BTR in Nevada

[copeab]

Originally Posted by jester

Those are just some things, so really what type of hits would it take where they could be resurected?

Based on WWII, any AFV that didn't suffer an ammo or fuel explosion, or wasn't completely burned out, could probably be returned service given (1) a means of bringing it to a repair shop, (2) enough trained mechanics and (3) sufficient spare parts. Basically if the hull is still structurally sound the AFVC can be brought back from the dead.

[jester]

From my experience with burnt out Pact style vehicles, all of them were burnt out. Even the small penetrators when they send the penetrator rods through they send molten metal inside the compartment which starts things afire as well.

And we have the rear hatch fuel tank as I have mentioned which catches fire easily enough again setting them afire.

The ones I see that would survive enough to be rebuilt,

mobility kills, the engine, transmission or drive train is damaged the vehicle is abandoned. <provided the engine doesn't burn> This however is a simple modular repair but, the parts to a non standard vehicle may be a problem.

Mine, rocket launcher or light ordinance hit to the drive train, again taking out a couple wheels.

Bogged down in a tank trap or swamp or soft soil or even a river crossing.

A concussion that kills the crew.

A vehicle accident, a roll over, or even the vehicle slides from a slope, or down a hill etc and the crew is injured or killed.

The crew is shot while out of the vehicle.

Those are just some of the ideas I can see where a Pact vehicle would be taken intact.

However, one question, often vehicles that are forced to be abandoned or about to be surrendered are usualy destroyed, it is quite common among most forces to destroy or disable equipment that has to be abandoned so it can not be of use to the enemy.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by jester

From my experience with burnt out Pact style vehicles, all of them were burnt out. Even the small penetrators when they send the penetrator rods through they send molten metal inside the compartment which starts things afire as well.

Anecdotal experiences are the basis of statistical wisdom. The only thing I can say is that enough American fighting vehicle crews in the Gulf had somewhat different experiences such that the lack of catastrophic kills associated with the use of the silver bullet has been noteworthy in literature on the subject. My conversations with tankers from Operation Desert Storm support the idea that APSDFSDU rounds don't produce catastrophic kills as frequently as HEAT rounds.

Originally Posted by jester

However, one question, often vehicles that are forced to be abandoned or about to be surrendered are usualy destroyed, it is quite common among most forces to destroy or disable equipment that has to be abandoned so it can not be of use to the enemy.

I think every army makes destruction of abandoned equipment standard procedure. How often this happens is another question entirely. The Viet Minh defeated the French at DBP with the aid of American 105mm guns provided by the Chinese, who acquired them in Korea. Surely some abandoned vehicles will be destroyed in accordance with SOP. Surely others will not.

Good point about rollovers, jester. These will be increasingly common as fighting drags on and crew fatigue builds. Rollovers on the sides of East German roads may be one of the best sources of intact Pact vehicles.

Regarding concussion, I believe the Israelis pioneered the technique of using a Maverick with the warhead removed against Arab tanks. The concussion kills the crew and leaves the tank intact for retrieval later. Although I'm inclined to think that the USAF would consider itself above such piracy, the German government may ask its NATO allies that capture be maximized to provide the East German Army with a reserve of Pact equipment--a hedge against the possibility of ongoing war and shortages of materiel.
Jester, I think you're right about the difficulties of repairing Pact engines that aren't widely used within the Pact. NATO nations may avoid trying to salvage the oddballs. Common vehicles, like cargo trucks, BTR, and MTLB, probably will be amenable to cannibalization to address almost any breakdown. Alternatively, the engine could be replaced with a Western diesel power plant. This is what I have in mind for the BTR-80A2 in Nevada. Both the corporate bigwigs and the unions at Ford and GM will be delighted at the prospect of providing several hundred more big diesel engines for Pact vehicle refit.

This thread had gotten me thinking about the locations and size of depots housing Pact vehicles and equipment within CONUS, plus the fate of the numerous Pact soft-skinned vehicles. Imagine, for instance, that the DoD decides to consolidate all of the BTR or even just all of a single model of BTR at a location in Nevada. The climate promotes long-term storage, the federal government owns something like 85% of the land, there are remote bases in the state, and contractors can be shipped in to work on-post. As an added bonus, Las Vegas and Reno are within easy driving distance for weekends of frolicking. If the BTR park is located in Nevada, then the local warlord potentially has a large stockpile of parts available for cannibalization. It’s a possibility that bears further consideration.

