Aircraft/Armor Surplus Storage

[Olefin]

Like I said a Sheridan is better than nothing - and against marauders armed with civilian and military rifles and even 12.7mm MG its an effective vehicle - and I even with a low rate of fire I would hate to be against it if all I had was a armored bank truck with a couple of machine guns on it.

Now if you run into Soviet Division Cuba you have some real issues

And the light divisions I am talking about are the ones formed from the training units in the game not regular or even National Guard formations - I mean the ad-hoc divisions added in haste in 1998

I.e. the 70th, 76th, 78th, 80th, 84th, 85th, 91st, 95th, 98th, 100th, 104th and 108th Infantry Divisions that MilGov and CivGov formed in 1998 after the TDM

If you look at their makeup they only had foot infantry battalions and towed 105's - so any armor of any kind would be very welcome to them

and you can tell they got some armor or inherited it - several of them had tanks or M728's - if they had those you can see them grabbing anything else they could get their hands on too especially after the Mexican invasion

and there was the AGS-Sheridan which was a standard M551 Sheridan hull with the turret of the Stingray light tank. It lost out to the M8 Armored Gun System from FMC/BAE

[jester]

For storage, a lot of names were off the list.

I would suggest checking out, "Purple Depot." Which are storage depots in the US.

M113s, I see them all the time in the desert on ops. Some units have few, others have ALOT. Most are support vehicles of course, ambulances, com, command etc.

As was said, its better than just being foot mobile.

As for armor, one must consider where it is employed. In open ground yeah, in urban, woodland or mountains as an infantryman I'd feel confident against armor with the right tools of course.

Other areas, beachheads, swamps or even soft sand areas. Again the use of terrain to limit your enemies movement similar minefields.

And of course, taking older vehicles and giving quick simply mods or even deploying them with upgrade kits like the did with the Humvees in Iraq and the Shermans in the hedgerow country to be added in the field.

I have no experience with the Sheridan, but, with its limits could they not be used more as an infantry support weapon rather than a traditional tank role? Providing a mobile heavy gun platform and machinegun support as well as the armor to shield infantrymen and even to drive over infantry positions or even small buildings or portions. Drive up to that pesky RPK firing through the loophole in that concrete building, and blast a beehive round through the window and let the grunts mop up.

[dragoon500ly]

The problem with tanks is that sooner or later they are going to go up against the other guys tanks. In order to beat the other guys, you have to able to shoot first, hit first and kill or disable with that shot. The atgm had a narrow engagement window at best, you might get one or maybe two missiles off before you had to switch to conventional rounds, then your maximum possible rate of fire was two rounds per minute. Shoot and scoot is your mantra.

The drawbacks of the Sheridan restricted it the role of infantry support vehicle, in a single battalion, in a single division. It was kept in that role because it was the only tank that could be air dropped. Even that division depended on regimental antitank companies equipped with TOW for its primary antitank defense.

The only combat test of Sheridan in a traditional tank role was in Vietnam. It was easy to knock out with RPGs. It's armor protection was so bad, that if the crew was not killed immediately, they had to bail out before the ammo fire finished the job.

In Desert Storm, the Sheridan was used as a bunker buster and was never used against Iraqi armor.

When it was first introduced, it was a gee-whiz tech solution and it didn't work. It is to the eternal credit of its crews that they were able to perform their missions in spite of its drawbacks, but there are good and sound reasons why the decision was made to remove it from service. I find it hard to come up with any reason why scarce resources would have been wasted in trying to bring the Sheridan back into operational service.

[ArmySGT.]

Just to challenge convention....... Wouldn't the more modern M1s and M60s be sent overseas and older M48s kept at home? The better to fight them there, than fight them at home. Any M60s or newer still on U.S. soil would be Guard units or Federal units waiting to ship, or training units churning out replacements for losses overseas.


Further, wouldn't the States individually be getting any armor no matter how old operational? While it doesn't make sense for the Army on a large scale to throw effort into a getting a M4A2 Sherman or a M3 Stuart operational a State can fund them as one offs... Swapping the radial for a cummins diesel. Having machine shops make AP or Canister shot for a 75mm or 37mm. Turning over gun shops looking for 1919s. Lots of towns have WW2 relics and plenty of WW2 generation vets that know how to get these things running.

Even in WW2 there was appeals for any hobbyist with the right skills to turn out war materials. Wooden crates for example. Firing pins, etc.

[schnickelfritz]

t is possible and somewhat common for M3/M5 Stuart owners to convert their 2-engine power plants for 350 or 454 Chevy V-8s. This would be advantageous for an owner who has bought one without engines or whose engines are not practical to rebuild.

