuilt from the ground up - these werent pristine vehicles that drove up ready to fire - these were lovingly rebuilt by him over the years - if you are a Third World nation you are going to want to buy fully operational tanks and armored vehicles - not ones that need a year in a rebuild shop to bring them back up to spec while you search spare parts collections and use old drawings to make parts one at a time

he didnt buy this tanks right off the lot - that Panzer IV that he had looked literally like a piece of crap when he got it - and it took years to fix it -

Frankly if you dont like the Collection then dont use it in your campaign -heck unless you are playing in CA or AZ it would never even come into play

And while you keep talking about how crappy it would be to have a WWII or Korean era tank in a fight, the Croats, Serbs and Bosnians used a bunch of old WWII tanks in the fight in Yugoslavia in the mid 90's - and they worked quite well

Still seen nothing here to convince me otherwise. When V1 doesn't support your argument, you say V2. When V2 doesn't you say V3.

When the ammunition comes up you say he is a millionaire, just buying munitions because he can.

You haven't convinced me, because you keep moving the goal posts.

This is relevant to anywhere in the U.S., because a great many collections exist both private and public. That is really my interest in this thread. There has to be a plausible excuse for using the resources to get them going and operational. Just because it is a tank, doesn't mean anyone is going to be stupid enough to go into battle in it. If M203 and BG-15s can kill them from 150 to 300 meters out, these relics won't even be safe with a infantry unit to screen them. Then they are in rendered useless in an attack, only to be marginally effective in a defense. Let alone that with high explosives most would be hampered severely with the poor penetration capabilities of hardened steel shot for the main armament.

Pz IIs and M3 would get killed just by a marauder with an M203.

It is barbarically negligent to kill soldiers by sending them into battle in some of these things.

raketenjagdpanzer 02-27-2015 02:49 PM

You know you say "Oh he'd only have WWII stuff and no guns..."

Consider this: even taking that into consideration, his "garage" is a treasure trove of a machine shop. It'd be a fine prize for any faction to take, be it civgov, milgov, New America, MexiCubanSoviet invaders, whatever. He's got tooling, lifts, lathes, etc. up there to keep an armored brigade repaired and running.

Now regarding the collection itself? Fine, He's only got up to Korean War era stuff, and no ammo. Taking it as fact (because it is a fact) that he's got the machine shop to do so, what's stopping him from pulling turrets off of tanks and hey, presto, armored prime movers? Attaching dozer blades and other things, and now you've got armored engineering vehicles, vital to combat engineer work and reconstruction? How about turning those old tanks into personnel carriers? Mortar carriers? A Sherman could shrug off MG42 rounds, why not RPK slugs? Same for his various half-tracks.

So you consider his 30-40 vehicles that he "would have" during T2k's timeline, we'll be really conservative and say 20 can be made operational, and hey presto that's 20 personnel carriers or prime movers, now suddenly you can put a brigade strength infantry unit on tracks versus walking everywhere, or riding in relatively thin-skinned vehicles.

Olefin 02-27-2015 03:59 PM

Sgt - first off I am not moving the goalposts

Timelines

V1 - he still gets almost every tank and vehicle he had that was made pre-1970 that was in his collection and even some of the Soviet Stuff - Egypt still becomes a NATO ally and gets rid of its Soviet stuff, Israel still captures a bunch in the various wars they had

V2 - he gets the same plus even some Soviet stuff he could have obtained from the former East Germans and the Yugoslav remnants

2013 - he gets his whole collection including the Scud missile

no one is moving the goalposts - the posts move because of the events in the timeline change

as for munitions - hmm lets see MilGov decides to make use of his collection - well there is where the munitions come from as one possibility - another is that a machine shop (which per canon are capable of turning out mortar shells and the like) make a small amount of solid shot shells for the vehicles

or he obtains munitions the old fashioned way - he buys them pre-war - maybe only enough to give one basic ammo load or less for the vehicles with live barrels - and he had lots of storage room to keep them in

and for our info most of the tanks and artillery pieces didnt have live barrels - so the Stuarts and PzkII and Pzk IV you seem to obsess about and the Lee and the British WWII tanks arent going anywhere as tanks - but they sure could be modified to be turned into gun platforms for other weapons for the US Army or turned into tracked gun vehicles instead of wheeled ones -

and anyone who uses a M203 against the tanks that he did have with live barrels is going to end up dead

you might want to actually research his collection like I did and find out what worked and what didnt - and what only needed a .50 to be fully operational like most of his APC's

and per canon - by 2000 anything with a gun on it and tracks was being used as tank in the US by the various groups fighting

thats pretty clear that if it had a turret, a gun and could move they used it

plus keep in mind that the main marauder threat is a bunch of guys armed with shotguns, civilian rifles and if they were really lucky some M-16's they might have looted out of a National Guard armory - none of which have a hope in heck of hurting anyone in a tank

and again - per canon - from the Texas module - even the Mexican Army by 2000 was mostly foot infantry with rifles - you would be lucky if a whole unit had one or two anti-tank weapons of any sort with them -

this isnt charging Soviet Division Cuba with a bunch of original production Shermans and Stuarts

this is taking on marauders and Mexican infantry who the only thing they can do against a tank is hope they get close enough to use a Molotov on it or maybe manage to blow a tread off with dynamite

and frankly any commander who had working tanks and APC's and artillery pieces sitting right there and didnt use them when he had no tanks of any sort and no armored vehicles in his unit is not one whose men will stay with him long

kato13 02-27-2015 04:17 PM

Given the penchant the game designers had putting odd equipment in odd places, I think the Littlefield collection fits nicely. They have British and German units stay in Canada. They have an Alaskan Invasion by the Soviets. They have a US division get "lost" by 800 kilometers.