Pact soft-skinned vehicles are another matter entirely. Despite the paucity of trucks in Pact divisions relative to the number of trucks in Western divisions, the number of trucks in motor rifle division is still quite large. Soft-skinned vehicles obviously are not nearly as durable as armored vehicles, so a lot more of them will be destroyed by air attack and artillery. (I believe this is the point of interdiction.) By the same token, though, crew fatalities are far more common. Flying objects kill crews in unarmored cabs pretty easily without necessarily destroying the vehicle. There might be a very large number of damaged and broken-down trucks lining the sides of East German roads come Christmas ’96. Of course, given the insatiable demand of mechanized formations for fuel and ammunition, intact and easily-repaired Pact trucks might be incorporated into the NATO armies. North America might receive very few trucks. It’s a matter for further consideration.

Webstral

[JHart]

I think every army makes destruction of abandoned equipment standard procedure. How often this happens is another question entirely. The Viet Minh defeated the French at DBP with the aid of American 105mm guns provided by the Chinese, who acquired them in Korea. Surely some abandoned vehicles will be destroyed in accordance with SOP. Surely others will not.

The Chinese also had A LOT of US gear from WW II. But the Chicoms captured a good deal of gear in Korea with their initial attacks that panicked US troops left.

This is what I have in mind for the BTR-80A2 in Nevada. Both the corporate bigwigs and the unions at Ford and GM will be delighted at the prospect of providing several hundred more big diesel engines for Pact vehicle refit.

I'd think that US auto makers would rather build wheeled APCs from scratch than refit foreign gear. More work and money for them. I could see John Deere, Caterpillar or some other domestic heavy equipment manufacturers who don't have experience building APCs, but know how to make engines and parts getting a lot of work.

North America might receive very few trucks. It’s a matter for further consideration.

I would doubt any trucks would be sent to the USA. Nobody has more cars and trucks than the US. Even after the nukes fall and new manufacturing stops, there are still millions of vehicles around. The only advantage Pact vehicles may have is if they have fewer electronics, they are less susceptible to EMP effects.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by JHart

I'd think that US auto makers would rather build wheeled APCs from scratch than refit foreign gear. More work and money for them. I could see John Deere, Caterpillar or some other domestic heavy equipment manufacturers who don't have experience building APCs, but know how to make engines and parts getting a lot of work.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by JHart

I would doubt any trucks would be sent to the USA. Nobody has more cars and trucks than the US. Even after the nukes fall and new manufacturing stops, there are still millions of vehicles around. The only advantage Pact vehicles may have is if they have fewer electronics, they are less susceptible to EMP effects.

I'm thinking refit for foreign sales rather than for domestic use. One of the main attractions of Soviet gear is its relative simplicity and ruggedness. Third World allies, who are chronically short of trucking, may prefer a cheap refit of a Pact truck over a more expensive American truck fresh off the assembly lines. Nevertheless, I agree that few or no trucks may be sent to CONUS.

Webstral

[Raellus]

Canon states that, once the United States entered the ground war full bore, NATO forces made it all the way to the edge of Soviet territory. This seems to suggests that several large encirclement battles took place during which hundreds (if not thousands) of abandoned PACT vehicles could have been captured/recovered by NATO forces. Yes, it is SOP to destroy vehicles that have to be abandoned but panicked, rookie crews often times don't follow protocols. Add in mobility kills and other contingencies, and you'd end up with a lot of AFVs that could be repaired and returned to service.

Here's an idea. Some captured PACT vehicles were saved and shipped to CONUS for eventual transshipment to the PRC army. Once the U.S. entered the war, its armaments manufacturing would be hard pressed to keep its own nation's fighting forces equipped, let alone continue to supply the Chinese. Therefore, as a stopgap measure, viable PACT gear would be shipped to China instead of U.S.-made gear. The Chinese already have experience with Soviet-made gear so they should be able to fix them up and put them into front-line duty relatively quickly.

Now, once the nukes start flying and port and fuel facilities were destroyed or damaged, shipping that PACT gear anywhere would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. With a need for AFVs at home, the remaining stocks of captured PACT AFV's destined for China would be kept, repaired (a must) and refurbished (if possible) and put in service with U.S. forces in CONUS. Even just a couple dozen (each) BRDMs, BTRs, BMPs, T-xx tanks would be enough to equip an armored battalion or two in a reserve infantry division, or an MP brigade, or defend a few airbases, etc. Heck, you could even build an slightly understrength ACR around captured gear.

Here's a question, though, with regards to APFDS round kills. Where the penetrator is made from depleted Uranium (aren't most, nowadays?), wouldn't there be the issue of toxic contamination? I know that at least some folks still claim that exposure to DU debris is/was the cause of "Gulf War Syndrome". I can imagine some folks' reluctance to crew such vehicles.

Show me the CarFax. DU kill? No thanks- I'll pass.

Also Web, remember this thread. There's some more discussion of similar topics here:

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=448