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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When you are in agreement with canon material. However, when you are not such as the discussion on Naval units, Division Cuba, the Mexican campaigns, Howling Wilderness, Armies of the Night, Red star Lonestar, or Urban Guerilla you will depart fast.
Yes, if you are using them in ones and twos like 1917 or 1940 then you invite defeat in detail. That would be a waste of tanks as a combat multiplier and the resources put into furnishing them and the trained crews. If a platoon of tanks is all there is in the entirety of a division in 2001, then those tanks are the division reserve and used when and where the division commander needs them. That is not a resource left to the decisions of a company, battalion, or brigade commander.
The Division Commander will hold that small number of tanks to counter an enemy armor break through or to exploit a gap made by his own infantry with artillery support to free those tanks to get into the enemy rear and kill the enemy logistics train or support troops.
No you have a ersatz made on the spot unit of tanks without training, without ammo, and without integral support that would be sketchy for any commander to use in a dedicated defense let alone in a attack. A unit made of mismatched armor, incompatible parts, fuel use different in consumption and type. A nightmare for a commander and enough trouble to make a S4 OIC to desert his post.
I have seen it and read about it…… It is neat, it is a wonderful preservation of history….. What it is not is the huge resource you claim it will be in T2k or T2K+1,+2, or +3. There isn’t a power grid to run it, or the industrial and supply infrastructure to keep it going with cutters, bits, welding gas, and material. Those factories and power plants died in the exchange and no matter how much the Littlefield collection has on hand; when the attempt to get that much equipment repaired those stock are going fast.

This is even assuming,,,,, it is a huge assumption that all these technicians who are retirees and such are have survive the TDM, famines, and plagues. Then to come to work at what has become in your vision a militarily significant target. I posit that they are dead or have departed to care for their families as best they can just like any other civilians. Dollars don’t mean much in T2K.
If the techs are alive, if the shop has power, if you have consumables, if government forces haven’t destroyed them to prevent others from using them. The reasons against the Littlefield collection being anything but another repair depot and one that can be replicated at any truck stop with the lift and cranes, are to many and too damning.
Nope, those bikers and survivalists will have at their core veterans from wars and actions prior to 1997. Knowing what they know, probably not going to show up for any muster or recall. Refugees? Likely as not you are right; the other groups you name will have veterans who will teach the others skills and any actions will reduce the unskilled and stupid. War is it’s own Darwinian sieve.
All it takes is one to teach… What is the Siege of Warsaw, for example.
You lead them like any other target. Flight time is in seconds from the call for fire from a known point. This is a core forward observer skill so I don’t know where you are coming up with your example.
Which is why the article and the title are a misnomer….. Those are Depots. Those are undamaged, nearly complete vehicles. A tank graveyard is filled with battle damaged vehicles to difficult for company and battalion assets to return to service. A graveyard like that is a Corps collection point far, far, far to the rear. These would be wrecks with a very low probability of any serviceable parts.

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

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

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

You have your Leo's confused. :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the heck
 

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

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

Oh the “What if” game. This is when “discussion” spirals into the ground.
Pre dawn darkness and engine idling to charge batteries is an excellent time. Among others.
Actually, No. This is a training scenario…. Everything is forced to produce that force on force contact. Find a CP and call artillery on it. Not a good example of what happens…. Weapons like the M203 and the grenades can’t be simulated in MILES. As for training, better than none! Not a good example for this discussion though.
Infantry trains to get it done without ATGMs being available. It is one of these “Nuclear Battlefield” training points. EMP could destroy the gunners sights of the Dragon and TOW. Fire, satchel charges, pole charges, command detonated mortar rounds, AT mines rigged to command detonate, using detonation cord and mortar rounds to drop trees or walls on tanks. With more preparation and engineer support then you get AT traps like pits and trenches.

ATGMs are like a crescent wrench in an overflowing tool box.
This scenario is discussion the relics in the Littlefield and other collectors……… These don’t typically have smoke dischargers. By T2K smoke grenades for those are probably as scarce as anything else.

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


Of those in the discussion this applies to the M48 and the M60 so I agree with you. However, only the M60A3 TTS has a thermal sight for the gunner. The periscopes do not. Blind those periscopes and this doesn’t matter.
Those in discussion do not have thermal sights, possibly passive / active infrared though.

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

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

I separate the tanks from infantry, I separate the tanks from mutual support, then destroy them in detail, usually when and where I can get them to dismount.
Spread out around the tank, sure. Detonated beneath the hull where the affect is contained another crispy, smoky story. A 8, 10, 15 kilo charge in a satchel under the belly is going to do a lot. Placed against the last road wheel and the belly, the road wheel and torsion bars are coming off. I also have time to make shaped charges or use the cratering charges used to destroy roads, bridges, and bunkers. All depends on what can be carried or what it tanks to lure the tank right up onto it.

