Out of Mothballs: Obsolescent Weaponry on the T2k Battlefield

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by Brit

I have seen Punt Guns in museums in The UK and seemingly in T2K: R/- (in The UK). However 'just' a pipe and...

"In the United Kingdom, a 1995 survey showed fewer than 50 active punt guns still in use. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 limits punt guns in England and Wales, and in Scotland, to a bore diameter of 1.75 inches (44 mm) (1 1/8-pounder). Since Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in 1897 there has been a punt gun salute every Coronation and Jubilee over Cowbit Wash in Cowbit, Lincolnshire, England. During the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II, 21 punt gun rounds were fired separately, followed by the guns all being fired simultaneously".

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punt_gun

It is 'remembered' from an old White Dwarf magazine Call of Cuthulu scenario but they said that Boyes anti-tank rifles could be bought / owned on a shotgun licence as they are smooth bore and thus 'OK' under English & Welsh Law. (The mag would date back to the 80's?). Buyer Beware!

I got to see an 8 gauge punt gun at the SKB shotgun factory in Japan, it was on display in the lobby. 8 gauge shells are still made to clear kilns in metal working. So a nasty surprise can be had for those willing to scavenge.

[ChalkLine]

When introducing an older vehicle into the game I usually try and work outs context first. If it's a one off some group got going then anything goes, but if it's not then there has to be some considerations.

First off, some vehicles need essentially gutting and installing stuff from existing vehicles. This is made easier if the vehicle comes from a class of vehicles that are still in service such as the common-as-mud M113 chassis. Otherwise you're looking at installing new engines, transmissions and suspensions. Really, don't do this for tracked vehicles but you can get away with it for some wheeled vehicles.

If the vehicle is really old you can simply throw the turret (if there is one) away and drop in a new turret. Note this has to be a lighter turret. Most turrets have their dimensions available on the internet and such things as the BMP-1 turret or the Textron 1 metre turret will fit into a lot of things.

Next, weapon commonality. It doesn't need just compatible ammunition, you need enough spares. Really you want a standard NATO/WarPact (depending on who fields it weapon). Either you have to have enough to cannibalise or it has to be dead simple so division can fabricate new parts (such as for rocket tubes). A classic gun for NATO vehicles on the large scale is the L7 105mm gun because there's buckets of them around.
Generally thinks like a coax and pintle mounts will be swapped for the correct weapons unless you're making an all-OPFOR equipment force, something usually only done in emergencies. Likewise radios. Adaptors for things like periscopes can be made given time and inclination.

[Olefin]

Thats one reason a Ferret would be a common older vehicle that could be pressed back into service - the UK made a ton of them, they exported them all over the place and there are a ton of spares - and even ones that were bought by civilians can be put right back into service - just mount a machine gun and you are back in business

[Raellus]

We've probably all seen or included crossbowmen or bowmen in T2k, but is this also true of slingers? I can't remember if it's ever come up here before. I reckon very few PC's, if any, have used slings in combat, but it strikes me as being a weapon one might encounter in the hands of NPCs (civie militia or poorly equipped marauders come to mind).

I've read that in classical warfare, slingers using led shot could kill an armored man at 100 yards with a head shot. They've found skulls with depressed fractures and some with sling shot imbedded or inside the cranium.

One sees slingers at work during uprisings in the Palestinian territories. I don't know how effective they are.

Simple to make and with readily available ammo, I don't see why slings wouldn't make a comeback in the T2kU. The biggest obstacle, IMHO, is training, as a sling is not something one can just point and shoot. Dating back to at least the dawn of civilization, slings would be one of the most anachronistic weapons, probably the most anachronistic projectile weapon, on the 2000 battlefield.

-

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Raellus

We've probably all seen or included crossbowmen or bowmen in T2k, but is this also true of slingers? I can't remember if it's ever come up here before. I reckon very few PC's, if any, have used slings in combat, but it strikes me as being a weapon one might encounter in the hands of NPCs (civie militia or poorly equipped marauders come to mind).

I've read that in classical warfare, slingers using led shot could kill an armored man at 100 yards with a head shot. They've found skulls with depressed fractures and some with sling shot imbedded or inside the cranium.

One sees slingers at work during uprisings in the Palestinian territories. I don't know how effective they are.

