Aircraft/Armor Surplus Storage

[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]

Urban Guerrilla

New American forces use a mix of armored bank cars as armored personnel carriers and assault vehicles - with a machine gun turret on the top that is used to support their troops in close in assaults. They used a variety of armored cars including small, medium and large ones.

And they used them to bring troops right up into the fighting where they deployed right into the fighting - so not armored taxis for sure

US Vehicle Guide

Peacekeeper entry

Peacekeeper armored car of 2 78th Armored Cavalry Regiment;
Germany, spring 1998.

Another vehicle from the 278th ACR contemporaneous with
that shown in Plate E1, the Peacekeeper was also most commonly
used by USAF security police for airfield security. This
particular peacekeeper has apparently been recently repainted
which accounts for it having acquired a camouflage pattern and for the less weathered look of the vehicle compared to "Lady
Jane". Note the searchlight mounted on the machine gun gun
shield.This was a common feature on airfield security vehicles
and has been retained by this crew.

In addition to airfield defense, a number of Peacekeepers were
also acquired by the Department of Energy in the early 1980's
for nuclear reactor security. A number of Peacekeepers of both
USAF and DOE origin were used in 1999 to replace vehicle
losses in the 49th Armored Division in Oklahoma.

So the Army was using them to equip Armored Cav Regiments in Germany and to replace lost armored vehicles in the 49th per the canon.

Soviet Army Vehicle Guide

BRDM-3

the 30mm autocannon was very effective against partisans and irregular forces who had little in the way of anti-tank weapons as the war went on

again showing that antitank weapons are at a premium by 2000

Red Star Lone Star

The Mexican armed forces are armed with a mix of rifles - no machine guns, no anti-tank weapons. The only guys with RPG's are the guys in Brownsville and the Soviets and the only grenade launchers in the whole module are in the hands of the Texian Legion who got them from a MilGov unit that didn't have any armor

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Urban Guerrilla

New American forces use a mix of armored bank cars as armored personnel carriers and assault vehicles - with a machine gun turret on the top that is used to support their troops in close in assaults. They used a variety of armored cars including small, medium and large ones.

And they used them to bring troops right up into the fighting where they deployed right into the fighting - so not armored taxis for sure

US Vehicle Guide

Peacekeeper entry

Peacekeeper armored car of 2 78th Armored Cavalry Regiment;
Germany, spring 1998.

Another vehicle from the 278th ACR contemporaneous with
that shown in Plate E1, the Peacekeeper was also most commonly
used by USAF security police for airfield security. This
particular peacekeeper has apparently been recently repainted
which accounts for it having acquired a camouflage pattern and for the less weathered look of the vehicle compared to "Lady
Jane". Note the searchlight mounted on the machine gun gun
shield.This was a common feature on airfield security vehicles
and has been retained by this crew.

In addition to airfield defense, a number of Peacekeepers were
also acquired by the Department of Energy in the early 1980's
for nuclear reactor security. A number of Peacekeepers of both
USAF and DOE origin were used in 1999 to replace vehicle
losses in the 49th Armored Division in Oklahoma.

So the Army was using them to equip Armored Cav Regiments in Germany and to replace lost armored vehicles in the 49th per the canon.

Soviet Army Vehicle Guide

BRDM-3

the 30mm autocannon was very effective against partisans and irregular forces who had little in the way of anti-tank weapons as the war went on

again showing that antitank weapons are at a premium by 2000

Red Star Lone Star

The Mexican armed forces are armed with a mix of rifles - no machine guns, no anti-tank weapons. The only guys with RPG's are the guys in Brownsville and the Soviets and the only grenade launchers in the whole module are in the hands of the Texian Legion who got them from a MilGov unit that didn't have any armor

Ok, but what is your point with this departure from the thread?

None of these examples, though they exist in game canon, are indicative of real world combined arms theory.

Lets go with number one. Bank cars.

Run flat tires, large windshield of bullet resistant glass laminate, non-turreted, high center of gravity, low power to weight ratio, driver and passenger positions in the front, separate cargo/passenger area to the rear (no door or passage to the drivers compartment), firing ports allowing barrel protrusion (drivers compartment one forward, one left, one right) (cargo one rear, one left, one right), firer cannot use the weapon sights.

Sound about right? The armor protection is rated up to 30.06 / 7.62N on only the best, and most often used for high value cargoes. Typical application drops down to close range and pistol caliber cartridges. The difference between the ATM service truck and casino or bank transfer truck. Hundreds of the first, a dozen of the second.

Use it as an APC, lose it quickly.

Thugs with bank car decide to raid merchant with food and some petrochemicals like motor oil and some kerosene.

Vehicle approaches at a high rate of speed. Merchant guards move to defense recognizing the vehicle for what it is.

Merchant guards engage with M16s, M14s, and Ak-47s. In moments the driver windshield is pocked and shattered forming large circles of fractured glass that impair vision from multiple impacts. The radiator takes multiple punishing impacts from bullet fragments deflecting off the louvers. The front wheels immediately deflate from multiple rifle caliber impacts and sink onto shredding rubber and the aluminum run flat internal wheel. The driver unable to see, with unresponsive steering loses control and the vehicle comes to a rest on its side. The merchant guard using their positions under cover use aimed shots at any sign of movement from inside the vehicle. A detachment of guards moves to the vehicle from the now exposed underside that hasn't any vision blocks, ports, or windows. Using improvised means sets the bank car on fire and retreats.

Thugs are dead and the bank car is destroyed. This is with AT weapons, counter vehicles obstacles, or mines.

Bank cars as APCs is an author taking tremendous liberties with the real capabilities of men and equipment.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

While I have no desire to block a debate that's providing interesting information, I am constantly looking at it from the viewpoint that GDW intended the game to be about a group of WW3 veterans surviving and maybe rebuilding in the aftermath of a global war, with the PCs adventuring in a manner similar to how PCs adventure in AD&D.

It wasn't specifically about any group fielding large numbers of vehicles to continue prosecuting the war and although it can be argued that certain NPC groups will try to get all the vehicles they can, half the fun of the game would be missions for the PCs to get the necessary spares and POL to get a handful of vehicles operating. These missions would be significant not just to the NPCs or PCs but also to the Players simply because those needed resources are now so scarce that their PCs would be taking a significant role in the game story - which is kinda the point of RPGs

As I say, the debate is throwing out a lot of interesting and useful information but for me ultimately, it is a purely intellectual exercise because I personally don't see T2k as a game of raising masses of armoured vehicles to keep WW3 going. I've always thought of the combat vehicles as rare and kept for "special occasions".
Protecting your enclave is obviously important but the resources dedicated to keeping those armoured vehicles in combat could be better used to keep the population alive and growing food.