Aircraft/Armor Surplus Storage

[ArmySGT.]

Sorry, skipped over your post replying to others so here goes.

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

You know you say "Oh he'd only have WWII stuff and no guns..."

I do. For two reasons, first because when the Soviet Union collapsed in our real world timeline of 09 November 1989 the little wars happening all over the world especially in Africa, South America, and South East Asia drastically reduced in size and intensity. Those wars were fueled by money and weapons from mostly NATO (primarily the U.S., I admit that) and the USSR mostly to preserve or limit the other factions influence in the area.
With a strong USSR and Warsaw Pact still in existence those wars never stop or lower their intensity. The Pact allies like Cuba, North Korea, Angola, Venezuela don’t really decline or stop their military misadventures regionally or globally. For this reason I assert there really isn’t much in the way of military surplus vehicles or artillery because some place, at some time, somebody is using this stuff trying to kill someone else. What would not be acceptable first line equipment in Europe for the coming WW3 in mostly effective somewhere that either side isn’t using that sophisticated equipment or fighting Kursk level pitched battles.
I keep iterating that the surplus will be WW2 and Korea as though they are easy to operate and could be effective in some situations these are now vulnerable to the least effective of anti armor weapons like the 40mm grenade. That makes spending money and diverting resources to these as fighting vehicles decidedly less worthwhile.

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Consider this: even taking that into consideration, his "garage" is a treasure trove of a machine shop. It'd be a fine prize for any faction to take, be it civgov, milgov, New America, MexiCubanSoviet invaders, whatever. He's got tooling, lifts, lathes, etc. up there to keep an armored brigade repaired and running.

It isn’t unique. Anywhere that has a machine shop for repair of heavy construction equipment has the multi ton hoists, lathes, mills, and the large toolsets to work on these things. Literally, every county, multiple in every state everywhere there is a Department of Transportation. Additionally, any dealership that sells heavy construction equipment such as Caterpillar, Case, or John Deere has a repair bay with all the same stuff. The only thing unique about Mr. Littlefield’s shop is some of the unique expertise and the manuals available. I can think of four or five places in Pueblo down there that would all escape the nuclear exchange and would only need electricity.

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Now regarding the collection itself? Fine, He's only got up to Korean War era stuff, and no ammo. Taking it as fact (because it is a fact) that he's got the machine shop to do so, what's stopping him from pulling turrets off of tanks and hey, presto, armored prime movers?

Prime movers are used to tow artillery in poor terrain where there is a risk of counter battery fire or bombing by tactical aircraft. Depends on if there is artillery to be towed to start with, then if saddling a unit with a cantankerous beast of a machine that has no spare parts is worth the effort.

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Attaching dozer blades and other things, and now you've got armored engineering vehicles, vital to combat engineer work and reconstruction? How about turning those old tanks into personnel carriers? Mortar carriers? A Sherman could shrug off MG42 rounds, why not RPK slugs? Same for his various half-tracks.

There is a big difference between combat engineering and reconstruction. Combat engineering vehicles are either put up obstacles to slow, channel or stop an enemy advance or trying to tear down the other guy’s defenses. This is all done while being fired upon as both sides are in contact. Only the most heavily armored are expected to survive this like a M728. Even then, a mass effort is in place just for that one combat engineering vehicle. Infantry are screening to counter enemy infantry, the smoke unit is pumping out hectares of smoke, artillery is firing at known enemy concentration and enemy held road junctions, tacair and air superiority is overhead. The enemy is going to pour artillery onto that combat engineering vehicle just to prevent a breakthrough.
As to conversions, mortar carriers, sure those only need to be armored enough to survive counter battery fire up to 152mm or 155mm detonating at 50 meters. Those don’t get close enough to the infantry battle line to be threatened by AT weapons. As to personnel carriers, only in the sense as the battle taxi like an M113; protecting the infantry from small arms and shrapnel and bring them within 500 to 1000 meters of the objective while attempting to support the infantry dismounted movement with long range heavy machinegun fire. Expect to lose them though. When the enemy is in range so are you. Some of these would be vulnerable to 14.5 KPV and certainly 23mm ZPUs in a ground role, those weapons outranging the M2HB.

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

So you consider his 30-40 vehicles that he "would have" during T2k's timeline, we'll be really conservative and say 20 can be made operational, and hey presto that's 20 personnel carriers or prime movers, now suddenly you can put a brigade strength infantry unit on tracks versus walking everywhere, or riding in relatively thin-skinned vehicles.

