Surplus armor in T2K

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

The thing is not only surplus Armor. At the Lake Superior State University campus there is not only old M60 tank, but also what looks to be 105mm How., maybe it 75mm one. The point is I have seen lot of the old artillery pieces spread out in front of this Armory or out on display here.

Not claiming that it would be easy to get any of these surplus piece in proper working order. Yet one paragraph in the game where it explain even if the unit wasn't entirely operational, have a few AFVs or IFVs or Armor Cars were more than enough to swing a battle into their owner favor. Especially if you were up against forces not equipped to take on such vehicles it was easier to run than stand and fight.

In many cases where a particular faction had Vehicle or artillery pieces they went to great details to explain what was malfunction if anything and what type of ammo reserve they had. T-72 with only Commander MG working, would still cause troops to run, a unit taking to the field with even a towed how. would cause the opposing force to be nervous. By 2000 it was the unknown on if they were operational or not. I can imagine seeing even Company or Battalion size force show up and setting up mortars would be bit unnerving to an militia unit that short on ammo, even though the other force may have two to four round per mortar tub. The average militia person wouldn't know that after they fired their first rounds...

Just some thoughts.

That's the problem with the display pieces, they have all been demilled which means that at least three holes have been cut into the tank barrel, the breech is either missing or has been welded in place.

Its likely that armored cars from the various transport firms (like Wells Fargo or Loomis) would be used. Their firing ports are cur for either pistols or shotguns. The larger interstate transports (think armored Greyhound Bus) would be used, but these are very rare. The most likely candiate would be home-built armored trucks, doesn't have to stop antitank rounds, but a 1/2-inch to 1 inch would stop most pistol/rifle rounds.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah the New America module in southern Florida covered that. Their Armored Cavalry and Fast Cavalry were built around the various Armor Cars from these companies.

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

That's the problem with the display pieces, they have all been demilled which means that at least three holes have been cut into the tank barrel, the breech is either missing or has been welded in place.

Agreed, though for settlements with some engineering know how but without the wherewithal to build a cannon foundry, it wouldn't be beyond the realm of the possible to have something like a de-mil'ed 105mm gun converted to a lower pressure black powder breech or muzzle loader. (Of course, putting a 12 pounder Napoleon back in service would probably be even easier . . .)

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

Agreed, though for settlements with some engineering know how but without the wherewithal to build a cannon foundry, it wouldn't be beyond the realm of the possible to have something like a de-mil'ed 105mm gun converted to a lower pressure black powder breech or muzzle loader. (Of course, putting a 12 pounder Napoleon back in service would probably be even easier . . .)

Maybe its me....but shooting anything through a demilled barrel just seems like a bad idea...

So, and I blame this on my love of watching weird TV shows at odd hours, if you take some heavy gauge steel pipe, get a welder to weld a plate in place at one end...and then heat shrink a slightler larger pipe around the closed off end and have the welder run a thick bead around the pipe again...then drill a touch hole...load with large charge of black powder...then prime the gunner with several shots of moonshine and have him light it off....then you have a homemade cannon.

Or, you can import your 12pdr from Italy and make sure your reenactment battery is ready for post WWIII...

[rcaf_777]

Lets not forget about the Avalanche control units of the US state and federal forest service, many of these unit have Working Artillery 105mm or 155mm that fire with ammunition at moutians. Other unit have 90mm RCL, there a show about them on the discovery channel I think?

Here in Canada the Army preforms the task, done various Regluar or Reserve Units

[copeab]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Lets not forget about the Avalanche control units of the US state and federal forest service, many of these unit have Working Artillery 1055mm or 155mm that fire with ammunition at moutians.

Dear God, 1055mm? That's more than double the bore of the Yamato's guns. Do you control avalanches by destroying the mountains?

[HorseSoldier]

At least some of them also use 106mm recoilless.

The choke point on them, as far as a scavenger sort of economy, is that I think the US government support for those programs doles out ammunition in ones and twos (or whatever) as needed. Someone in the government having made the occasional bright idea that handing out a 90mm or 106mm recoilless rifle and several pallets worth of ammunition in one go has a some very, very bad potential worst case outcomes.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by copeab

Dear God, 1055mm? That's more than double the bore of the Yamato's guns. Do you control avalanches by destroying the mountains?

Doesn't everyone else?

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Doesn't everyone else?

Nuclear tipped I hope!

[copeab]

Also, even WWII light tanks like the M3/M5 Stuart have some use. You might not have any ammo for the 37mm cannon, but you still have 2-3 .30-cal / 7.62mm MGs, and the armor is good enough to stop machinegun fire.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by copeab

Also, even WWII light tanks like the M3/M5 Stuart have some use. You might not have any ammo for the 37mm cannon, but you still have 2-3 .30-cal / 7.62mm MGs, and the armor is good enough to stop machinegun fire.