I am not sure if a M24 Chaffee can benefit from this, but I wouldn't doubt it.

Dave

[Olefin]

Keep in mind the thread with the very real possibility that the tanks and other armored vehicles at the Littlefield collection, many of which had live barrels and operational fire control systems, would have been used in 2000 and 2001 to get the CA MilGov units some armor

and remember that the Mexican's only real tank they had (at least based on real world info) was the Stuart tank

As for the Sheridans taking on other tanks - most likely by the time the Army got around to getting more of them in the fight their wouldnt have been many tanks on the other side left to get in the fight

most likely they would have been used openly against infantry that didnt have ATGM's or RPG's - look at the Texas module for instance - the marauder and Mexican units described had very few of either of those weapons - there a Sheridan could be decisive in a battle -

and there is always this - its cold blooded but it works - i.e. you use the Sheridans to draw fire and find the enemy ATGM's and tanks and then take them out with the only M1A1 or M60 or M48 you have operational

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Keep in mind the thread with the very real possibility that the tanks and other armored vehicles at the Littlefield collection, many of which had live barrels and operational fire control systems, would have been used in 2000 and 2001 to get the CA MilGov units some armor

I wonder how much of it would have gone to the collection with the V1 timeline and without a collapse of the Soviet Union. In that rather darker world less of this stuff would have gone to collectors and more kept by nation states for reserves and militia call ups or training. That said some of it would be a more of a logistical burden than help as armor support. I would see them in the defense of critical assets like air fields, rail yards, supply depots, and refineries before I would see burdening a unit with even one. Their too susceptible to modern light anti armor weapons lacking spall liners, fire extinguishers, compartmentalized fuel, and ammunition.

Originally Posted by Olefin

and remember that the Mexican's only real tank they had (at least based on real world info) was the Stuart tank

I would have sworn they had some Shermans and Lees too. I don’t know why in this any of the timelines that this Mexican army did not atleast purchase some T55s from Cuba or Nicaragua. Those are light enough to move quickly with a civilian semi and low boy trailer.

Originally Posted by Olefin

As for the Sheridans taking on other tanks - most likely by the time the Army got around to getting more of them in the fight their wouldnt have been many tanks on the other side left to get in the fight

Tanks draw fire. Everybody moves under the umbrella of their own fire support.

Originally Posted by Olefin

most likely they would have been used openly against infantry that didnt have ATGM's or RPG's - look at the Texas module for instance - the marauder and Mexican units described had very few of either of those weapons - there a Sheridan could be decisive in a battle -

The first operational kill of a tank is world war one and that was with artillery, the preferred engagement method. ATGMs and LAWs are defensive weapons.

Originally Posted by Olefin

and there is always this - its cold blooded but it works - i.e. you use the Sheridans to draw fire and find the enemy ATGM's and tanks and then take them out with the only M1A1 or M60 or M48 you have operational

Shouldn’t need to do that. A maneuver commander preps probable locations with artillery fires that only stop (shift to the next target) as the armor platoon arrives on it with infantry support.

Doctrinally, on first sighting the flash and smoke of an ATGM the crew executes a turn toward the launcher or oblique across the front, fires smoke grenades, and starts the smoke generator. The gunner engage the launch are with the coaxial machinegun aided by thermal sights to make life hard for SACLOS systems like Mexican BGM-71 TOW 1 systems. The Battalion FO behind them is shifting BN 81mm mortars onto the enemy ATGM source using the armors tracers to backtrace the launcher. The Brigade FO is calling down the Divarty reserve 105mm to saturate that area too. The infantry support is going to dismount move up, call for a shift fire by the BN and BDE FOs and then mop up that launcher and any support it had. Any commander that was using his troops as live bait would be sacked and probably court martialed for good cause. Soldiery is dangerous but, one expects not to be wasted needlessly. You can get a new tank from the factory is six months or a year but, crewmen are going to need 18 years to hatch.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Keep in mind the thread with the very real possibility that the tanks and other armored vehicles at the Littlefield collection, many of which had live barrels and operational fire control systems, would have been used in 2000 and 2001 to get the CA MilGov units some armor

and remember that the Mexican's only real tank they had (at least based on real world info) was the Stuart tank

In all honestly I don't think at the federal level much of the Littlefield collection would matter. Most of the WW2 stuff doesn't have spares. The armor that it has is to light against even 73mm of BMP1s, and RPGS would eat them. Making ammunition would divert critical assets from making munitions for current generation stuff. Do you make 100 75mm Pak40 rounds for a Panzer IV that is probably not going to get off three rounds.

