Ad Hoc AFVs

[Raellus]

I think one would see a lot of turretless tank chassis being repurposed as APCs in the T2kU.

First off, the original tracked APCs of WW2, like the Canadian "Kangaroo" Sherman [field] conversion, were based on turretless tanks. So the historical precedent is there.

Second, they currently exist in the real world and, from most reports, are quite effective- in some cases, more so even than purpose-built APCs!

https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/c...hzarit_APC.php

Europe would be lousy with T-55 (and other "T" models) hulls during the Twilight War. Why not put them to use, other than as spare parts?

Third, the process of converting MBTs to APCs would be manageable pretty much throughout the Twilight War. As mentioned, the Sherman "Kangaroo" was a field conversion, so factories need not even enter the equation.

Turrets are problematic. As global supply chains break down in the wake of the TDM, more complex components, like optics, stabilizers, traverse systems, etc. would become unavailable (both because production of new components would cease, and repair of damaged or worn components would become impossible). So, if a turret get's damaged, it could be discarded, and the chassis converted to an ersatz APC. Slap on a few pintle mounts and a bit of a gunwale and boom, there you go!

-

Late in the Twilight war, I think main gun ammo will be so rare that anywhere a welder can mount a pintle mount, they will mount a pintle mount. I mean, realistically, on a NATO MBT, you might see one primary mount with a NATO .50 or 7.62 NATO weapon system and an adhoc 'field welded expedient mount ' over a loader hatch and on APCs, air guard positions. In many cases, late in the war, those will have PACT GPMG mount.

https://i.imgflip.com/5zng9l.jpg

[micromachine]

I can see this happening in our world now without the consideration of fuel, lubrication and maintenance.
In a T2K world, it would be wasteful to do so, as all of the above would be in short supply or non-existent. Time is better spent on something that will get you more food, ammo, fuel or manpower.
I think the few tanks that do exist, will be used as tanks until they are burned out or have the fatal mobility failure. in either case, they would be stripped of any surviving components, to be cached away for another day.
I can see the chassis being used as impromptu assault guns, with cobbled together armor and any available heavy weapon mounted haphazardly on the chassis (think pz I converted to the siG33),with even sandbags and concrete as the casemate.
Cool idea, but not viable for a unit living hand to mouth or even hand in mouth!

[pmulcahy11b]

Maybe that's why I drive a 16-year-old minivan. It has really, really low miles (less than 44,000), it's mechanically sound (except the the air conditioner), and I can put all my dogs in it at once.

I'm probably going to trade it in soon though. Not this year, because of the supply chain and silicon chip problems. Possibly next year or the year afterwards. It'll be a good car for a starving college student who needs cheap, reliable transportation. (Except for the aforementioned air conditioner; this will be the fourth time I've had to get it fixed.)

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by micromachine

I can see the chassis being used as impromptu assault guns, with cobbled together armor and any available heavy weapon mounted haphazardly on the chassis (think pz I converted to the siG33),with even sandbags and concrete as the casemate.

Wouldn't converting a turretless MBT chassis into an assault gun require a lot more resources than turning it into an APC would? In the case of the former, you've got to add a bunch of stuff (gun, sights, stabilization system, and secure ammo storage, to name the biggies). For the latter, you really don't have to add much at all.

-

[pmulcahy11b]

I saw a picture of a jury-rigged BMP-2 turret to a Land Rover. I don't know how much of any of it worked. But that picture made me think, "If you try hard enough, you can do anything with anything..."

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I saw a picture of a jury-rigged BMP-2 turret to a Land Rover. I don't know how much of any of it worked. But that picture made me think, "If you try hard enough, you can do anything with anything..."

I've got a half-full list of light turrets, their weights and dimensions for making frankenvehicles

[unipus]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I saw a picture of a jury-rigged BMP-2 turret to a Land Rover. I don't know how much of any of it worked. But that picture made me think, "If you try hard enough, you can do anything with anything..."

There are a LOT of BMP 1 and 2 turrets stuck to pretty much everything in the Middle East right now. I've seen them on other APCs, humvees, trailer beds, tractors, and more.

