Ad Hoc AFVs

[Brit]

Another plastic model...

The Bratton or indeed Pratley...

https://www.whatifmodellers.com/inde...3312#msg623312

[Raellus]

The BMO-T is not an ad-hoc AFV, per se. It's a purpose-built specialist vehicle, but the BMO-T is yet another proof of concept of the turretless-tank-as-APC.

http://www.military-today.com/apc/bmo_t.htm

Although this source states it entered service in limited numbers in 2001, but there's nothing in its tech profile that would preclude it from appearing earlier in a conventional T2k timeline.

-

[Raellus]

From Ukraine, 4/17/23, a turretless UAF T-64 repurposed as some sort of assault APC. It appears the operators added some sort of light armored superstructure atop the chassis, to which they affixed blocks of Kontakt reactive armor.

[Ursus Maior]

They certainly do love their ERA bricks.

[Vespers War]

Given the multiple layers of ERA, it's probably Duplet. That one was designed to be applied in multiple layers, and the T-64E that was prototyped but not sold was fitted with Duplet, so it works on a T-64 hull. As I understand it, most ERA doesn't work well in multiple layers because the detonation of the top layer will damage or destroy underlying layers.

[Raellus]

Not sure where to put this, as it isn't really a gun truck, and I'm not sure it meets the rather broad definition of an AFV.

Behold, an "up-armored" AZ-452 ‘Bukhanka’ (‘bread loaf’) utility vehicle. It looks like sheet metal over some sort of foam.

I can imagine Soviet rear area security troops or marauders scooting around Poland in something like this.

[Bestbrian]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Not sure where to put this, as it isn't really a gun truck, and I'm not sure it meets the rather broad definition of an AFV.

Behold, an "up-armored" AZ-452 ‘Bukhanka’ (‘bread loaf’) utility vehicle. It looks like sheet metal over some sort of foam.

I can imagine Soviet rear area security troops or marauders scooting around Poland in something like this.

WTF?

[Tegyrius]

Well, now I know what a kei truck technical looks like.

- C.

[Raellus]

The Russians are sending turretless T-62s into battle as ad-hoc APCs.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=2acf61c31d63

They're also removing the crane and winch from T-54-based BTS-2 engineering vehicles in order to make room to carry troops.

The Russians still have the capability to mount turrets to these MBT hulls but, at least for some, they're choosing not to. Therefore, it stands to reason that, in the Twilight War, when industry is ravaged by nuclear war, it would be common practice to convert tanks with damaged turrets to APCs.

-

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The Russians are sending turretless T-62s into battle as ad-hoc APCs.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=2acf61c31d63

They're also removing the crane and winch from T-54-based BTS-2 engineering vehicles in order to make room to carry troops.

The Russians still have the capability to mount turrets to these MBT hulls but, at least for some, they're choosing not to. Therefore, it stands to reason that, in the Twilight War, when industry is ravaged by nuclear war, it would be common practice to convert tanks with damaged turrets to APCs.

-

I speculated elsewhere that the guns may have been salvaged for use on vehicles that had shot out their gun barrels. The T-62 uses a 115mm gun that's an oddball caliber for Russia, so unlike a 125mm gun that can be fitted into a T-64, T-72, T-80, or T-90, a 115mm gun production line would be solely for a T-62. I don't think any such lines currently exist. They have a fairly short barrel life (~450 full charge equivalents), and if the optics and other electronics on a mothballed T-62 are the older obsolescent stuff, it may have made more sense to pull the guns to keep modernized tanks in the field and find a different use for the rest of the vehicle.

[Raellus]

In spite of shortages of MBTs at the front in Ukraine, the Russians reportedly have around 1,000 T-72s sitting in a long-term storage depot. While they continue to rust, the Russians have been refurbishing T-55 and T-62 tanks are sending them into battle. Why are the Russians prioritizing older models for refurbishment? It could be the T-72's auto-loader. Having sat outdoors for decades, they might be beyond repair- or it's cost-prohibitive to fix or replace them.

So are the Russians just going to sit on 1,000 MBTs? Recent reports point to a new heavy APC design based on the T-72 chassis.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/news...n-testing-area

In most T2k timelines, there's either no "Peace Dividend" draw-down, or it's greatly reduced in scope and scale. So, more T-72 would be kept in working condition. But still, as the war grinds on, it would be harder to repair or replace auto-loading equipment. In that case, it makes good sense to convert operational T-72 chasses into heavy APCs.

-

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Raellus

In spite of shortages of MBTs at the front in Ukraine, the Russians reportedly have around 1,000 T-72s sitting in a long-term storage depot. While they continue to rust, the Russians have been refurbishing T-55 and T-62 tanks are sending them into battle. Why are the Russians prioritizing older models for refurbishment? It could be the T-72's auto-loader. Having sat outdoors for decades, they might be beyond repair- or it's cost-prohibitive to fix or replace them.
-

Cannibalization in general could also be an issue. A mostly-good tank might be brought back into action quicker by taking a radio or engine parts or electronics from a not-quite-so-good tank, which then becomes a parts donor for other restorations and is still "in storage" but with fewer and fewer useful components beyond its hull. Less capable models might also have things like gun barrels salvaged for use on more capable models as their original gun's barrel life runs out.