If anything the most recent generation stuff probably as someone will be around that can operate it and maintain it. WW2 and Korea would get fobbed off to state militias to guard the ports, airports, and water dams. If it can't use modern ammunition and diesel the fed governments are going to take a pass, this would just burden a logistics system that is already near collapse.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Just to challenge convention....... Wouldn't the more modern M1s and M60s be sent overseas and older M48s kept at home? The better to fight them there, than fight them at home. Any M60s or newer still on U.S. soil would be Guard units or Federal units waiting to ship, or training units churning out replacements for losses overseas.


Further, wouldn't the States individually be getting any armor no matter how old operational? While it doesn't make sense for the Army on a large scale to throw effort into a getting a M4A2 Sherman or a M3 Stuart operational a State can fund them as one offs... Swapping the radial for a cummins diesel. Having machine shops make AP or Canister shot for a 75mm or 37mm. Turning over gun shops looking for 1919s. Lots of towns have WW2 relics and plenty of WW2 generation vets that know how to get these things running.

Even in WW2 there was appeals for any hobbyist with the right skills to turn out war materials. Wooden crates for example. Firing pins, etc.

In a nut shell...you would have had M1A1 and M1A2 assigned to Germany, REFORGER would pull the same vehicles from the POMCUS sets. The National Guard follow up divisions would have a mix of M48A5/M60A1/M60A3/IPM1.

The equipment sets left by the Regular Army units committed to REFORGER, they were intended to be shipped as battlefield replacements, this, filled out with new construction and battlefield repaired tanks was was what was supposed to keep the Army going.

So, arguments can be made that the NG divisions would be equipped with front-line gear, especially prior to shipment overseas, reasonable. Right up to the Mexican invasion, then it becomes a come as you are war.

[madmikechoi]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Just to challenge convention....... Wouldn't the more modern M1s and M60s be sent overseas and older M48s kept at home? The better to fight them there, than fight them at home. Any M60s or newer still on U.S. soil would be Guard units or Federal units waiting to ship, or training units churning out replacements for losses overseas.

If we go by Timeline 1.0- the US never stopped producing tanks so tanks like the IP M1s (894) get converted to A1 standards and baseline (2300 and some change) would go to Guard heavy divisions. Plus there are a lot of equipment that's going directly to POMCUS or prepositioned on ships (Diego Garcia; Guam/Saipan/Tinian) or similar USMC programs (Norway or Korea).
So going by the Endless Cold War, the goal for Big Army was always to make sure 7th Army got the latest and greatest first but even then the 2d Infantry Division's heavy brigades would still get 120mm gun tanks and BFVs before '95/96 let alone the November Nukeout


IMNSHO those old M48A5s would get flogged off to the ROK Army as spares- especially during wartime losses; Thailand, Taiwan, and/or Turkey. The M60 series- the ones that aren't earmarked for the Israelis- I can see being used to reequip the USAR "training" divisions but the doctrine and TO&E would probably closer to the old H series although I think were would be a serious shortfall on anti-tank missiles and naturally little to no organic aviation so would have to rely on corps aviation brigades .

Those same training division would pretty much have to stop loss every solider and marine that ever served in ground combat arms for at least the past two to three fiscal years... provided these same dudes' original battalions didn't get first dibs. Personally I'm somewhat skeptical if those USAR divisions would ever get activated since we're talking about a complete call up of the entire Guard not just roundout brigades plus CAPSTONE so we're already talking about a lot of facilities being overtasked such shipping, ports, and training posts such as Little Sandbox, Yakima, Fort Puke, etc

Mad Mike

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by madmikechoi

Personally I'm somewhat skeptical if those USAR divisions would ever get activated since we're talking about a complete call up of the entire Guard not just roundout brigades plus CAPSTONE so we're already talking about a lot of facilities being overtasked such shipping, ports, and training posts such as Little Sandbox, Yakima, Fort Puke, etc

Only have to look at WWII to see how that would work. Training facilities can, and have been, rapidly and massively expanded in a time of crisis. Can't think of any event more critical that WWIII...

[madmikechoi]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Only have to look at WWII to see how that would work. Training facilities can, and have been, rapidly and massively expanded in a time of crisis. Can't think of any event more critical that WWIII...

But a lot of those posts were closed... the US had years to raise and train an army to fight overseas. The Twilight War would see the entire US military engaged almost from the beginning w/ a war in Korea, numerous fronts in Europe from Norway to the Balkans, and another war in Iran plus the navy running around trying to secure lines of communication throughout the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans.

