Aircraft/Armor Surplus Storage

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

as for ammo - again lots of money can do wonderous things to find hard to get items - if he had the money to buy the tanks then getting a small quantity of shells is probably well within his means - maybe one complete ammo load per vehicle worth - but I wouldnt bet against it

I would. The BATF considers each round of ammunition a "Destriuctive Device" that must be applied for separately. So whatever the cost, and additional $200 per shell, and additional costs for storing them in a BATF approved secure facility.

HE and other things don't store forever even in ideal conditions.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

I would. The BATF considers each round of ammunition a "Destriuctive Device" that must be applied for separately. So whatever the cost, and additional $200 per shell, and additional costs for storing them in a BATF approved secure facility.

HE and other things don't store forever even in ideal conditions.

Not to mention that while solid shot is fine; you have to get a testing/development exemption from the BAFT for possession of explosive or armor piercing rounds. Otherwise it would be illegal to possess, transport, buy, or use said rounds.

[swaghauler]

This thread does bring up an interesting thought. What if the locals decided to "upgun" an APC or "rearm" an old tank with a gun they could actually make powder charges and ammo for? Be pretty funny seeing an old WW2 tank with a Civil War era black powder muzzle loading cannon mounted in it. These "Destructive Devices" are both common and popular (which means they could turn up anywhere) and come in both "old school" Civil War era models and new manufacture versions. The locals could make both the shot and powder it uses with relative ease. It may be only a one shot weapon, but it could dominate a force with only small arms. Any thoughts?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

This thread does bring up an interesting thought. What if the locals decided to "upgun" an APC or "rearm" an old tank with a gun they could actually make powder charges and ammo for? Be pretty funny seeing an old WW2 tank with a Civil War era black powder muzzle loading cannon mounted in it. These "Destructive Devices" are both common and popular (which means they could turn up anywhere) and come in both "old school" Civil War era models and new manufacture versions. The locals could make both the shot and powder it uses with relative ease. It may be only a one shot weapon, but it could dominate a force with only small arms. Any thoughts?

As you can imagine with a group that's been around this long, some ideas and discussions circle back around from time to time. I'll see if I can dig through the archives and find some of the discussions we had on the exact same subject a few years back.

[Targan]

Here are some old threads that talk about reloading ammo and have some references to the use of black powder:

Improvised ammunition

Ammo reloading

Pictures of homemade guns

Improvised weapons and equipment

Post-exchange gunpowder production

Black powder

And here's a few threads that talk about modifying military vehicles:

Modified vehicles in T2K

Gun trucks

Using captured vehicles

M551A2 Sheridan

Questions about home guard/militia units

And this thread has elements of both:

Surplus armor in T2K

[jester]

Division De Cuba:

Had me wondering about Gitmo. What would of become of the Navy Facility there? Does the timeline show it abandoned? Or would they have reinforced like their did during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Or, did the personel die in a blaze of glory and the radio went silent?

That could be a source of some US weapons for the Division.

Another issue, since Cuba liked to export and share with the world the joys of socialism with the like of good ol Che. Do you all think there could be a battalion of volunteers that would go with the Russians to fight those evil imperialist Yankees? Or, as Cuba tends to do, a light "Boatlift" in an effort to get rid of undesirables? Sending them as "support" for the Russians.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Targan

As you can imagine with a group that's been around this long, some ideas and discussions circle back around from time to time. I'll see if I can dig through the archives and find some of the discussions we had on the exact same subject a few years back.

Thanks for the links to the old threads. I really enjoyed them.

[Olefin]

At 200 a round for the license Littlefield could afford to have quite the arsenal - remember we are talking about a multi multi millionaire here - this isnt some guy with an old M113 in his garage - this is a guy who had more tanks and armored vehicles than most countries have

Oh and by the way - Sadat threw the Soviets out of Egypt long before the timeline ever deviated from ours - Egypt is a US allied nation in this timeline - they were buying US equipment and by 1989 were considered a US ally - so getting ex-Soviet stuff from Israel and Egypt would have been easy to do

one thing that also could be done would be to use any vehicles as pure gun platforms - i.e. turn them into the equivalent of a WWII tank destroyer or self propelled gun without a turret - mount a small cannon or AA gun or heck a helicopter gunship rocket pod on it and send it into combat

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

At 200 a round for the license Littlefield could afford to have quite the arsenal - remember we are talking about a multi multi millionaire here - this isnt some guy with an old M113 in his garage - this is a guy who had more tanks and armored vehicles than most countries have

Oh and by the way - Sadat threw the Soviets out of Egypt long before the timeline ever deviated from ours - Egypt is a US allied nation in this timeline - they were buying US equipment and by 1989 were considered a US ally - so getting ex-Soviet stuff from Israel and Egypt would have been easy to do

one thing that also could be done would be to use any vehicles as pure gun platforms - i.e. turn them into the equivalent of a WWII tank destroyer or self propelled gun without a turret - mount a small cannon or AA gun or heck a helicopter gunship rocket pod on it and send it into combat

Since Mr. Littlefield did not buy munitions, machinery to manufacture munitions, or even chemicals to produce even propellants, is proof enough to me that he never intended to in the first place. Let alone the federal laws that would have to be overcome.

I don't like hand wave things just to hand wave them. People I have played with want plausible excuses for things not their intelligence insulted. Billionaires that buy fantastic weapons and never have bureaucratic government problems is a movie called Iron Man.