The logic is that the weapons are useful but the vehicles are mechanically expensive/difficult to keep operating outside of units with the logistic train to do so. This is a logic that pays well when it comes to T2K. I'm tucking away a horse-drawn Sagger platform for a rainy day encounter.

[Ursus Maior]

I've been saying this for a while now: Once modern first-tier mechanized forces go away, combat becomes less mobile. Then older weapon systems or those not mounted on adequate, stable platforms become relevant (again). An AFV turret on a truck is complete nonsensical in mechanized or any other high intensity conflict. However, for operations in enclosed areas, a truck with an armored cabin just needs to sit on a street intersection and can guard that with pretty heavy weaponry available.

Of course, you still need to protect its flanks and once the enemy manages to position even the lightest armor-defeating weapon in line of sight, such a truck will have to move out or risk getting destroyed. Losses with improvised forces will always be higher, as protection is far harder to achieve than penetration power since the inception of HEAT-projectile launchers. However, replacements are also much easier to come by. We see from the recent Middle Eastern and North African conflicts, how volatile these warzones can become and how long they can keep burning. Ultimately, what one needs is the proliferation of resources, both human and weapons, nothing more.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

I've been saying this for a while now: Once modern first-tier mechanized forces go away, combat becomes less mobile.

Precisely, and that's why anything that can improve troops survivability during movement under fire would probably be seen as worth the resources and effort.

That's why MBT to APC conversions makes sense, as long as turrets are in short supply.

Turretless MBT APCs have a couple of advantages over purpose-built APCs and IFVs. Their low profile makes them more difficult to spot and hit. Protection from the effects of AT weapons is pretty good. The troops are protected by front hits by think armor and the driver's position. They're protected from flank shots by the wheels, tracks, side skirts. And they're protected from rear shots by the engine. Furthermore, by the time these conversions would be taking to the field, modern ATGMs would be in short supply, and there would be fewer hostile MBTs around as well.

Of course, turretless MBTs also have some major disadvantages. Lack of top cover makes the dismounts extremely vulnerable to airburst shells. Having to dismount/remount by climbing up over the hull makes the dismounts vulnerable to direct fire and shrapnel. Lastly, turretless APCs have less firepower than most purpose-built APCs and all IFVs.

[ChalkLine]

A study found that in non-desert warfare 70% of strikes hit the turret meaning you'll likely get a large amount of salvageable chassis out there.

[Brit]

Was done to a Comet: "The Headless Coachman"

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.p...less-coachman/

First post has details and a scale plan. (Needs a gunshield?)

[Raellus]

Nice find, Brit.

Definitely another option for tank chassis without turrets after the TDM is the SP AT role. Just slap a TOW or Milan or whatever on there and BOOM, there you go.

-

[bash]

Originally Posted by Spartan-117

Late in the Twilight war, I think main gun ammo will be so rare that anywhere a welder can mount a pintle mount, they will mount a pintle mount. I mean, realistically, on a NATO MBT, you might see one primary mount with a NATO .50 or 7.62 NATO weapon system and an adhoc 'field welded expedient mount ' over a loader hatch and on APCs, air guard positions. In many cases, late in the war, those will have PACT GPMG mount.

https://i.imgflip.com/5zng9l.jpg

I'm definitely Team Truck Covered with Pintle Mounts. While a tank or APC chassis will definitely be better armored than a truck with pintle mounts it's going to be so much more resource intensive and slower. A truck can shoot and scoot and make itself hard to target. A tank chassis will suck down fuel and isn't going to be able to get away from the bad guys quite as quick.

Even without a turret a tank chassis is going to be pretty heavy. How many miles will tank treads last even with the lighter load? Is the fuel usage worth the extra armor?

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by bash

I'm definitely Team Truck Covered with Pintle Mounts. While a tank or APC chassis will definitely be better armored than a truck with pintle mounts it's going to be so much more resource intensive and slower. A truck can shoot and scoot and make itself hard to target. A tank chassis will suck down fuel and isn't going to be able to get away from the bad guys quite as quick.

Even without a turret a tank chassis is going to be pretty heavy. How many miles will tank treads last even with the lighter load? Is the fuel usage worth the extra armor?