Yeah well like I said even in the Modules people who had modern AFVs their were some cases that all that worked were the MGs... It was pointed out that with the limited AT weapons found at 2000 that many units that weren't supplied with them, didn't stay around to find out if the main gun would fire or not...

[kota1342000]

Interesting that this subject came up, Ive been piecing together some ideas for US 6th Army, and had some ideas for activating some new units and rebuilding some old ones as well.
Of course I add to canon by adding more Soviet or Soviet backed forces as well.

Now lets see if this works or if Im going to need help;

http://joest2k.wetpaint.com/photo/11...a2+cav+vehicle

[kota1342000]

...was hoping for an image but the link will do just fine.
This "M2A3" is a simple to build vehicle that can be used as a light Cavalry vehicle or APC. The image and the following links to others are all modifications of images made by the contributors over at Junior General.

http://www.juniorgeneral.org/load.php?Period=0

I agree about the 37mm ammunition as well, so I had another couple of thoughts.

http://joest2k.wetpaint.com/photo/11...+25mm+and+mk19
A M8 armored car with a 25mm cannon.

http://joest2k.wetpaint.com/photo/11...le+w+106mm+rcl
A M20 rigged with a .50cal and a 106mm rcl.

http://joest2k.wetpaint.com/photo/11514941/-
A larger APC based on the M3/M9 series of half-tracks but using wheels instead of tracks for easier maintenance.

http://joest2k.wetpaint.com/photo/11509388/m22a6+w+40mm
Someone else had the idea for using 40mm guns for ammunition availability...I had thought the same thing. This is a light tank based on the M22 Locust except with a 40mm gun.

The idea behind these rigs is the ability to improvise them from other types of vehicles, most being chassis for semi-trucks. Facilities for power generation, a foundry, and the mechanical equipment to build the armor, turrets, mounts and additional equipment. Using older armored vehicle plans and patterns ensures easier access to plans and technical drawings that would likely be unavailable for more modern vehicles. Another consideration is not using vehicles that are too large or too heavy to ensure that it wont take a ridiculous amount of time to build and/or convert each vehicle.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by kota1342000

http://joest2k.wetpaint.com/photo/11...+25mm+and+mk19
A M8 armored car with a 25mm cannon.

I wonder if you could replace the 37mm ATG with a 40mm Mk 19?

http://joest2k.wetpaint.com/photo/11514941/-
A larger APC based on the M3/M9 series of half-tracks but using wheels instead of tracks for easier maintenance.

For the record, the tracks on American halftracks were quite unlike those on tanks; they were roughly one long rubber band, basically, and lasted far longer with less maintenance than tank tracks.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Nuclear tipped I hope!

If its worth doing...then its worth over doing!

Besides, there is no such thing as too little when dealing with explosives!!!

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by copeab

Also, even WWII light tanks like the M3/M5 Stuart have some use. You might not have any ammo for the 37mm cannon, but you still have 2-3 .30-cal / 7.62mm MGs, and the armor is good enough to stop machinegun fire.

Don't forget that the early M-3s used riveted armor, the bolt heads had a nasty habit of shearing when hit!

[kota1342000]

That's true with the rubber tracks, but if you were building APCs like that out of other vehicles, it would probably be much easier to find surplus wheels and tires as opposed to finding or making the rubber tracks. I know lots of snocats and off-road tracked dump trucks use rubber tracks, but those aren't very common.
I had thought about using the Mk19 for main armament but I bet the 19s are more useful for ring mounts and technicals.
But on that note, I was thinking about the 60mm Brandt breech loading mortar that the French developed. I was wondering if it would be easier to build some kind of single shot breech loading 60mm gun/mortar as opposed to milling an entire new gun barrel for a demilled gun or starting from scratch. What does everyone think? (That's with several small motorshops, at least one small steel mill, and a large mechanical shop, all Gen. Pain's stats)

[copeab]

Originally Posted by kota1342000

That's true with the rubber tracks, but if you were building APCs like that out of other vehicles, it would probably be much easier to find surplus wheels and tires as opposed to finding or making the rubber tracks.

Sorry, I was thinking of working vehicles, not going A-Team at a junkyard.

I had thought about using the Mk19 for main armament but I bet the 19s are more useful for ring mounts and technicals.

The gunner is better protected in a turret

[copeab]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Don't forget that the early M-3s used riveted armor, the bolt heads had a nasty habit of shearing when hit!

True, but I'm an easier target behind a tripod-mounted MG than a rivet is on a tank

[Canadian Army]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

At least some of them also use 106mm recoilless.