Simple to make and with readily available ammo, I don't see why slings wouldn't make a comeback in the T2kU. The biggest obstacle, IMHO, is training, as a sling is not something one can just point and shoot. Dating back to at least the dawn of civilization, slings would be one of the most anachronistic weapons, probably the most anachronistic projectile weapon, on the 2000 battlefield.

-

I did discuss slings and other primitive weapons in .45Cultist's thread ANTIQUE & PRIMITIVE WEAPONS. Vesper's War/The Dark also contributed significantly there.

I'll be popping in more frequently soon guys. Dad's estate is winding down, Gram's estate is settled and my cousin Johnny's memorial is now done and everything concluded. They say bad things come in threes, so let's hope I can catch a break for a while!

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

I did discuss slings and other primitive weapons in .45Cultist's thread ANTIQUE & PRIMITIVE WEAPONS. Vesper's War/The Dark also contributed significantly there.

I'll be popping in more frequently soon guys. Dad's estate is winding down, Gram's estate is settled and my cousin Johnny's memorial is now done and everything concluded. They say bad things come in threes, so let's hope I can catch a break for a while!

Thanks for the redirect, Swag, and please accept my condolences for your personal losses.

-

[ChalkLine]

I don't know if anyone has posted this but the Cadillac Gage (now Textron) V-150 and V-200 are perfect for refurbishing into the Twilight War.

Firstly, they have a rugged simplicity that follows the maxim of "the less complexity = the higher reliability".

But more importantly the vehicles were specifically designed to use as many components of the M113 armoured personnel carrier and M939 series 5-ton 6×6 trucks as possible, greatly easing the problems with resupply, deployment and maintenance.

Both vehicles have benefitted from advances over the years and the bane of the early V-100, twisted axles, is a long gone memory. They can have a variety of turrets meaning you can field multiple different mission vehicles on the same chassis, another big boon. A special point is that the best turret for T2K, the Textron One Metre Turret which features either a M209 or an M2HB and a Mk 19, was specifically created with this vehicle in mind. And even when carrying the 90mm low pressure gun they can still carry eight troops.

Of course, you pay for this in thin armour. It's only rated against 7.62mm AP. However the M1117 featured up-armour packages and anyone should be able to do this with applique and/or slat armour. The base armour is too thin for ERA though.

However you may not want to. The base V-150 is only 9,800kg, giving the players a relatively lightweight vehicle handy for getting over bad infrastructure. In my experience players only use their vehicles as fire support and not assault vehicles anyway, so send those grunts in to clear out the heavy weapons.

As an aside it'd make a great rail/road vehicle for railway campaigns.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

I don't know if anyone has posted this but the Cadillac Gage (now Textron) V-150 and V-200 are perfect for refurbishing into the Twilight War.

Firstly, they have a rugged simplicity that follows the maxim of "the less complexity = the higher reliability".

But more importantly the vehicles were specifically designed to use as many components of the M113 armoured personnel carrier and M939 series 5-ton 6×6 trucks as possible, greatly easing the problems with resupply, deployment and maintenance.

Both vehicles have benefitted from advances over the years and the bane of the early V-100, twisted axles, is a long gone memory. They can have a variety of turrets meaning you can field multiple different mission vehicles on the same chassis, another big boon. A special point is that the best turret for T2K, the Textron One Metre Turret which features either a M209 or an M2HB and a Mk 19, was specifically created with this vehicle in mind. And even when carrying the 90mm low pressure gun they can still carry eight troops.

Of course, you pay for this in thin armour. It's only rated against 7.62mm AP. However the M1117 featured up-armour packages and anyone should be able to do this with applique and/or slat armour. The base armour is too thin for ERA though.

However you may not want to. The base V-150 is only 9,800kg, giving the players a relatively lightweight vehicle handy for getting over bad infrastructure. In my experience players only use their vehicles as fire support and not assault vehicles anyway, so send those grunts in to clear out the heavy weapons.

As an aside it'd make a great rail/road vehicle for railway campaigns.

Twenty years ago, the military vehicle collector mag had both a V150 and an M1114 for sale in the classifieds.