All good points. Gun trucks definitely have advantages, but one major knock against them is that they are pretty much road-bound. Besides better armor, a converted tank chassis APC would have superior cross-country mobility.

It boils down to what it's going to be used for. If it's convoy escort or troop transport on decent roads, then trucks are the smart pick. But if the need is for a vehicle that can transport troops, under direct fire, off-road, then a tank chassis APC conversion is the better choice.

-

[Brit]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Definitely another option for tank chassis without turrets after the TDM is the SP AT role. Just slap a TOW or Milan or whatever on there and BOOM, there you go. -

"A variant of Spartan was also proposed with the TOW Missile" or what could have been done "in the field". - https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/spartan-tow-missile-2/

(From: https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/briti...the-seventies/ )

[Brit]

Probably pics seen...

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/11/2...-m113-gallery/

[bash]

Originally Posted by Raellus

But if the need is for a vehicle that can transport troops, under direct fire, off-road, then a tank chassis APC conversion is the better choice.
-

I completely agree with this under normal circumstances. In T2K I think the calculus is a bit different.

1. Tracked AFVs have pretty high maintenance needs. Even if you've got the supplies and technical ability to maintain them that's a lot of effort for slow fuel guzzling armor.
2. AFVs would have been the main targets during the main fighting of the war. By the time of the game they'll be pretty rare.
3. Even after the major fighting has died down, at the time of the game an AFV would be definitely be the targets worth spending an equally rare anti-armor weapon on.

The resources required to keep tracked AFVs running will put a strain on any group post-TDM. Their benefits will be greatly outweighed by their cost.

[Ursus Maior]

I concur, in a post-collapse and post-war setting, gun-trucks will be the mainstay of armored forces. Quite likely, mass-produced first generation APCs on truck-basis will be highly sought after, such as the BTR-40 and BTR-152. The latter having been produced in the USSR until 1962 and probably as long in China (as Type 56). The basis for late production BTR-152 was the ubiquitous ZIL-157 6x6 truck, historically produced until 1994. So spare parts and replacement will be easily available and common as much as these words still apply in T2K.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by bash

I completely agree with this under normal circumstances. In T2K I think the calculus is a bit different.

1. Tracked AFVs have pretty high maintenance needs. Even if you've got the supplies and technical ability to maintain them that's a lot of effort for slow fuel guzzling armor.
2. AFVs would have been the main targets during the main fighting of the war. By the time of the game they'll be pretty rare.
3. Even after the major fighting has died down, at the time of the game an AFV would be definitely be the targets worth spending an equally rare anti-armor weapon on.

The resources required to keep tracked AFVs running will put a strain on any group post-TDM. Their benefits will be greatly outweighed by their cost.

Absolutely. I'm not arguing that ad-hoc tracked APCs would be common c.2000, only that there would likely be a fair number of them taking the field in the year or two following the strategic nuclear exchanges, when the ability to make new turrets and or repair old ones would have been effectively lost. At that point in the war, I don't think it's likely that serviceable chassis would simply be left to rust (or only cannibalized for spare parts).

Also, your points are true of all tracked AFVs. We know from the T2k vehicle guides that various tracked MBTs, IFVs, and other AFVs are still operational/operating in 2000, so chances are good there'd be a few ad-hoc tracked APCs out there as well.

-

[unipus]

Is there any version of the game that actually accounts for varying maintenance requirements (between specific vehicle types, or just generally tracks vs wheels, etc)? I can't recall having seen it but it's sort of an important concern!

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by unipus

Is there any version of the game that actually accounts for varying maintenance requirements (between specific vehicle types, or just generally tracks vs wheels, etc)? I can't recall having seen it but it's sort of an important concern!

Vehicles have a Maintenance Time Required rating (the Maint figure on the charts), which is the amount of hours required per week that must be spent to keep the vehicle in running order.

Individual vehicles also have a Wear Value of 1-10, which both increases the number of hours of Maint required and increases Breakdown chances. Failure to do the proper amount of Maint (which includes PMCS, fixing problems, and replacing parts as needed) will increase the Wear Value, until the vehicle reaches a Wear Value of 10, after which so many things are broken that the vehicle would require a major overhaul just to get it moving again. Better to use the vehicle for spare parts, whether you use them or sell them.