No, you don’t have anywhere near a Brigade strength and only close to the strength of ONE mechanized infantry company all the while diverting resources that could have better supplied a Brigade strength unit with fuel, ammunition, and support weapons.

Mr. Littlefield’s collection can best serve in a supporting role with guard or militia units guarding seaports, airports, water purification plants etc. where they would not be in direct battle with troops or modern munitions and the activity wouldn’t be causing breakdowns daily.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Army Sgt., if we started poking holes in t2k's realism issues by the end of the day we'd have an aperture grille, not a solid peace.

Olefin's suggesting, and I'm suggesting "This could be a neat thing". Nobody's going to drive to your house and scribble in "...AND THE JACQUES LITTLEFIELD COLLECTION!" in your copy of Howling Wilderness.

I used to be like you, I'd get worked up when someone said lifting demi-human level limits from AD&D was a good idea. But here's the thing: to all discussions about RPGs, attach "...at my table." whether you're arguing for or against. And then I quit because writing 40000 words over a course of weeks in a forum about xyz issue is a waste of time and effort. You're not going to change. I'm not going to change.

There's plenty of logical reasons to include Littlefield's collection in a consideration of arms and armor in the US, post Exchange. There's plenty of reasons not to. At the end of the day do it or don't do it. The whole goddamn game is rife with plot and believability holes.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Army Sgt., if we started poking holes in t2k's realism issues by the end of the day we'd have an aperture grille, not a solid peace.

Olefin's suggesting, and I'm suggesting "This could be a neat thing". Nobody's going to drive to your house and scribble in "...AND THE JACQUES LITTLEFIELD COLLECTION!" in your copy of Howling Wilderness.

I used to be like you, I'd get worked up when someone said lifting demi-human level limits from AD&D was a good idea. But here's the thing: to all discussions about RPGs, attach "...at my table." whether you're arguing for or against. And then I quit because writing 40000 words over a course of weeks in a forum about xyz issue is a waste of time and effort. You're not going to change. I'm not going to change.

There's plenty of logical reasons to include Littlefield's collection in a consideration of arms and armor in the US, post Exchange. There's plenty of reasons not to. At the end of the day do it or don't do it. The whole goddamn game is rife with plot and believability holes.

I am just going to stick to the topic. I am not upset that someone doesn't agree with me.

I don't care if you want Panzers or Shermans in your T2k game because you think these are sexy. What I like about T2k and other post apocalyptic games is the realism..... I tired of AD&D and magic solving everything long, long ago.

So if you have one, then I demand a plausible and logical reason. To just say "Because" is an insult to the adults sitting at the table.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I have no problem with AD&D and the magic but I am like ArmySGT when it comes to games set in historical, modern or near future settings, I want plausible believability.
For fantasy, horror and sci-fi games I'm happy to suspend my disbelief but for modern settings, I and the people I've been gaming with have become more demanding and we want real-world, logical answers.

So I'm kinda walking in the middle here, I agree that the Littlefield collection represents a wonderful resource to anyone who controls it but I find it a stretch to believe that anyone is going to try and field the majority of Littlefield's vehicles with all their different spare parts needs as an integrated combat unit.

It's one thing for an M113 unit to throw a pair of refurbished M114 vehicles into their TOE or even a pair of SdKfz 251 halftracks but in my opinion it's too demanding on logistics to expect them to field say 10-15 M113s, a couple of M114s, a couple of SdKfz 251s, an M4 Sherman, a Matilda MkII, an M18 Hellcat and an SU-100.

[Raellus]

Hey fellas,

Things are getting a little bit testy here so, instead of trying to win each other over to our own points of view, no matter how enlightened they may be, it might be wiser and more productive to just agree to disagree.

This note is not directed at any particular user. At this point, I don't see the need to shut this thread down or PM official cease and desist requests. Let's all do our parts not to let it get to that point.

Thanks.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Hey fellas,

Things are getting a little bit testy here so, instead of trying to win each other over to our own points of view, no matter how enlightened they may be, it might be wiser and more productive to just agree to disagree.

This note is not directed at any particular user. At this point, I don't see the need to shut this thread down or PM official cease and desist requests. Let's all do our parts not to let it get to that point.

Thanks.