[chico20854]

Here's an odd one out of mothballs: In 1972 Libya purchased 8 C-130s. By the time manufacturing was complete the Quadaffi regime's hostility to the US had led to an arms embargo, so the brand new aircraft (with spares aboard), painted desert tan, were placed in storage at the plant in Marietta Georgia. The State Department paid the storage fees and they remain there to this day; IRL when the arms embargo was lifted in 2009 the aircraft were more fit for the scrap heap than a refit. The Libyans, when they got the estimated cost, were no longer interested in the aircraft, and with the revolution in 2011 there was no resolution. (some details at http://www.marietta.com/libyas-c-130-hercules-aircraft)

In a v1 timeline I could see the aircraft, at the outbreak of war, being refurbished and sent into action, despite their terrible condition post-2000. (Supposedly the spares aboard, including complete engines, were pristine in 2007). Possible recipients would include the US, any of its allies that operated the C-130, and China and Iran.

[Matt Wiser]

Originally Posted by chico20854

Here's an odd one out of mothballs: In 1972 Libya purchased 8 C-130s. By the time manufacturing was complete the Quadaffi regime's hostility to the US had led to an arms embargo, so the brand new aircraft (with spares aboard), painted desert tan, were placed in storage at the plant in Marietta Georgia. The State Department paid the storage fees and they remain there to this day; IRL when the arms embargo was lifted in 2009 the aircraft were more fit for the scrap heap than a refit. The Libyans, when they got the estimated cost, were no longer interested in the aircraft, and with the revolution in 2011 there was no resolution. (some details at http://www.marietta.com/libyas-c-130-hercules-aircraft)

In a v1 timeline I could see the aircraft, at the outbreak of war, being refurbished and sent into action, despite their terrible condition post-2000. (Supposedly the spares aboard, including complete engines, were pristine in 2007). Possible recipients would include the US, any of its allies that operated the C-130, and China and Iran.

The order was for 16, and the full $100 million paid. Eight had been delivered when the above-mentioned embargo was imposed. Those eight in Georgia, if in any shape in 1996-7, would be refurbished and the USAF likely getting first crack at them to replace attrition. FYI they were H models.

[Ursus Maior]

Sounds reasonable, especially if Colonel Gaddafi would choose to side with the Neo Soviets of the Twilight War, which wouldn't be unlikely to happen. At that point the US government might just decide to disown Libya as part of general warfare.

[.45cultist]

Remembering the salad days, in the 1990's, TT33's, SKS's and Mosins were cheap and plentiful, with the exception of the SKS that took AK mags. Even now, in the KC metro, .30-06 is hard to find, but 7.62X54R is common!

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

Sounds reasonable, especially if Colonel Gaddafi would choose to side with the Neo Soviets of the Twilight War, which wouldn't be unlikely to happen. At that point the US government might just decide to disown Libya as part of general warfare.

They got nailed big time in the V1 and V2.2 timelines - the V1 Med Cruise doesnt go into a lot of detail but Libya definitely sounds like it got a pretty good nuking at the hands of someone

and in V2.2 in the East Africa canon I detailed Libya's participation in the war - including their attacking Egypt and taking out the Aswan Dam after the Soviets nuked several refineries in Egypt and then launching an invasion - and the US paying them back with multiple nuke hits including ones that stopped their invasion forces in their tracks

i.e.

December 9, 1997

Taking advantage of the chaos gripping Egypt, Libya launches an attack by Tu-22 bombers against the Aswan Dam, causing the dam to collapse and send a wall of water down the Nile, drowning hundreds of thousands of Egyptians and displacing even more. The attack destroys most of what electrical power was still being generated in Egypt after the nuclear attacks. Libyan tank formations cross into Egypt and head east against pitiful resistance.

Dec 10, 1997

Multiple nuclear strikes hit pro-Soviet Algeria and Libya hard, destroying refineries, oil fields and ports, cutting off almost all oil production and in the process causing nearly seven million casualties. The cities of Tripoli, Skikda (Philippeville), Algiers, Arzew, Ra's Lanuf, Zawiya, Benghazi and Oran have all been targeted in the attacks. The attacks on Algeria incense the French government and many of its people who still think of that country as being part of France. Libyan armored formations that had crossed the Egyptian border are devastated by three tactical nuclear warheads, knocking out over 80 percent of the tanks and APC’s and sending the survivors fleeing back towards Libya.

