Aircraft/Armor Surplus Storage

[kato13]

Given the penchant the game designers had putting odd equipment in odd places, I think the Littlefield collection fits nicely. They have British and German units stay in Canada. They have an Alaskan Invasion by the Soviets. They have a US division get "lost" by 800 kilometers.

When I played I tried to give the 49th some color by adding 24 DUKW transports which were "requisitioned" when one of their brigades was near the Wisconsin Dells (where they are used for recreational touring).

Personally I would give Littlefield a little more eccentric personality (and more money and power). Maybe add a little John DuPont and Howard Hughes. Make the collection an obsession that leads to grey and black market deals.

Once you enter that world you find corrupt quartermasters, Insurgents who capture a single vehicle (and have no support for it), a dictator's cousin looking for a little cash, plus anything that would be above board.

You have to make Littlefield crazy to have the collection armed before TDM, but if you throw in a little of DuPont's or Hughes paranoia it might work. Personally I would not have the collection armed until "Wojo" type plants spring up.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I should also point out the matter of vehicles that 40mm rounds can take out - the M1 (of any stripe) is still vulnerable in almost all arcs to RPG-7 fire. When they were taken out with them in OIF the Army (and Marines) didn't pull them off the line and mothball them.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

I should also point out the matter of vehicles that 40mm rounds can take out - the M1 (of any stripe) is still vulnerable in almost all arcs to RPG-7 fire. When they were taken out with them in OIF the Army (and Marines) didn't pull them off the line and mothball them.

Notably because the insurgent tank hunting practice was to attempt to overwhelm the tank with volley fire expending 20-30 RPGs some with recently supplied ChiCom and Russian tandem warheads. Those tanks weren't lost or out of action long. I will concede that they were put out of action temporarily and tank crews killed or maimed permanently. Insurgent RPG gunners got lucky hitting hatches from on top. Tanks immobilized because multiple RPGS were used to destroy the drive sprocket (bogie?). Some were lost to simply packing the road with several artillery shells filled set to command detonate. Those RPGS did shut some M1s down but, only just by hits to the gunners sights, commanders visor blocks, etc. It takes 20 to a 100 men and near or completely suicidal dedication.

That also brought out the T.U.S.K. program.

If you can find an instance where an RPG-7 standard round penetrated the hull through the armor and not a more vulnerable point like a vision block or weapon sight I would genuinely like to read it.

[Olefin]

The shop had the ability to weld armor plate - I used to work for a company that produced military vehicles - i.e. the M88, the M109, the Bradley, etc..

you need special equipment and training to be able to weld heavy duty armor that miltary vehicles use - and I worked for a company that builds heavy construction equipment - plus that shop had equipment that could easily handle a tank turret or tank body -

and we used to qualify our welders to work on armor - the qualifications you need for working on construction equipment is not what you need to properly weld a heavy armored vehicle together

as to a lack of diesel - well thats why the military converted their vehicles to run on methanol and ethanol - so most likely they would do it here

as for lack of tank transports - have a feeling that the US military still has them and they could use them to move those tanks to where they are needed - and they run on methanol and ethanol too

yes those tanks are vulnerable to those rounds - and so are Bradley's, M113's, Bufords, LAV-25's, etc.. - and I highly doubt that MilGov has parked all those vehicles just in case someone has an M203 HEDP round on them

yes it has the potential to penetrate that steel at 150 meters range - whats the effective range of a .50 caliber machine gun on those grenadiers? and thats if they even have those rounds by 2000 in any quantity at all let alone actual RPG's

and I would rather have a tank to fight in that was designed as a tank than converted bank armored cars - which per canon are being used as armored vehicles by MilGov, CivGov and New Amerca

if they are issuing Peacekeepers to the 49th to make up for lost tanks then I bet they would rather have actual tanks instead no matter what their vintage than a Peacekeeper

Heck they are using M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle's as tanks then they really dont care much what they have for tanks

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

The shop had the ability to weld armor plate - I used to work for a company that produced military vehicles - i.e. the M88, the M109, the Bradley, etc..
you need special equipment and training to be able to weld heavy duty armor that miltary vehicles use - and I worked for a company that builds heavy construction equipment - plus that shop had equipment that could easily handle a tank turret or tank body -
and we used to qualify our welders to work on armor - the qualifications you need for working on construction equipment is not what you need to properly weld a heavy armored vehicle together

The formula isn’t a mystery or super secret knowledge. Let’t not pretend it is.