If anything would make initial sense was once NG units get mobilized from Day 1 with a deployment overseas no greater than 180 days from mob orders, USAR training divisions would try to set up refresher and force on force for combat arms a la NTC and JRTC at places like Shelby or Indiantown Gap (last time I checked there's something 4-6 reserve component mobilization centers/reserve training sites) and/or use defense contractors. Beats trying to see if they can setup a lottery for every swinging dick that filled out a selective service card; then sending them for ASVABs and medical; and finally getting a bunch of these fools on buses to OSUT or basic training posts. Mobilization support and sustainment of NG and USAR combat arms (if we go by Ver 1 Twilight these units never went away but never really got much bigger either b/c CAPSTONE of service support and selective combat support units offered Big Army more bang for the buck)

OTOH concurrently w/ this proposedmassive mobilization it would give places like Sierra Army Depot and Anniston an excuse to run 24-7 shifts w/ overtime to get everything from trucks and typewriters to tanks and trailers in running order. Go figure


Mad Mike

[madmikechoi]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Only have to look at WWII to see how that would work. Training facilities can, and have been, rapidly and massively expanded in a time of crisis. Can't think of any event more critical that WWIII...

But a lot of those posts were closed... the US had years to raise and train an army to fight overseas. The Twilight War would see the entire US military engaged almost from the beginning w/ a war in Korea, numerous fronts in Europe from Norway to the Balkans, and another war in Iran plus the navy running around trying to secure lines of communication throughout the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans.

If anything would make initial sense was once NG units get mobilized from Day 1 with a deployment overseas no greater than 180 days from mob orders, USAR training divisions would try to set up refresher and force on force for combat arms a la NTC and JRTC at places like Shelby or Indiantown Gap (last time I checked there's something 4-6 reserve component mobilization centers/reserve training sites) and/or use defense contractors. Beats trying to see if they can setup a lottery for every swinging dick that filled out a selective service card; then sending them for ASVABs and medical; and finally getting a bunch of these fools on buses to OSUT or basic training posts. Mobilization support and sustainment of NG and USAR combat arms (if we go by Ver 1 Twilight these units never went away but never really got much bigger either b/c CAPSTONE of service support and selective combat support units offered Big Army more bang for the buck)

OTOH concurrently w/ this proposedmassive mobilization it would give places like Sierra Army Depot and Anniston an excuse to run 24-7 shifts w/ overtime to get everything from trucks and typewriters to tanks and trailers in running order. Go figure


Mad Mike

[jester]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The problem with tanks is that sooner or later they are going to go up against the other guys tanks. In order to beat the other guys, you have to able to shoot first, hit first and kill or disable with that shot. The atgm had a narrow engagement window at best, you might get one or maybe two missiles off before you had to switch to conventional rounds, then your maximum possible rate of fire was two rounds per minute. Shoot and scoot is your mantra.

The drawbacks of the Sheridan restricted it the role of infantry support vehicle, in a single battalion, in a single division. It was kept in that role because it was the only tank that could be air dropped. Even that division depended on regimental antitank companies equipped with TOW for its primary antitank defense.

The only combat test of Sheridan in a traditional tank role was in Vietnam. It was easy to knock out with RPGs. It's armor protection was so bad, that if the crew was not killed immediately, they had to bail out before the ammo fire finished the job.

In Desert Storm, the Sheridan was used as a bunker buster and was never used against Iraqi armor.

When it was first introduced, it was a gee-whiz tech solution and it didn't work. It is to the eternal credit of its crews that they were able to perform their missions in spite of its drawbacks, but there are good and sound reasons why the decision was made to remove it from service. I find it hard to come up with any reason why scarce resources would have been wasted in trying to bring the Sheridan back into operational service.

I can think of one reason.

DESPERATION with little other options.

Then again, remove the gun from the turret and install a Bushmaster or a TOW system or something else that is common and fairly simple.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by jester

I can think of one reason.

DESPERATION with little other options.

Then again, remove the gun from the turret and install a Bushmaster or a TOW system or something else that is common and fairly simple.

Done

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by jester

I can think of one reason.

DESPERATION with little other options.

Then again, remove the gun from the turret and install a Bushmaster or a TOW system or something else that is common and fairly simple.

Sigh...I work as auditor for DOD, I get paid the big bucks to travel to these storage facilities just to count the gear AND what condition it is in. Trust me, the M551s in "storage" are in no condition to be locked, cocked and ready to go.

They will require very extensive rebuilds on the scale of what is done at Anniston Army Depot. You will then have to find serviceable missiles and cannon ammo and again, there is not that much out there, that has not been condemned.

As far as slapping 75mms guns, TOWs, etc., Canon has this output going to the LAVs and other front line equipment, just how much can be spared to bring back to life an out-dated hulk left to rot in the desert sun for the last quarter century?

