Modern tank lasting time? (valid for other modern systems)

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The milage problem is one all modern tanks face. Weighing in around and average of 50-60 tonnes they're all going to chew through the fuel and from that viewpoint alone, only the wealthier, more developed countries are ever likely to employ them.

Going away from the original thread, I have a question. Wouldn't modern tank quickly become useless simply because of their weight? In a modern world, the 50-60 tons are definitely not a problem but with decaying bridges and rusting infrastructures everywhere, wouldn't they be stopped by every small river around?

After a few years of the twilight war, I don't really expect many bridges to be still capable of resisting such heavy weights.

Another question. How many time can last a M1A2 Abrams (even worse: a french Leclerc) without proper care and the vast technological support system to fix them?

Similar questions can concern fly-by-wire aircrafts.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Another question. How many time can last a M1A2 Abrams (even worse: a french Leclerc) without proper care and the vast technological support system to fix them?

Similar questions can concern fly-by-wire aircrafts.

Out troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have been having this problem for a while. (And that's including small arms -- maintenance of small arms is another thing that T2K doesn't really cover.) That's with proper technological support. If you have a little experience (and sometimes not) and there's a depot-level military maintenance facility nearby, it's much easier to get a job in the US. The US military is having to regularly do large-scale fixes and rebuilds on everything from aircraft to M-9 pistols. Aircraft have even been grounded for extended periods (the F-15C/D fleet grounding a few years ago was the most infamous of those groundings) simply because they are worn out and no longer safe to fly. BDAR repairs in theater are rampant.

Now consider a T2K world where there is no depot-level maintenance, and little third-echelon maintenance. Chilling.

[Mohoender]

Paul what you say on aircrafts reminds me of what the chief mechanician on the BA103 "Cambrai" was saying back in 1994.

At the time the base was servicing Mirage 2000C and Mirage F-1C (that were due for retirement). The chief mechanician was over 50 and had been around since the late 1950's. Of course, we asked him what he was thinking of both aircrafts. He answered that "the Mirage 2000 was obviously the finest but that it was posing tremendous maintenance problems. The Mirage 2000 needed to much computers and to much technology for servicing. the F-1C of course had plenty of electronics but if it was damaged they could fix it fairly easily and send him back to action. As the F-1 was not fly by wire, the mechanician still had some action on its mechanical parts and in case of need, they could rework several piece to make the aircraft serviceable again."

I hope I was clear.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

I hope I was clear.

Absolutely. My neighbor, Mike March, is an 84-year-old retired auto mechanic. He can fix just about anything mechanical -- but he plainly admits he doesn't have a clue about modern cars and appliances. And he says it's the new electronics and computers -- they drive him nuts.

BTW, he was also a World War 2 Sherman tank driver. He has lots of great stories -- he got to Europe just days after the Normandy landings.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

BTW, he was also a World War 2 Sherman tank driver. He has lots of great stories -- he got to Europe just days after the Normandy landings.

Too bad I'm not living in US anymore, I would be more than happy to write his biography.

[jester]

Its been a while and I am no tanker, but I saw one on TV, maybe it was modern armor or some such program on the history or discovery channel. But most armored vehicles need at least 2 hours of maintenance for each hour of use.

And for that reason I can see areturn to older simplier designs in a T2K world.

Old stocks of M60 and M48 tanks could be comming out of mothballs.

As for the bridge issue;

I see two things with that,

1 tanks would be accompanied by their own assault support troops to storm bridges capable of holding them with an engineer platoon inspecting and reinforcing the bridge to handle the weight. And thus, I can see many fights over bridges and fords by units who have tanks just to eneable them to transit through an area.

Bridges, units will consider the ones capable of supporting armor become key objectives. These as stated above units would man these not with one or two men or even a fireteam but these would be fully fortified in some areas with a full detatchment of troops to enable your forces to move, as well as to deny enemy forces movement. A second benefit is control of the roadway and the waterway. An enterprising warlord could even charge a toll for all who are not from around there, which of course would be a boost to the local economy.

And lastly, a return to simplier designs like the old jeep and similiar vehicles, and to the lighter armored and scout type cars like the M8 greyhound loosing the tracks but having more modern weaponry, or modern based old style weapons like recoless rifles could make a return to the battlefield to replace antitank missiles and even more complicated large caliber gun rounds.