It is reasonable and plausible in the T2K timelines that a hobbyist like Littlefield would have Korean war and earlier vehicles and equipment. Given the radical changes in the timeline that differ from our own; I find it implausible that operational 60s and later equipment would have gone to a collector.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Since Mr. Littlefield did not buy munitions, machinery to manufacture munitions, or even chemicals to produce even propellants, is proof enough to me that he never intended to in the first place. Let alone the federal laws that would have to be overcome.

I don't like hand wave things just to hand wave them. People I have played with want plausible excuses for things not their intelligence insulted. Billionaires that buy fantastic weapons and never have bureaucratic government problems is a movie called Iron Man.

It is reasonable and plausible in the T2K timelines that a hobbyist like Littlefield would have Korean war and earlier vehicles and equipment. Given the radical changes in the timeline that differ from our own; I find it implausible that operational 60s and later equipment would have gone to a collector.

sorry but an old M60A2 Starship and a Conqueror tank are hardly fantastic weapons - and you can own live shells in this country for a license fee that is very affordable - and for the right price you can get anything in this country -

and if you use the V2 timeline then he could have gotten everything he had basically - even the original timeline is totally plausible for 90% of his collection - and the T2013 timeline means he got it all

and either way the man had exactly what you need to maintain and rebuild tanks and armored vehicles including a very loyal and dedicated staff

but again either way its how you approach the game versus how I approach it - and everyone's campaign is different in how non-canon is handled

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

sorry but an old M60A2 Starship and a Conqueror tank are hardly fantastic weapons - and you can own live shells in this country for a license fee that is very affordable - and for the right price you can get anything in this country -

That M60A2 would have been recycled into an M60A1 or sold to Israel that would have done the same. Jordan would have liked to have the Conqueror, South Africa, even Israel again. Israel would have converted the conqueror to one of the turretless counter IED engineer vehicles that sweep between one kibbutz and the next.

Old and obsolete to the 1st world powers like NATO is still adequate to those not so advanced. In any of these timelines without a collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact to economic difficulties means a continuance and escalation of brushfire wars in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

Originally Posted by Olefin

and if you use the V2 timeline then he could have gotten everything he had basically - even the original timeline is totally plausible for 90% of his collection - and the T2013 timeline means he got it all

So your saying all these smaller 3rd world nations like those in south America still using M24s, M41s, and M48s would not have been snapping any of these things up for spares if nothing else.
I don’t think so.

Originally Posted by Olefin

and either way the man had exactly what you need to maintain and rebuild tanks and armored vehicles including a very loyal and dedicated staff

Maintaining museum quality sure….. I think he could have a reasonable collection of WW2 and Korean era equipment. The items from the 60s forward would be in the hands of 3rd world countries in local conflicts fueled by money from either NATO or the Warsaw Pact…… Afghanistan, Angola, Eritrea, Sinai, Cyprus, Vietnam, Laos, Chad, Libya, Pakistan, India, as examples.

Originally Posted by Olefin

but again either way its how you approach the game versus how I approach it - and everyone's campaign is different in how non-canon is handled

I don’t like to insult my players with far fetched per case scenarios. If bad guy needs to be stronger to counter a powerful PC team or to give the PC a target worthy of their efforts, then a reasonable and plausible means for a tank or APC to be there can be better devised than because billionaires like tanks.

Millionaires and billionaires didn’t get that way spending money. Sure Mr. Littlefields collection was worth a lot, and gained in value as other vehicles were scrapped. What doesn’t give it value is live ammunition at $200 per shell above the base cost, plus the outrageous monthly insurance.
Then ammunition doesn’t sit infinitely, propellants and explosives naturally decay. Is he going to shoot 10% to 50% per year from every vehicle to rotate stock? Not a chance. The wear and tear on the vehicles alone would be unacceptable.

Ordnance isn’t built or maintained by mechanics no matter how clever they are. Fuses, even of the impact type, have little to nothing at all incommon with anything on the tank, but another fuse.
Any Twilight timeline is a violent place and I doubt anything would sit around as surplus to be collected by hobbyists.

[Olefin]

ArmySgt - the timeline isnt that much more violent than our current timeline up until the start of the Soviet Chinese war - there would still be surplus equipment to be had by those who had enough money

and there is always surplus equipment to be had for the serious collector who has enough money and he was both

keep in mind that many third world nations don't operate much in the way of tanks - like Mexico for instance

and many of the vehicles he had he rebuilt from the ground up - these werent pristine vehicles that drove up ready to fire - these were lovingly rebuilt by him over the years - if you are a Third World nation you are going to want to buy fully operational tanks and armored vehicles - not ones that need a year in a rebuild shop to bring them back up to spec while you search spare parts collections and use old drawings to make parts one at a time

he didnt buy this tanks right off the lot - that Panzer IV that he had looked literally like a piece of crap when he got it - and it took years to fix it -

Frankly if you dont like the Collection then dont use it in your campaign -heck unless you are playing in CA or AZ it would never even come into play

And while you keep talking about how crappy it would be to have a WWII or Korean era tank in a fight, the Croats, Serbs and Bosnians used a bunch of old WWII tanks in the fight in Yugoslavia in the mid 90's - and they worked quite well

[Silent Hunter UK]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Oh and by the way - Sadat threw the Soviets out of Egypt long before the timeline ever deviated from ours - Egypt is a US allied nation in this timeline - they were buying US equipment and by 1989 were considered a US ally - so getting ex-Soviet stuff from Israel and Egypt would have been easy to do

Indeed, a number of the MiGs used in CONSTANT PEG are believed to be ex-Egyptian ones.