[tanksoldier]

When I was at OTAG in Sacramento, the 2nd Street Armory had barrels of M1903s and M1911s sitting in cosmoline, along with ammunition and various other things. They were originally given to teh state by the US Army during WWII when every state's National Guard had been mobilized and incorporated into the Regular Army. They were intended to arm the various state militias and defense forces that formed to replace the missing Guard units.

In about 1998 they decided to dispose of most of it, with the vast majority being demilled and recycled. That decision would not have been made in most of the T2K timelines, and I'd expect that in the post war era many rear echelon formations to be armed with M1903s.

Also, Sierra Army Depot has been mentioned. In the mid-1990s many strange things could be found in dark corners of many Army equipment depots and warehouses.

The Soviets never threw anything away, and had several WWII-era division sets of equipment stored, maintained and ready to go... tanks, artillery, small arms, ammo, trucks, uniforms, everything... as well as later divisional sets... 1950s, 1960s, etc.

Keep in mind the Soviet reserve systems wasn't like ours. They didn't do the "one weekend a month/ two weeks per year" like we do. Most Soviet youth were conscripted, spent 2 years training, then went home and never saw the military again. Their NCOs were largely conscripts from the same year group who showed leadership potential or other factors... bt they were really no more experienced than their peers... much like our "noncommissioned officer candidate school" of the Vietnam era.

The Soviet reserve plan was that conscripts from a particular period were kept together and on mobilization they would fall in on a divisional set of equipment appropriate for when they were conscripted. As they and their equipment got older, they were bumped down the readiness lists until they were completely too old for service... I think when the youngest conscripts in the group reached 60 or something they were completely removed from mobilization charts... but until then they were kept organized on paper as a "division" based on geographical loction and assigned a particular divisional set of equipment, which most never saw.

However when the division was finally "retired" the equipment was retained. The plan at that point was, in the evet of extended war, new units would be conscripted train and fall in on the old equipment. So, in theory, new 16 year old conscripts could have been trained and deployed with T34s and other WWII era equipment.

It's not that they may be easier to maintain, technology-wise. It's that they require so much more of it the older they get. It's easy to troubleshoot and replace an LRU on new kit. When you have to half-step down to the circuit card or the mechanical subassembly and then physically repair it, it is infinitely more difficult and time-consuming, even if the equipment is easier to understand and repairs can be done with a screwdriver and wrench but takes 4 hrs instead of 15 minutes - when you have a fleet of vehicles you are maintaining.

True to an extent, but also not.

It is possible to machine, forge or cast anything a T34 need to function in combat in post-war T2K. Nobody is making black boxes for M1A1s or T80s in T2K's 2001.

Repairing modern equipment is easier IF you have the parts, but impossible without them. In the modern US Army, going back to at least 1990, nobody at the line level "fixes" M1 engines. If there is a problem, except for a few specific replacement parts, you replace the engine entirely and ship the broken one to a depot for fixing. Tank battalion mait platoons carry those few parts that can be replaced, and entire engines. That's it. When there are no more engines, there is almost nothing that a battalion, brigade or even divisional maint shop can do to fix the M1's engine... and nobody is forging turbine blades anywhere but the factory.

ICE engines are different, but fire control computers and such are not. You replace black boxes, or it stays broken. Even engines with computer controls are iffy to fix in a shade tree environment.

T34s, M46 and M47... even M48 and M48A1 can mostly be fixed with a basic machine shop and a hot enough fire. By 2002ish the old WWII equipment would likely rule the battlefield of T2K, and M1s and T80s would be reduced to immobile gun emplacements operating in emergency manual mode.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

When I was at OTAG in Sacramento, the 2nd Street Armory had barrels of M1903s and M1911s sitting in cosmoline, along with ammunition and various other things. They were originally given to teh state by the US Army during WWII when every state's National Guard had been mobilized and incorporated into the Regular Army. They were intended to arm the various state militias and defense forces that formed to replace the missing Guard units.

In about 1998 they decided to dispose of most of it, with the vast majority being demilled and recycled. That decision would not have been made in most of the T2K timelines, and I'd expect that in the post war era many rear echelon formations to be armed with M1903s.

Also, Sierra Army Depot has been mentioned. In the mid-1990s many strange things could be found in dark corners of many Army equipment depots and warehouses.