[Homer]

Where would you rate the wear value of a recovered vehicle coming out of depot overhaul after repair?

I’m thinking of the bit from “Team Yankee” when 2LT Avery is issued a recovered and repaired M1. New to them, except the burn marks and bloodstains…

[Targan]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Vehicles have a Maintenance Time Required rating (the Maint figure on the charts), which is the amount of hours required per week that must be spent to keep the vehicle in running order.

Individual vehicles also have a Wear Value of 1-10, which both increases the number of hours of Maint required and increases Breakdown chances.

Indeed, it was a fundamental part of the 1st edition rules.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Homer

Where would you rate the wear value of a recovered vehicle coming out of depot overhaul after repair?

I’m thinking of the bit from “Team Yankee” when 2LT Avery is issued a recovered and repaired M1. New to them, except the burn marks and bloodstains…

Depot-level overhauls would give vehicles a Wear Value of 1. A vehicle coming out of 3rd echelon repair (which would be 2LT Avery's vehicle) would have a Wear Value of 2-4, depending how extensive the repairs were able to be carried out. (If there's burn marks and bloodstains, there would have been at least one penetrating hit on the vehicle, which would tend to raise the Wear Value.)

3rd-Echelon Maintenance is a Division-level asset, which means it is in the extreme rear of the Division's AOR, and well-protected.

[unipus]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Vehicles have a Maintenance Time Required rating (the Maint figure on the charts), which is the amount of hours required per week that must be spent to keep the vehicle in running order.

Individual vehicles also have a Wear Value of 1-10, which both increases the number of hours of Maint required and increases Breakdown chances. Failure to do the proper amount of Maint (which includes PMCS, fixing problems, and replacing parts as needed) will increase the Wear Value, until the vehicle reaches a Wear Value of 10, after which so many things are broken that the vehicle would require a major overhaul just to get it moving again. Better to use the vehicle for spare parts, whether you use them or sell them.

Hm, not sure how I forgot about that but of course you're right.

[Homer]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Depot-level overhauls would give vehicles a Wear Value of 1. A vehicle coming out of 3rd echelon repair (which would be 2LT Avery's vehicle) would have a Wear Value of 2-4, depending how extensive the repairs were able to be carried out. (If there's burn marks and bloodstains, there would have been at least one penetrating hit on the vehicle, which would tend to raise the Wear Value.)

3rd-Echelon Maintenance is a Division-level asset, which means it is in the extreme rear of the Division's AOR, and well-protected.

Thanks! I was thinking of hull/turret rebuilds and armor package maintenance similar to what was done at Mainz or Anniston. Definitely agree they’d be wear value 1 coming out of that. I don’t imagine that pipeline lasted much beyond 1997, although some hulks may have been shipped back in time to be rebuilt and returned.

I wonder how often you’d get turret “a” mated to hull “b” as 3d shop tries to regenerate combat power. Corps and higher units may maintain semi permanent cannibalization yards of deadlined vehicles just to enable the stripping and salvage of spares to assemble new runners. If 21st TAACOM still has capacity post 97 they could very easily become the lead for a USAREUR regeneration and rebuild program using their surviving facilities to repair as much salvage as possible within their capabilities.

[Ursus Maior]

I think all strategic maintenance and regeneration facilities would have been to be rebuild after the nuclear exchange in 1997. But in limited capacities, this would be possible in continental Europe and/or the US.

[Homer]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

I think all strategic maintenance and regeneration facilities would have been to be rebuild after the nuclear exchange in 1997. But in limited capacities, this would be possible in continental Europe and/or the US.

Agreed. Even though Anniston and Red River weren’t expressly targeted, EMP, civil disturbance, and shortages would probably cause them to grind to a halt. I’d imagine European based facilities are either destroyed or suffer similar fates. Still, there would have to be some residual capability to keep the war going. Even small things like reconditioning power packs, remanufacturing components, and calibration would be needed to maintain the ability to fight the battles of 1998 and later.

[Brit]

The Smithsonsian Channel repeated again a programme on Gun Trucks last night. I think this is a small part of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkc_9JwczaM