When I played I tried to give the 49th some color by adding 24 DUKW transports which were "requisitioned" when one of their brigades was near the Wisconsin Dells (where they are used for recreational touring).

Personally I would give Littlefield a little more eccentric personality (and more money and power). Maybe add a little John DuPont and Howard Hughes. Make the collection an obsession that leads to grey and black market deals.

Once you enter that world you find corrupt quartermasters, Insurgents who capture a single vehicle (and have no support for it), a dictator's cousin looking for a little cash, plus anything that would be above board.

You have to make Littlefield crazy to have the collection armed before TDM, but if you throw in a little of DuPont's or Hughes paranoia it might work. Personally I would not have the collection armed until "Wojo" type plants spring up.

raketenjagdpanzer 02-27-2015 04:34 PM

I should also point out the matter of vehicles that 40mm rounds can take out - the M1 (of any stripe) is still vulnerable in almost all arcs to RPG-7 fire. When they were taken out with them in OIF the Army (and Marines) didn't pull them off the line and mothball them.

Olefin 02-27-2015 04:37 PM

I agree with you Kato - and Raketenjagdpanzer has a big point too - just that shop of his, which he would have had no matter what the timeline, would have been invaluable

just imagine - its 2000 and you have a fully manned (his techs weree as dedicated as he was after all) and operational tank repair depot that can take a tank that is basically a pile of junk and make it operational again

and there sits MilGov units with all kinds of tanks and armored vehicles with issues that need to be fixed - its a marriage made in heaven

and I could easily see him obtaining stuff once the war started with various bribes if not beforhand - especially if he saw how the world was getting pre-TDM and figured it might be a damn good idea to have some munitions to arm his collection

ArmySGT. 02-27-2015 05:20 PM

Again, we are back to where we are not going to agree.

A U.S. government that provides HE munitions to a millionaire eccentric with a militaria fetish.

A machine shop that can be replicated anywhere there is a shop that services heavy construction equipment. The only thing that sets it a part is some of the skill sets of the technicians and the manuals available. Saying that though, heavy equipment mechanics typically made their start in military service.

Diversion of resources to make munitions for an obsolete caliber with in a multi-front global conflict.

No, diesel to put these into action, let along move them by rail, or tractor trailer to near the marshaling area.

All the timelines with a strong Communist Bloc and worldwide brushfire wars of proxy between NATO and the Soviet Union.

A M203 High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP) has the potential to penetrate 2 inches (50mm) into Rolled Homogenous Steel (RHA) at zero degrees deflection. One per fire team. Now look over the armor thickness on these relics and see how long they will last against the lightest of anti-armor weapons.

Killing tanks with handweapons like molotovs, burning sulphur, satchel charges, dropping a building on them isn't that difficult once you drive the supporting infantry off. Chechnya taught the Russian Army that lesson with the loss of T-80s to underscore the point.

I am utterly unconvinced.

How ever my interest is post apocalyptic genre, not WW3. So I only care about solid, plausible explanations without a confluence of preposterous circumstance.

ArmySGT. 02-27-2015 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer (Post 63293)
I should also point out the matter of vehicles that 40mm rounds can take out - the M1 (of any stripe) is still vulnerable in almost all arcs to RPG-7 fire. When they were taken out with them in OIF the Army (and Marines) didn't pull them off the line and mothball them.

Notably because the insurgent tank hunting practice was to attempt to overwhelm the tank with volley fire expending 20-30 RPGs some with recently supplied ChiCom and Russian tandem warheads. Those tanks weren't lost or out of action long. I will concede that they were put out of action temporarily and tank crews killed or maimed permanently. Insurgent RPG gunners got lucky hitting hatches from on top. Tanks immobilized because multiple RPGS were used to destroy the drive sprocket (bogie?). Some were lost to simply packing the road with several artillery shells filled set to command detonate. Those RPGS did shut some M1s down but, only just by hits to the gunners sights, commanders visor blocks, etc. It takes 20 to a 100 men and near or completely suicidal dedication.

That also brought out the T.U.S.K. program.

If you can find an instance where an RPG-7 standard round penetrated the hull through the armor and not a more vulnerable point like a vision block or weapon sight I would genuinely like to read it.

Olefin 02-27-2015 06:09 PM

The shop had the ability to weld armor plate - I used to work for a company that produced military vehicles - i.e. the M88, the M109, the Bradley, etc..

you need special equipment and training to be able to weld heavy duty armor that miltary vehicles use - and I worked for a company that builds heavy construction equipment - plus that shop had equipment that could easily handle a tank turret or tank body -

and we used to qualify our welders to work on armor - the qualifications you need for working on construction equipment is not what you need to properly weld a heavy armored vehicle together

as to a lack of diesel - well thats why the military converted their vehicles to run on methanol and ethanol - so most likely they would do it here

as for lack of tank transports - have a feeling that the US military still has them and they could use them to move those tanks to where they are needed - and they run on methanol and ethanol too

yes those tanks are vulnerable to those rounds - and so are Bradley's, M113's, Bufords, LAV-25's, etc.. - and I highly doubt that MilGov has parked all those vehicles just in case someone has an M203 HEDP round on them

yes it has the potential to penetrate that steel at 150 meters range - whats the effective range of a .50 caliber machine gun on those grenadiers? and thats if they even have those rounds by 2000 in any quantity at all let alone actual RPG's

and I would rather have a tank to fight in that was designed as a tank than converted bank armored cars - which per canon are being used as armored vehicles by MilGov, CivGov and New Amerca

if they are issuing Peacekeepers to the 49th to make up for lost tanks then I bet they would rather have actual tanks instead no matter what their vintage than a Peacekeeper

Heck they are using M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle's as tanks then they really dont care much what they have for tanks


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.