The Soviets never threw anything away, and had several WWII-era division sets of equipment stored, maintained and ready to go... tanks, artillery, small arms, ammo, trucks, uniforms, everything... as well as later divisional sets... 1950s, 1960s, etc.

Keep in mind the Soviet reserve systems wasn't like ours. They didn't do the "one weekend a month/ two weeks per year" like we do. Most Soviet youth were conscripted, spent 2 years training, then went home and never saw the military again. Their NCOs were largely conscripts from the same year group who showed leadership potential or other factors... bt they were really no more experienced than their peers... much like our "noncommissioned officer candidate school" of the Vietnam era.

The Soviet reserve plan was that conscripts from a particular period were kept together and on mobilization they would fall in on a divisional set of equipment appropriate for when they were conscripted. As they and their equipment got older, they were bumped down the readiness lists until they were completely too old for service... I think when the youngest conscripts in the group reached 60 or something they were completely removed from mobilization charts... but until then they were kept organized on paper as a "division" based on geographical loction and assigned a particular divisional set of equipment, which most never saw.

However when the division was finally "retired" the equipment was retained. The plan at that point was, in the evet of extended war, new units would be conscripted train and fall in on the old equipment. So, in theory, new 16 year old conscripts could have been trained and deployed with T34s and other WWII era equipment.



True to an extent, but also not.

It is possible to machine, forge or cast anything a T34 need to function in combat in post-war T2K. Nobody is making black boxes for M1A1s or T80s in T2K's 2001.

Repairing modern equipment is easier IF you have the parts, but impossible without them. In the modern US Army, going back to at least 1990, nobody at the line level "fixes" M1 engines. If there is a problem, except for a few specific replacement parts, you replace the engine entirely and ship the broken one to a depot for fixing. Tank battalion mait platoons carry those few parts that can be replaced, and entire engines. That's it. When there are no more engines, there is almost nothing that a battalion, brigade or even divisional maint shop can do to fix the M1's engine... and nobody is forging turbine blades anywhere but the factory.

ICE engines are different, but fire control computers and such are not. You replace black boxes, or it stays broken. Even engines with computer controls are iffy to fix in a shade tree environment.

T34s, M46 and M47... even M48 and M48A1 can mostly be fixed with a basic machine shop and a hot enough fire. By 2002ish the old WWII equipment would likely rule the battlefield of T2K, and M1s and T80s would be reduced to immobile gun emplacements operating in emergency manual mode.

Also keep in mind that there are museums and collectors who have a ton of parts, manuals, etc. for older equipment and could help keep it going - including Jacques Littlefield in California who literally rebuilt tanks and armored vehicles that were wrecks then they arrived into operational status - and he had live barrels on many of his vehicles. He literally restored a Panther that had been sitting underwater since WWII - given that he could easily keep an old Sherman going from a collector or Arnold's tank for that matter.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Also keep in mind that there are museums and collectors who have a ton of parts, manuals, etc. for older equipment and could help keep it going - including Jacques Littlefield in California who literally rebuilt tanks and armored vehicles that were wrecks then they arrived into operational status - and he had live barrels on many of his vehicles. He literally restored a Panther that had been sitting underwater since WWII - given that he could easily keep an old Sherman going from a collector or Arnold's tank for that matter.

It's one thing to keep a single Panther or a couple of Shermans running in peacetime; it's quite another to keep larger stocks of older AFVs in fighting shape under post-apocalyptic combat conditions.

Reposted from #14 upthread:

To clarify the OP, I was addressing the deployment of relatively large stocks of mothballed weaponry, not so much one-offs like museum collections. The main issue that I see with the latter is a lack of spare parts and expertise re operation, maintenance, and upkeep. If anyone would like to discuss museum exhibits returning to combat, here are a couple of threads that address that topic specifically:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....ht=littlefield

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....ht=littlefield

-

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

It's one thing to keep a single Panther or a couple of Shermans running in peacetime; it's quite another to keep larger stocks of older AFVs in fighting shape under post-apocalyptic combat conditions.