[jester]

I was speaking in gaming terms and desperation and imagination. Look at the vehicle guide, WWII the mods done to armor. Or even Vietnam and the "Gun Trucks."

As I said earlier, I've never even seen a Sheridan. Just going with the concept of using what is available to bring it online in some useful manner. And never was the idea of bringing it back to go toe to toe with modern 1st tier armor.

But, remember some pact nations still have T-55s and T-64/5s as their tier 1 armor. And then, how old is the T-72? Which if I recall correctly, the T-90 is just an updated T-72 since the T-80 didn't work as promised...or am I getting them reversed?

Another issue, how many US armored vehicles have been completely destroyed to the point they are written off and not sent back to be rebuilt? Unless its a catastrophic kill of course. And would this not be the case if the balloon went up? This as I recall was the case in WWII where green crews got in after the holes were patched and the blood washed out.

[Askold]

T-90 was designed in the same factory that builds T-72s. Separate factories made T-72 and T-80 and when Russia (after the collapse of Soviet Union) wanted to replace them with a more modern tank the two factories made competing models and the T-72 factory won. It has several upgrades including ones taken from T-80. (One big factor on the winner might be that T-80 was much more expensive. It was supposed to be the "quality" tank that is less numerous than the cheap T-72 and will only be given to elite units but I guess they either couldn't afford it or just decided that the idea was stupid.)

Slightly related on the topic, I tried to find a comparison between T-72 and T-90 but instead stumbled on this "non-intentional" comedy article:

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/poli...-abrams_t90-0/

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by jester

I was speaking in gaming terms and desperation and imagination. Look at the vehicle guide, WWII the mods done to armor. Or even Vietnam and the "Gun Trucks."

As I said earlier, I've never even seen a Sheridan. Just going with the concept of using what is available to bring it online in some useful manner. And never was the idea of bringing it back to go toe to toe with modern 1st tier armor.

But, remember some pact nations still have T-55s and T-64/5s as their tier 1 armor. And then, how old is the T-72? Which if I recall correctly, the T-90 is just an updated T-72 since the T-80 didn't work as promised...or am I getting them reversed?

Another issue, how many US armored vehicles have been completely destroyed to the point they are written off and not sent back to be rebuilt? Unless its a catastrophic kill of course. And would this not be the case if the balloon went up? This as I recall was the case in WWII where green crews got in after the holes were patched and the blood washed out.

In the Vietnam War, the Sheridan earned a rep as a death trap for its crews. It was the first combustible case ammo tank to enter service and there problems with propellant escaping from the round and accumulating on the turret floor with dire results when the hull was penetrated by rpg/mines. Another problem was that the combustible case did not fully ignite in the chamber, when the breech was opened, this flaming debris fell back into the turret, sometimes igniting the round the loader was preparing to load. To overcome this problem, a high air pressure air line was installed to.blow this debris down the tube, this was one of the reasons for the lousy rate of fire. The missile came in for its own loading issues, it could only be loaded one way into the gun, resulting in a notch being cut into the breech...think about trying to "key in" a missile during an engagement!

The fun and joy doesn't end there! The missile was a 1st gen IR beam rider that required the gunner to maintain lock on target throughout the missile flight time. Bad enough, but the missile had a host of problems, especiallyduring sunny days, bright reflections as well as a hordes of reliability issues, bad enough when the missile doesn't fire...it's perverse desire to try go for other targets, like that bright sunny thing in the sky, just ruins a crews day.

Another problem was the electronics of the fire control system...temperamental doesn't begin to describe the issues, both Sheridan and the later M60A2 Starship spent more time in the maintenance shop than on the firing line.

Add the fact that the Sheridan would have spent almost 20 years in storage in the desert by the time of the Mexican invasion...

[Targan]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Sigh...I work as auditor for DOD, I get paid the big bucks to travel to these storage facilities just to count the gear AND what condition it is in. Trust me, the M551s in "storage" are in no condition to be locked, cocked and ready to go.

I believe you, absolutely, but what about 20 years ago?

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Targan

I believe you, absolutely, but what about 20 years ago?

These tanks started being put into storage before 1980, the gun-missile launcher and it's assorted problems where the chief reason why. They were being replaced in the armored cavalry regiments with M48/M60A1, and in the divisional cavalry squadrons cavalry squadrons by M150. About the only unit with them was with the 82nd Airborne. Last armor crewman training course for the Sheridan was in 1978, after that, it was armor basic and then OJT at the battalion.

So figure in storage for about 12 or so years, no development work to correct the known issues, and very few personnel familiar with the beast.

I'd find it far more likely that it would have been stripped and melted down.