In addition to the other reasons, factory capacity is likely a concern as well. The T-72 is refurbished at Nizhny Tagil (and the T-90 is manufactured there), the T-55 and T-62 at Chita, and the T-80 at Omsk. Bringing the older tanks back into action means using parallel production lines. If they focused entirely on refurbishing the T-72, that would mean taking resources away from T-90 production and reduce the total throughput of vehicles. Ideally they'd be able to work on the T-72 at multiple facilities, but as far as I'm aware they don't have the tooling for that.

[HaplessOperator]

Originally Posted by Raellus

In spite of shortages of MBTs at the front in Ukraine, the Russians reportedly have around 1,000 T-72s sitting in a long-term storage depot. While they continue to rust, the Russians have been refurbishing T-55 and T-62 tanks are sending them into battle. Why are the Russians prioritizing older models for refurbishment? It could be the T-72's auto-loader. Having sat outdoors for decades, they might be beyond repair- or it's cost-prohibitive to fix or replace them.

So are the Russians just going to sit on 1,000 MBTs? Recent reports point to a new heavy APC design based on the T-72 chassis.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/news...n-testing-area

In most T2k timelines, there's either no "Peace Dividend" draw-down, or it's greatly reduced in scope and scale. So, more T-72 would be kept in working condition. But still, as the war grinds on, it would be harder to repair or replace auto-loading equipment. In that case, it makes good sense to convert operational T-72 chasses into heavy APCs.

-

You touched on it there, but it should probably be remembered that Russian long-term storage is not the same as Sierra long-term storage, where the vehicles are sitting in an arid environment and not subject to multiple deep freezing cycles per year, alternately covered in snow and partially flooded, and without even occasional pulls for parts checks. Most of the strategic vehicle reserve of Russia is literally rotting and rusting where it sits in various depots.

That is, there's a good chance there's more than the autoloaders wrong with a lot of these vehicles.

[Vespers War]

Two days ago, Covert Cabal released a video counting tanks at the 22nd Central Tank Storage Base (in Buy, Kostroma), and here's how many were there each year:
2021 - 764
2022 - 731
2023 - 487
2024 - 102

The T-80B and T-80U went from 338 to 78 in one portion of the base.

For BMPs and other non-tank armored vehicles, the counts are:
2021 - 1350
2022 - 1055
2023 - 691
2024 - 601

About half the remaining vehicles look to be write-offs that are being kept around for some reason (possibly parts donors?), and the only ones that appear to be in good condition are ~200 BMPs.

This goes along with other recent coverage of the 111th (from 1033 in 2021 to 272 last month, with mostly T-55 and T-62 remaining) and the 769th (815 tanks, but "almost exclusively" T-62).

Those three sites are around 1/3 of the remaining stockpile of tanks. IISS estimated 4,000 remaining around the middle of the year, and those sites have 1,185 as of the most recent count. The 4,000 would have declined some over the past five months as more replacements get pulled.

Russia's certainly not completely out of tanks yet, but it looks like a significant proportion (possibly most) of their remaining tanks in storage are basically junk.

[HaplessOperator]

Originally Posted by Vespers War

Two days ago, Covert Cabal released a video counting tanks at the 22nd Central Tank Storage Base (in Buy, Kostroma), and here's how many were there each year:
2021 - 764
2022 - 731
2023 - 487
2024 - 102

The T-80B and T-80U went from 338 to 78 in one portion of the base.

For BMPs and other non-tank armored vehicles, the counts are:
2021 - 1350
2022 - 1055
2023 - 691
2024 - 601

About half the remaining vehicles look to be write-offs that are being kept around for some reason (possibly parts donors?), and the only ones that appear to be in good condition are ~200 BMPs.

This goes along with other recent coverage of the 111th (from 1033 in 2021 to 272 last month, with mostly T-55 and T-62 remaining) and the 769th (815 tanks, but "almost exclusively" T-62).

Those three sites are around 1/3 of the remaining stockpile of tanks. IISS estimated 4,000 remaining around the middle of the year, and those sites have 1,185 as of the most recent count. The 4,000 would have declined some over the past five months as more replacements get pulled.

Russia's certainly not completely out of tanks yet, but it looks like a significant proportion (possibly most) of their remaining tanks in storage are basically junk.

Good God Almighty, that's a truly hilarious degree of depletion.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by HaplessOperator

You touched on it there, but it should probably be remembered that Russian long-term storage is not the same as Sierra long-term storage, where the vehicles are sitting in an arid environment and not subject to multiple deep freezing cycles per year, alternately covered in snow and partially flooded, and without even occasional pulls for parts checks. Most of the strategic vehicle reserve of Russia is literally rotting and rusting where it sits in various depots.