The choke point on them, as far as a scavenger sort of economy, is that I think the US government support for those programs doles out ammunition in ones and twos (or whatever) as needed. Someone in the government having made the occasional bright idea that handing out a 90mm or 106mm recoilless rifle and several pallets worth of ammunition in one go has a some very, very bad potential worst case outcomes.

In the early 1990’s, the US Army was out of surplus 75mm and 105mm Recoilless Rifle HE ordnance (HE rounds are the best avalanche control rounds). As a result, the Forest Service replace many of the existing 75mm and 105mm Recoilless Rifle systems with 106mm Recoilless Rifles (basically an updated, lighter version of the 105mm Recoilless Rifle, was used during the Korean and Viet Nam Wars). In December 2002, after several tragic in-bore explosions, the US Forest Service replaced all 106mm Recoilless Rifle with the 105 Howitzers.

Also each year the Washington Department of Transportation positions two M60A3 tanks just west of Stevens Pass for avalanche control.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by copeab

True, but I'm an easier target behind a tripod-mounted MG than a rivet is on a tank

Let's not talk about your eating habits, shall we!

Of course I'm in shape...round is a shape!

There are a couple of photos of various pre-WWII tanks that were sprayed with machineguns (both .50 and .30-cal)...now the
.50-cal would just punch through the paper-thin armor...but it was the effect of the .30-cal that caught my bloodshot eye....fired from 500 yards, the API bullets still had enough force to crack the rivet heads, sending the bolts flying about the interior....nasty!

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by copeab

I wonder if you could replace the 37mm ATG with a 40mm Mk 19?

I suspect it would be easier to modify a WW2 era turret set up for 37mm than a conversion to 25mm (at least 25mm M242), since it would be easier to sort out ammunition stowage, feed, and such, as well as not having to adjust the wiring to power the gun. A Mk19 is comparatively compact and uncomplicated, and in an open topped turret wouldn't be too hard to set up to employ the existing sights on the gun.

[kota1342000]

Anyone have thoughts on breech loading mortars that could be used in direct fire?

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Let's not talk about your eating habits, shall we!

Of course I'm in shape...round is a shape!

There are a couple of photos of various pre-WWII tanks that were sprayed with machineguns (both .50 and .30-cal)...now the
.50-cal would just punch through the paper-thin armor...but it was the effect of the .30-cal that caught my bloodshot eye....fired from 500 yards, the API bullets still had enough force to crack the rivet heads, sending the bolts flying about the interior....nasty!

I suppose the crews inside weren't too happy about them either...

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by kota1342000

Anyone have thoughts on breech loading mortars that could be used in direct fire?

Sure, the French used just such a mortar on the AML 60-20 that was in use in the 50-70s. It was intended for support roles, but the 60mm mortar could be fired directly, whole thing was breech-loaded. And before anybody chips in about its antiarmor capabilities, it didn't have any, not enough muzzle velocity for the mortar. Direct fire range was about 500m.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

I suppose the crews inside weren't too happy about them either...

The pics are of Aberdeen PG tests on new armor and new methods of securing army. But when the rivited Stuarts saw action in North Africa, there are a lot of horror stories about the injuries caused.

[schnickelfritz]

The easiest solution for the 37mm armed US tanks/afv's would be to just fabricate some adapters to place a M2HB in it's place. I bet you could fabricate the adapters with the tools and materials found in a basic machine shop.

The 50-cal would have plenty of range and hitting power for what you'd see coming at you anyway.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by schnickelfritz

The easiest solution for the 37mm armed US tanks/afv's would be to just fabricate some adapters to place a M2HB in it's place. I bet you could fabricate the adapters with the tools and materials found in a basic machine shop.

The 50-cal would have plenty of range and hitting power for what you'd see coming at you anyway.

There are some light autocannons, such as the 20mm Oerlikon KAB, which can be mounted and used as easily as an M-2HB, except for the longer barrel length.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

There are some light autocannons, such as the 20mm Oerlikon KAB, which can be mounted and used as easily as an M-2HB, except for the longer barrel length.

ASP 30. 'Nuff said.

[HorseSoldier]

Both would be nice, but keep in mind WW2 era turrets were tight for WW2 era people (though I suppose by 2000 most folks would be making Depression era manual laborers look husky and corn fed), and the problem isn't just the gun it's the ammo, the feed chutes to get it from storage to the gun, and such. Shoe horning all that into a space formerly occupied by a manually loaded single shot gun is going to be a pretty major engineering undertaking.

Realistically, if a government/cantonment/whatever had access to a lot of manufacturing and machining capability, they'd probably be better served dropping in a whole new turret into vintage light AFVs rather than trying to jury rig a less optimal solution. (Tanks could be a different story, since I don't think anyone circa 2000 -- with the possible exception of the French and maybe Japanese -- has the capability to fabricate new MBT turrets).