Reposted from #14 upthread:

To clarify the OP, I was addressing the deployment of relatively large stocks of mothballed weaponry, not so much one-offs like museum collections. The main issue that I see with the latter is a lack of spare parts and expertise re operation, maintenance, and upkeep. If anyone would like to discuss museum exhibits returning to combat, here are a couple of threads that address that topic specifically:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....ht=littlefield

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....ht=littlefield

-

Actually I will just add that if anyone could get multiple vehicles up and running and support a decent force of armor - and keep in mind by July 2000 that basically means 3-5 vehicles for a whole division - it would be Littlefield - damn did he have a lot of equipment and spare parts - and his collection of armor was bigger than a lot of countries have

[Olefin]

Was reading about Cuban tanks and found out that Cuba still had 40 IS-2M tanks in useable storage at the time of the Twilight War. Definitely an interesting tank to run into.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Was reading about Cuban tanks and found out that Cuba still had 40 IS-2M tanks in useable storage at the time of the Twilight War. Definitely an interesting tank to run into.

Good find. An unexpected encounter for a CONUS campaign, for sure!

Of course, I can't find it right now, but I recall reading that the USSR kept a sizeable stock of IS-3 tanks for use in the static border defense role. I imagine these would be dusted off and sent to the front lines once Soviet tank factories were put out of commission.

According to Wikipedia, "In 2014, an IS-3 was captured by the Armed Forces of Ukraine near the city of Donetsk from pro-Russian rebels. Footage of the tank being reactivated by the rebels circulated online, showing the tank being successfully started and driven off its plinth at a memorial in the city of Kostiantynivka, Donetsk Oblast."

-

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Was reading about Cuban tanks and found out that Cuba still had 40 IS-2M tanks in useable storage at the time of the Twilight War. Definitely an interesting tank to run into.

Are you sure those were still usable? IISS' The Military Balance 1997 (p. 215) lists them as static defence [notice the European spelling] artillery together with T-34s and SU-100s. Though there were also T-34s fielded as MBTs as per the report (together with T-54, T-55 and T-62), no IS-2 are mentioned under the MBT section. That doesn't mean they couldn't have been restored to working conditions, though. It just means, they weren't in a working condition.

As per IISS' The Military Balance of 1989 (p. 190), these IS-2 hadn't been in working condition for quite some time: In this issue, "some 15 JS-2" had already been used as static defence artillery by that time. It might be worth noting that in the 1989-1990 timeframe, no T-34s were listed under the "MBT" section and some 150 T-54/-55 were listed as in store or static coast defence, whereas the 1997 issue clearly puts the T-34 under the MBT category and no T-54/-55 are listed as "in store or static coast defence".

So, either Cuba actually reactivated an unknown number of T-34s and up to 150 T-54/-55 from static duty following the collapse of the Soviet Union or IISS figures turned out to be inaccurate after the end of Cuba's patron state. Either way, the IS-2s probably weren't active for quite some time, once the Twilight War started. A intermittent reactivation during the 1990s can also be excluded, I checked the 1994-1995 (combined) issue of IISS' The Military Balance and found the same 15 IS-2 being on static duty as before and after.

I'd say, heavy tanks were pretty much dead during the 1990s, except for the occasional museum pieces, including some IS-3. The only exception being IS-2 and IS-3 that were used by South Ossetian forces and Georgian forces respectively during the low-intesity conflicts of the decade. Of course, who knows really what equipment mobilization only divisions of the Soviet Army would have fielded and how long it would have taken the Soviets to bring that type of equipment back into action. This is pretty much fantasy novel artistic license reigning here as almost nothing is known about Soviet deep mobilization plans including spare parts in depots or the tools to produce them. It could be these divisions would have been available with a somewhat unified TOE after a year or so or one would see Studebakers, BTR-40s and T-34s in homeopathic dosages next to Mosin Nagants, PPSh-41 and VAZ-2101 Zhigulis for transport.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

Are you sure those were still usable? IISS' The Military Balance 1997 (p. 215) lists them as static defence [notice the European spelling] artillery together with T-34s and SU-100s. Though there were also T-34s fielded as MBTs as per the report (together with T-54, T-55 and T-62), no IS-2 are mentioned under the MBT section. That doesn't mean they couldn't have been restored to working conditions, though. It just means, they weren't in a working condition.

As per IISS' The Military Balance of 1989 (p. 190), these IS-2 hadn't been in working condition for quite some time: In this issue, "some 15 JS-2" had already been used as static defence artillery by that time. It might be worth noting that in the 1989-1990 timeframe, no T-34s were listed under the "MBT" section and some 150 T-54/-55 were listed as in store or static coast defence, whereas the 1997 issue clearly puts the T-34 under the MBT category and no T-54/-55 are listed as "in store or static coast defence".