That is, there's a good chance there's more than the autoloaders wrong with a lot of these vehicles.

Those are all good points and I don't disagree with you. One slight mitigating factor regarding Soviet deep storage is that, in the T2kU, a lot of those AFVs aren't going to have been in storage quite as long as the Russian tanks that we're talking about now (i.e. 30 years for the older models then, as opposed to 50 now).

A quick note about desert storage (I live near Tucson, AZ)- the dry heat kills plastic and rubber. The former literally crumbles to dust after a few months exposed to sunlight and heat.

@Vespers: Thanks for the stats. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the Russians are going to run out of "meat" nearly as fast as they're running out of armor...

-

[HaplessOperator]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Those are all good points and I don't disagree with you. One slight mitigating factor regarding Soviet deep storage is that, in the T2kU, a lot of those AFVs aren't going to have been in storage quite as long as the Russian tanks that we're talking about now (i.e. 30 years for the older models then, as opposed to 50 now).

A quick note about desert storage (I live near Tucson, AZ)- the dry heat kills plastic and rubber. The former literally crumbles to dust after a few months exposed to sunlight and heat.

@Vespers: Thanks for the stats. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the Russians are going to run out of "meat" nearly as fast as they're running out of armor...

-

I think our general bank on that was that it's easier (and cheaper) to replace exterior seals and do an engine pull than it is to rehabilitate flooding, deep snow cover, freezing cycles on exterior hardware, and waterlogged electronics, and that it's far simpler to manufacture and rehabilitate such replacement components if push came to shove.

I find it far more interesting that these depletion levels are coming from engaging a single country on their border under conditions generously described as air parity, with no NATO involvement, and with the thing starting off with some of the most modern ground branch equipment they had in stock, thrown against anti-armor systems that was new 25-30 years ago.

I mean, BMPs weren't any tougher 30 years ago than they are now, and you can still kill them with platforms throwing 40mm grenades or .50AP and SLAP. Hell, the Ukes logged a T-80U kill with a Carl Gustav, and volleyed AT-4 hits seem just as effective on the homegrown stuff as the "monkey models."

Given what we've seen of their hardware on live fire ranges, I think it's a lot more likely that we spent 75 years doing what we do best: overestimating our enemy and assuming the worst to ensure overmatch. We saw more or less the same thing in Chechnya; the only real success they managed was when they massed DIVARTY or corps-level artillery assets and delete entire settlements and called it square. First sign of significant, organized resistance using even equivalent hardware, and they melt about as quickly as the Republican Guard did.

Their problems (hardware and wetware both) seem to stem much further back than the Cold War ending with the collapse, and reached far deeper than poor warehousing of vehicle stocks; Cockburn had a fairly insightful look into this with The Threat: Inside The Soviet Military Machine as far back as 1985.

I get the feeling that thousands of Leopards, Challengers, Abrams, F-15s, F-16s, and F-22s wouldn't exactly help their situation much even if you were to somehow double the size of their military; you'd just harvest more meat, and faster.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by HaplessOperator

I think our general bank on that was that it's easier (and cheaper) to replace exterior seals and do an engine pull than it is to rehabilitate flooding, deep snow cover, freezing cycles on exterior hardware, and waterlogged electronics, and that it's far simpler to manufacture and rehabilitate such replacement components if push came to shove.

I agree. Since we're drifting a bit from the OP of this thread, I've replied to the rest of your post over here:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....7545#post97545

-

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Those are all good points and I don't disagree with you. One slight mitigating factor regarding Soviet deep storage is that, in the T2kU, a lot of those AFVs aren't going to have been in storage quite as long as the Russian tanks that we're talking about now (i.e. 30 years for the older models then, as opposed to 50 now).

A quick note about desert storage (I live near Tucson, AZ)- the dry heat kills plastic and rubber. The former literally crumbles to dust after a few months exposed to sunlight and heat.

@Vespers: Thanks for the stats. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the Russians are going to run out of "meat" nearly as fast as they're running out of armor...

-

A lot of the tanks likely won't have been in storage at all in the GDW-era T2K timelines, since the Soviet Union declared 41,580 tanks in the region covered by the CFE Treaty, and the arms ceiling was 16,500 tanks in active service (with that covering the entire Warsaw Pact, and its allocation was divvied up among its members after that group broke up).

The reason so many of those large tank depots are in the Asian part of Russia is because the CFE Treaty didn't cover equipment east of the Urals, so instead of destroying equipment to the extent NATO did, they just shipped it east. I imagine the plan was to get it out there and then figure out what to do with it, but they never really came up with good ideas of how to make use of the tanks, so they mostly just sat there and rusted.

Some of those tanks did end up scrapped later, but moving ~25,000 tanks east to technically comply with the treaty explains a lot of the background to how Russia wound up with ~30,000 tanks in storage.