Originally Posted by Olefin

as to a lack of diesel - well thats why the military converted their vehicles to run on methanol and ethanol - so most likely they would do it here

That is one of the failures of the T2K setting. Now they probably get the idea from the M35 2 ½ which has a multi-fuel engine. That doesn’t mean it can run on pure ethanol or methanol. The fuel mix for a M35 still must be greater than 50% diesel, kerosene, crank case oil to lubricate the pistons. Pure ethanol would seize the pistons very fast. The only other vehicle that would run would be the turbine in an M1 Abrams until the alcohol destroyed any gaskets and lines.

The brewing fuel bit only works for gasoline motors for a short time, again alcohol attacks those gaskets and lines not formulated against its corrosive effects.

It is a major handwave for the entirety of the story or there would be few or no military vehicles at all without oil production and refining to get diesel on the market.

Originally Posted by Olefin

as for lack of tank transports - have a feeling that the US military still has them and they could use them to move those tanks to where they are needed - and they run on methanol and ethanol too

For one, they do not run on methanol and ethanol except it the T2K universe. Trains are out since railyards are a strategic target on their own and typically in a large urban area another target of strategic nuclear weapons. Civilian lowboys could move around APCs and light armor, it is going to take a HET to move an M1 with any efficiency. I would say some are around, these are a support vehicle and some are going to make it through the tactical nukes destroying rear area marshalling yards and forward support battalions. These burn a lot of fuel though. These are also valuable as transport for any and everything else. Escorted HETs on MSR Tampa between Scania and BIAP with tons of anything and everything like sack concrete, concertina wire, plus pallets of sandbags. They wouldn’t go on ethanol or methanol though.

Originally Posted by Olefin

yes those tanks are vulnerable to those rounds - and so are Bradley's, M113's, Bufords, LAV-25's, etc.. - and I highly doubt that MilGov has parked all those vehicles just in case someone has an M203 HEDP round on them

All the modern vehicles you name have things like spall liners, fire suppression systems, and ammo compartmentalization in their favor.

Originally Posted by Olefin

yes it has the potential to penetrate that steel at 150 meters range - whats the effective range of a .50 caliber machine gun on those grenadiers? and thats if they even have those rounds by 2000 in any quantity at all let alone actual RPG's

This is the wrong thread to go into infantry anti armor tactics but, having a .50 isn’t going to do them much good. A tank without infantry protecting it is a dead tank.

Originally Posted by Olefin

and I would rather have a tank to fight in that was designed as a tank than converted bank armored cars - which per canon are being used as armored vehicles by MilGov, CivGov and New America

If they are using bank armored cars then those guys are pants on head retarded to start with. The best possible use is as scouts or convoy escorts. These do not have the armor to be anything more than the lightest battle taxi that would carry infantry forward and drop them off 500 to a 1000 meters from the objective.
Another writers fiction that has somehow gained traction.

Originally Posted by Olefin

if they are issuing Peacekeepers to the 49th to make up for lost tanks then I bet they would rather have actual tanks instead no matter what their vintage than a Peacekeeper

If the 49th is using Peacekeepers this explains how they lost their tanks to begin with. It is all for the story though, so that is the way it has to be, realistic or not.

[Olefin]

actually they used the Peacekeepers as replacements for the armor they lost fighting Soviet Division Cuba

and bank cars being used as APC's are in both "A River Runs Thru It" by MilGov and in the Florida module being used by New America and quite effectively so against guerrillas who have no anti-armor weapons

and we are talking about T2K here - so in the canon they have converted vehicles to run on methanol and ethanol and have done so since 1998 when gasoline and diesel got short

basically outside of Oklahoma, Ohio, Kenya, and Iran there arent many military vehicles they have that arent running on alcohol and have been doing so for quite a while

so you may not like it but thats the world those of us who play the game have gotten used to

and the lack of anti-armor weapons by 2000 is why any remaining tanks are as effective as they are - look at the Soviet Vehicle Guide and it specifically states how effective one APC is because the guerrillas its fighting have almost no anti-armor weapons

look at the Soviet attack on Brownsville in the Texas module - they lose a grand total of one vehicle to anti-armor weapons in close in fighting - not exactly a ringing endorsement of the availability of anti-armor weapons

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

actually they used the Peacekeepers as replacements for the armor they lost fighting Soviet Division Cuba

They why isn’t important, it is the how. If they are using them as tanks in frontal attacks against a dedicated defense meant to hold ground those are going to be dead to the first DsHK 38/42. Having any AT rocket or missile is irrelevant against a bank car which is armor up to 30.06 or 7.62N AP ammo. A 120 motor will take one out with just a near miss and shrapnel.