So, either Cuba actually reactivated an unknown number of T-34s and up to 150 T-54/-55 from static duty following the collapse of the Soviet Union or IISS figures turned out to be inaccurate after the end of Cuba's patron state. Either way, the IS-2s probably weren't active for quite some time, once the Twilight War started. A intermittent reactivation during the 1990s can also be excluded, I checked the 1994-1995 (combined) issue of IISS' The Military Balance and found the same 15 IS-2 being on static duty as before and after.

I'd say, heavy tanks were pretty much dead during the 1990s, except for the occasional museum pieces, including some IS-3. The only exception being IS-2 and IS-3 that were used by South Ossetian forces and Georgian forces respectively during the low-intesity conflicts of the decade. Of course, who knows really what equipment mobilization only divisions of the Soviet Army would have fielded and how long it would have taken the Soviets to bring that type of equipment back into action. This is pretty much fantasy novel artistic license reigning here as almost nothing is known about Soviet deep mobilization plans including spare parts in depots or the tools to produce them. It could be these divisions would have been available with a somewhat unified TOE after a year or so or one would see Studebakers, BTR-40s and T-34s in homeopathic dosages next to Mosin Nagants, PPSh-41 and VAZ-2101 Zhigulis for transport.

The Soviets were using them as bunkers and for coastal defense but also still had ones that were mobile as well into the late 80’s and early 90’s. It may be a question more of V1 versus V2.2. The V1 world where the Cold War never ended is one where the Soviets and Cubans never went thru the draw downs that would have occurred in V2.2. In a V1 scenario I could easily see the Cubans still having the T34 and IS-2M’s ready to go as needed instead of being used for static defense by the time of the war.

By the way I always like Cuba as a place Mexico could have gotten armor for their army from - i.e. Cuba needs oil, Mexico needs armor (keep in mind they were still operating Stuart tanks in the 90's) - T34-85's and IS-2M's would be a pretty good buy for them (considering that a lot of Central American and South American countries at the time were operating old WWII and early Cold War armor) in exchange for oil for Cuba

[lordroel]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Was reading about Cuban tanks and found out that Cuba still had 40 IS-2M tanks in useable storage at the time of the Twilight War. Definitely an interesting tank to run into.

Well if it can shoot it can kill.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Olefin

The Soviets were using them as bunkers and for coastal defense but also still had ones that were mobile as well into the late 80’s and early 90’s. It may be a question more of V1 versus V2.2. The V1 world where the Cold War never ended is one where the Soviets and Cubans never went thru the draw downs that would have occurred in V2.2. In a V1 scenario I could easily see the Cubans still having the T34 and IS-2M’s ready to go as needed instead of being used for static defense by the time of the war.

Well, as I have written above, the Cubans hadn't kept the IS-2Ms in a running condition by 1989 already, and likely earlier. The Soviets did neither, at least not in Cuba - where there was only one brigade stationed at the end of the Cold War - or in European Russia. Running IS-2 only reappeared in break-off areas of break-off states after the collapse of the USSR. These beasts were really rare and old by the 1980s. Also, they hadn't been produced in numbers comparable to the T-34/85 medium tanks and were too slow for Soviet doctrine after the 1960s.

Could a post Twilight War Cuba, Mexico or Soviet remnant state field a couple of them? Yes, sure, why not. But it's not going to be a sizeable and likely only a company in total, divided into platoons or even single tanks over a wider area. But hey, it's a mobile 122 mm gun, so it will likely make an impression by 2000.

[ChalkLine]

Something to remember with Soviet legacy vehicles is that the sights, periscopes and so on tended to be smaller in the armour penetration than earlier versions. This means you can generally cannibalise a periscope off a T-72 and jam it into a T-10 with a simple adaptor plate.

What I'm getting at is that GMs shouldn't assume that the old vehicles have old radios, periscopes and attendant night vision systems, gunnery sights, subsidiary weapons, smoke launchers and all that junk. That all might be pretty modern because it makes more sense to drop that into a hull you're getting ready to refurbish than try and sources parts for old stuff.