Yeah, I had this same argument a couple of years back and no good came of it. Actually I believe it marked the start of a decline in my participation level on this forum that hasn't really recovered. I've watched this most recent cycle and decided against joining in because I know from bitter experience that it'd be the equivalent of banging my head against the wall.

[Olefin]

Actually I dont think any of the Panzers or Lees or Stuarts or the WWII British tanks he has would ever be used - they dont have live barrels - that also applies to all the German WWII artillery he had as well

The only real WWII or Korea tanks he has that have live barrels are a couple of Shermans that the Israelis extensively modified (so much so that they successfully were being used as tanks well into the 1980's) and one M47 tank

the APC's and half tracks are a different issue - all you need to arm them is a 50 caliber machine gun and they are ready to rock - including that M113 he has (and got to love that M113 fire support vehicle as well)

looked thru what he had that actually worked and was ready to go and what could be made ready to go that had live barrels or didnt need a main gun working to be effective (for instance the Ferret armored car that only has a 50 cal machine gun for its armament)

• six assorted armored cars,
• five tanks (a Conqueror Heavy tank, a Centurion Mk13 tank, two ex-Israeli Sherman tanks and a Patton M47 tank)
• M113A1 FSV
• six assorted armored personnel carriers
• a FV433 Abbot M105 SPG, a Sexton SPG armed with a 105mm howitzer and an M37 105mm Howitzer Motor Carriage
• three assorted recovery vehicles
• Saracen Command Post vehicle
• Israeli BTR 40

Like I said the Lees, Stuarts, Cromwells, Panzers and other stuff are great to look at but with no main guns that work they are better off being left there - or having the tank bodies removed and turn them into mobile gun platforms - otherwise they are just very large machine gun platforms

so I agree that the majority of his collection will never be used - keep in mind we are talking about a large amount of vehicles that he had - that fact that 25 vehicles can be used sounds like a lot

but keep in mind we are talking about 15-20% or so of his overall collection

and his shop and those techs are the real prize

And as I said use it or not if you want in your campaign - but its hardly magic or a stretch to have that many of his vehicles be drafted into MilGov - especially not one using CEV's as tanks in CA

either way more than nuff said on this subject

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

So I'm kinda walking in the middle here, I agree that the Littlefield collection represents a wonderful resource to anyone who controls it but I find it a stretch to believe that anyone is going to try and field the majority of Littlefield's vehicles with all their different spare parts needs as an integrated combat unit.

I think these items do have their place if refurbished. Rear area security missions like the seaport, airfields, and resources like a nuclear power plant, desalinization plant. Those things. Then these WW2 relics earn their keep freeing up newer more capable platforms for the fight on the southern border. In those missions they are unlikely to be used hard enough to tear through parts or come up against modern AT weapons and soldiers with the training to use them.

A resource like the machine shop at the Littlefield collection would be better used repairing battle damaged wrecks and training every mechanic and technician that can be found in doing the same. A the while Mr. Littlefield himself travels the southwest region assembling new machineshops to do the same thing as a consultant.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

*** Thread Necromancy ***


This seemed like the best place to mention this...
Just been reading about preserved military vehicles in the former Soviet Union. A large number of WW2 era vehicles were turned into monuments in the 1940s & 50s, typically consisting of a tank or assault gun mounted on some large plinth.
What was interesting from a T2k perspective was that the method of turning these vehicles into monuments was actually rather simplistic.

The plinth would be constructed, then an earthen ramp was made behind the plinth and the vehicle (in the vast majority of cases a T-34-85) was driven up the ramp and parked on the plinth. The batteries were disconnected and all hatches were spot welded closed but aside from the removal of ammunition, nothing else of significance was done to the vehicles.
The Soviet and then the Russian government also kept a stock of 20 working T-34-85 and 20 working Su-100 vehicles for use in Moscow parades however over time the number of operational vehicles has dropped down so that by 2018, they only had approximately 3 working T-34-85's (one leading the parade and the others as spares) and a similarly low number of Su-100's.

But in the last 20 or so years, a number of T-34-85's have been making appearances in local parades across Russia and Ukraine. These particular T-34's have been recovered from the plinths they were mounted on and restored to running order. In one particular case, the recovery team did little more than change the batteries & flush the fuel lines and the old tank started up on the first try.