That is taking exceptional liberties with calling a bank car meant to protect cash from robbers a military armored vehicle.
If they are and that is canonically correct, who is in charge of this 49th ? The post office? Because something is seriously wrong in the implementation of combined arms theory over there.

Originally Posted by Olefin

and bank cars being used as APC's are in both "A River Runs Thru It" by MilGov and in the Florida module being used by New America and quite effectively so against guerrillas who have no anti-armor weapons

How loosely are we defining “Use as an APC” because again to use these even moderately successfully they are battle taxis or convoy escorts. Either taxing troops with 500 to 1000 meters to avoid engagements and leaving the infantry to themselves; option two is as a convoy escort that hopes to survive the initial ambush and belch out troops to counter attack. Any other way and all I can forsee is a loss of the vehicle quickly.

Originally Posted by Olefin

and we are talking about T2K here - so in the canon they have converted vehicles to run on methanol and ethanol and have done so since 1998 when gasoline and diesel got short

Which is still ridiculous and not a ringing endorsement for the setting either. They can’t manufacture parts or support armies in the field, yet all sides can engineer a engine replacement, manufacture this, ship these globally, and refurbish every vehicle in the fleet combat or combat support with a new gasoline / ethanol motor. See the shortfalls in that.

Originally Posted by Olefin

basically outside of Oklahoma, Ohio, Kenya, and Iran there arent many military vehicles they have that arent running on alcohol and have been doing so for quite a while

It is elemental handwavium for the sake of having military vehicles for the players and the opposing forces. Let’s just call that what it is.

Originally Posted by Olefin

so you may not like it but thats the world those of us who play the game have gotten used to

Yup, I bought my first copy of T2k in 1986, doesn’t mean the story holds water any better than a colander then or now. Would be better to dispense with the ethanol foolishness and state that the coal oil conversion process doesn’t have the same outputs as the pre-war petrochemical. So it takes months to get enough for a large offensive. Easy peasy, still works with the slow advance and long periods of settling in.

Originally Posted by Olefin

and the lack of anti-armor weapons by 2000 is why any remaining tanks are as effective as they are - look at the Soviet Vehicle Guide and it specifically states how effective one APC is because the guerrillas its fighting have almost no anti-armor weapons

Which is again ridiculous given the simplicity of rudimentary shape charges with a government capable of doing so. Panzerfausts and Bazookas can comeback into fashion if everyone is into WW2 relics and bank cars.

Originally Posted by Olefin

look at the Soviet attack on Brownsville in the Texas module - they lose a grand total of one vehicle to anti-armor weapons in close in fighting - not exactly a ringing endorsement of the availability of anti-armor weapons

Which is a plot point necessary for the author versus a ringing endorsement of combined arms theory. It was necessary for the story, so that is the way it went.

[Olefin]

I agree with you Kato - and Raketenjagdpanzer has a big point too - just that shop of his, which he would have had no matter what the timeline, would have been invaluable

just imagine - its 2000 and you have a fully manned (his techs weree as dedicated as he was after all) and operational tank repair depot that can take a tank that is basically a pile of junk and make it operational again

and there sits MilGov units with all kinds of tanks and armored vehicles with issues that need to be fixed - its a marriage made in heaven

and I could easily see him obtaining stuff once the war started with various bribes if not beforhand - especially if he saw how the world was getting pre-TDM and figured it might be a damn good idea to have some munitions to arm his collection

[ArmySGT.]

Again, we are back to where we are not going to agree.

A U.S. government that provides HE munitions to a millionaire eccentric with a militaria fetish.

A machine shop that can be replicated anywhere there is a shop that services heavy construction equipment. The only thing that sets it a part is some of the skill sets of the technicians and the manuals available. Saying that though, heavy equipment mechanics typically made their start in military service.

Diversion of resources to make munitions for an obsolete caliber with in a multi-front global conflict.

No, diesel to put these into action, let along move them by rail, or tractor trailer to near the marshaling area.

All the timelines with a strong Communist Bloc and worldwide brushfire wars of proxy between NATO and the Soviet Union.

A M203 High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP) has the potential to penetrate 2 inches (50mm) into Rolled Homogenous Steel (RHA) at zero degrees deflection. One per fire team. Now look over the armor thickness on these relics and see how long they will last against the lightest of anti-armor weapons.

Killing tanks with handweapons like molotovs, burning sulphur, satchel charges, dropping a building on them isn't that difficult once you drive the supporting infantry off. Chechnya taught the Russian Army that lesson with the loss of T-80s to underscore the point.

I am utterly unconvinced.

How ever my interest is post apocalyptic genre, not WW3. So I only care about solid, plausible explanations without a confluence of preposterous circumstance.