Also the older stuff tended to be fairly thick in the armour department, thick enough to take substantial ERA packages.

As to engines, keeping an old clapped-out clunker from the 1950s makes little sense if you have spares from more modern vehicles in store. Not only are they more powerful but they are also lighter. Swapping an engine isn't as difficult as many people might think.

When I put these vehicles into play I like to make whole new vehicles out of them rather than use some old nostalgia vehicle. Not only is it a fun exercise and really they only turn up rarely but also it keeps the players guessing. Especially when the T-43/85 has a radar sight

[Raellus]

Being as Sweden is a featured setting of v4, you might want to check out the Terrängbil m/42D SKP (aka the KP-bil).

Technically, this AFV wasn't mothballed yet in the 1990s (IRL), but this ugly beast was originally fielded in 1943 (!), so I think it qualifies. It's essentially an armored truck based-APC. Later versions fielded in the 1990s had MG mounts, armored tops, smoke grenade launchers, and firing ports for passengers.

https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/w..._m-42D_SKP.php

-

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Being as Sweden is a featured setting of v4, you might want to check out the Terrängbil m/42D SKP (aka the KP-bil).

Technically, this AFV wasn't mothballed yet in the 1990s (IRL), but this ugly beast was originally fielded in 1943 (!), so I think it qualifies. It's essentially an armored truck based-APC. Later versions fielded in the 1990s had MG mounts, armored tops, smoke grenade launchers, and firing ports for passengers.

https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/w..._m-42D_SKP.php

-

Ok this officially qualifies as a very cool find

[Ursus Maior]

On that note, the Dominican Republic had Landsverk L-60 "light" tanks in service until 2002. The model was contemporary to other light tanks of early World War Two, like the German Panzerkampfwagen II, Panzerkampfwagen 35(t), US M2, Polish 7TP or Soviet T-26.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsverk_L-60

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

On that note, the Dominican Republic had Landsverk L-60 "light" tanks in service until 2002. The model was contemporary to other light tanks of early World War Two, like the German Panzerkampfwagen II, Panzerkampfwagen 35(t), US M2, Polish 7TP or Soviet T-26.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsverk_L-60

I was watching a documentary on the Military Channel yesterday; the US Marines knocked out two of these with Super Bazookas during the Dominican Intervention in 1965.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I was watching a documentary on the Military Channel; the US Marines knocked out two of these with Super Bazookas during the Dominican Intervention in 1965.

and one of them tried to take on a USMC tank - which didnt work out for them at all - also the only tank kills the Ontos had I think happened in the Dominican

"The most-thinly documented incident is a reported exchange of fire between a massively outgunned L-60 and a Marine Patton tank. The eight-ton L-60, armed with a 37-millimeter gun, could hardly have dented the armor of the 50-ton Patton. The same cannot be said for the Patton’s 90-millimeter cannon, which “disintegrated” the smaller vehicle.

Another L-60 was knocked out by a Marine M-50 Ontos anti-tank vehicle. These unique vehicles bristled with six heavy 106-millimeter recoilless rifles —each had to be individually reloaded after taking a shot.

The Ontos was definitely a “shoot-and-scoot” vehicle — it was so thinly armored that an L-60 might actually have damaged one. An Ontos is also credited with blowing the turret off a rebel AMX-13.

This was the first combat employment for both the Ontos and M-48 — they went on to see extensive use in Vietnam — and the only time the Ontos was used in the role it was designed for, fighting enemy tanks" - https://warisboring.com/in-1965-u-s-...nt-skirmishes/

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I was watching a documentary on the Military Channel yesterday; the US Marines knocked out two of these with Super Bazookas during the Dominican Intervention in 1965.

Indeed they did. What fascinates me most, is that the Dominicans actually bought tanks - that didn't usually happen in the Caribbean very often - and then chose to kept them almost 40 years after the intervention.

Pre-war tank models were worlds apart from what was fielded at the end of WW2. The Dominicans also fielded about a company of Pansarbil m/39 "Lynx" armored cars and French AMX-13 light tanks each, the latter of which were rather state of the art by 1965.

On a side note, I think there were actually three L60 destroyed by US Marines and members of the 82nd Airborne Division. One by a M40 recoilless rifle, one by a M50 Ontos and one by a M48 Patton.