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

Here is how you do it.

Steel wool from the cleaning aisle in supermarkets and big box supply stores burned in a metal pan with some alcohol removes the soap and renders this into ferrous oxide. The best source for powdered aluminum is an auto paint shop. The glitter in fleck paint is powdered aluminum that comes in big bags. You can make any size or shape thermite charge you like. They largest I have seen was on the internet…. A .50cal ammo can filled nearly to the top with a road flare for a fuse. Something that could cut a steel bridge support that was easy to carry and easy to use.
Now is that just wishful thinking? I think not but then I have been in the field for a week or two at a time, I got tired. How many hours do you think anyone will sit in our presumed world of 2000 to 2013 in a tank?
Those and the improvised grape shot charges with drain pipe, spent brass, C4, and a way to detonate. Command detonating something like CS to scatter the infantry protecting the tank happens too.
Yeah, all this. X2

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

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

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

You said it all
 

And In a nut shell!
That is why tactics keep evolving and why they are followed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beat this dead horse, Tank and Infantry
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think they wil. They war has been going for a long time. There will be people who have been rotated back from other fronts to form the core of green units and to be the trainers in regional schools. Those “Recondo” and other schools built by Divisions and Corps. Then there are men and women mustered out missing limbs or broken backs that find themselves civilians again.

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

Mid 90s I could pull down material like this from BBS and archives at many .edu address while on staff duty in Taegu, ROK.

I routinely got Army and Air Force manuals at yard sales and used book stores because getting some through Army publishing was a wish and a dream. This was the heyday of Paladin Press and all their adventure and military books. In the 80s had books on military equipment, tactics, and history even in the crunchy pot smoking hippy town I grew up in. This and the VFWs and American Legions have millions of WW2, Korea, and Viet Nam vets in their 40s – 60s… Those marauders can damn well find the experience as can local militias and mutual defense groups.
The very first ever destruction of a tank in combat is WW1, a British tank killed by German artillery. Armor survives most artillery barrages because there is enough armor to shrug off shrapnel given that the artillery round detonates a certain number of meters distant. Light armored vehicles still get penetration at ranges under 10 meters especially the very thin Russian APCs. That is just VT or variable time fuse that detonate overhead to maximize shrapnel. HE shells with superquick and concrete penetrating fuses are what you shoot at armor when you see it. These detonate in contact with the hull or penetrate lighter armored areas like the roof or engine cover before detonating inside.

Sure you’re out of “Copperhead” and ICM probably by this point those are the kind of rounds that Commanders tend to horde though. Doesn’t matter as HE with fuse superquick is common as dirt and any battery by T2K has abundant practice putting those in the circle. Three shells per tube from a battery is going to ruin any tanks day

Probably goes for most anyone.
That is why I and others have stressed again you have to separate the enemy infantry dismounts from the enemy armor first. You hammer them area with artillery, mortar, and plunging MG fire and killed them, wound them, or send them looking for overhead cover. It isn’t easy and you’re going to be on the receiving end of the other guys indirect fire too. Infantry in the defense with prepared defenses is tough to dig out.

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

To my knowledge the is no such animal as a “Civilian Laser Designator”….. I think you are using the wrong nomenclature for a civilian laser range finder mentioned earlier. Laser range finders give you exact distance to a target often including the azimuth / declination too. A laser designator is shines a beam onto a target visible to the operator, the laser guided round homes in on the reflected laser light. When that laser is in the proper spectrum and strobing in the correct time, that way rounds are not missing targets with multiple laser signatures in the area or counter measure dazzlers in use.

Yes, I agree that laser guided munitions by T2K would be rare, mostly expended, and with the loss of industrial capacity small chance of replacement. Those are few to begin with, most designated for high value targets like command vehicles and FO vehicles any way. Sometimes for high pay off targets like a bridge or bunker in a valley out of direct fire and without air support to kill it for you.
That is plot device…. The necessities of the narrative dictated that to have the outcome the authors wanted. Like an awful lot of the events described to bring about the game setting.

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

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

What do you call four tankers without ammo? Passengers

What do you call four tankers without fuel? Foot patrol

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

What do you call an idling tank? Clothes drier.

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

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

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

Moderator Time
 

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

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

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/201...rebels/100086/

Pictures #20 and #21 is guy reusing RPGs.

Perhaps not somebodies backyard shed, but there's plenty of workshops in any town, even some villages with the necessary machinery for small scale production.
Skill and knowledge/plans are the big issue - that and fuses.