Tank graveyard
 

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

Irrepairable?

Almost certainly not.

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

And the finished result would be fine ...

... but it would be costly.

And you could buy more modern tanks.

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

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

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

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

Different times.

Phil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wondered the same thing.

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

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

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

http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2015...ling-facility/

All that hardware being scrapped! I could almost cry!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Rolled Homogenous Armor?

What is Layer Composite Armor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tanks are not invulnerable.

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

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

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

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

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

50 years of Tank vs Tank Development in a nutshell
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncle Ted

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

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

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