Now I'm not saying that Eastern European armies, militias, bandit groups, town defence units etc. etc. are going to have hundreds of recovered and restored T-34's at their disposal, it's unlikely to even be dozens of vehicles. However the way the Soviet Union made those tanks into monuments does make restoring them a hell of a lot easier than what happens in the West. Although the vast majority of such WW2 monuments featured the T-34-85, the Soviets did "preserve" other vehicles in the same manner. Again, it's not going to let some unit equip dozens of old tanks but it does make the notion of equipping a unit with one or two older Soviet amoured vehicles easier to achieve.

All in all, with that information it's easier to justify why some group or other has a pair of T-34's on strength (or one or two other Soviet armoured vehicles) or even, if the PCs find out such info, why the PC group might end up with some of those vehicles.

[Olefin]

Its amazing how much WWII equipment the Soviets kept around - its one reason their WWII films were more accurate as to equipment versus ours (think the tanks that were used in Patton as to what I am talking about) - when Enemy at the Gates was made they used a lot of old WWII equipment for the movie that they got from Russian sources that was still in perfect working order

[ChalkLine]

There is a window where a failing industrial state would see these stored vehicles as more than just scrap value.

In World War 2 Australia was in a parlous state before the US joined the war and every rusty gun available was being dragged into government workshops to see if it could be made serviceable in any way. It was so bad there was a proposal to bring in civilian trucks, convert them to armoured cars for the length of the emergency and then deactivate and return the trucks to the civilians after the war. In my mind at least all the big powers reach this state during the Twilight War.

Working ex-military vehicles, especially armoured vehicles, can be given a modern weapon and placed in an Ad Hoc Emergency Defence Force unit for the duration. M551s could be given a low pressure 105mm gun, as could a Sherman (it actually has better armour).

Are these weapons going to Europe? No. They will be used when the final decline is imminent and the administrations are trying to (alas unsuccessfully) stave off collapse. They might never operate more than 50km from their refurbishment site.

An M3 Half Track might be 50+ years old but given an new M2, slat armour and desperate troops it's still a force to be reckoned with.

[Olefin]

Keep in mind that Mexico was still operating WWII equipment in their army in our real timeline - meaning that the invasion of the US would have had Stuart tanks and other fun pieces of hardware as part of their forces. And while Shermans and other older tanks would be easy meat for modern AT weapons the fact is that by 2000 you arent going to be seeing too many of them left - even among regular military units that are still intact.

[lordroel]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Keep in mind that Mexico was still operating WWII equipment in their army in our real timeline - meaning that the invasion of the US would have had Stuart tanks and other fun pieces of hardware as part of their forces. And while Shermans and other older tanks would be easy meat for modern AT weapons the fact is that by 2000 you arent going to be seeing too many of them left - even among regular military units that are still intact.

But would you agree Olefin, a Sherman is much easy to maintain and the build spare parts for than a modern tank like a Abrams.

[Olefin]

Definitely Roel - for one it was to be easy to maintain in the field - that was one reason the Germans had such a big problem during WWII - great tanks but maintenance was a real problem

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

*** Thread Necromancy ***


This seemed like the best place to mention this...
Just been reading about preserved military vehicles in the former Soviet Union. A large number of WW2 era vehicles were turned into monuments in the 1940s & 50s, typically consisting of a tank or assault gun mounted on some large plinth.
What was interesting from a T2k perspective was that the method of turning these vehicles into monuments was actually rather simplistic.

The plinth would be constructed, then an earthen ramp was made behind the plinth and the vehicle (in the vast majority of cases a T-34-85) was driven up the ramp and parked on the plinth. The batteries were disconnected and all hatches were spot welded closed but aside from the removal of ammunition, nothing else of significance was done to the vehicles.
The Soviet and then the Russian government also kept a stock of 20 working T-34-85 and 20 working Su-100 vehicles for use in Moscow parades however over time the number of operational vehicles has dropped down so that by 2018, they only had approximately 3 working T-34-85's (one leading the parade and the others as spares) and a similarly low number of Su-100's.

But in the last 20 or so years, a number of T-34-85's have been making appearances in local parades across Russia and Ukraine. These particular T-34's have been recovered from the plinths they were mounted on and restored to running order. In one particular case, the recovery team did little more than change the batteries & flush the fuel lines and the old tank started up on the first try.

Now I'm not saying that Eastern European armies, militias, bandit groups, town defence units etc. etc. are going to have hundreds of recovered and restored T-34's at their disposal, it's unlikely to even be dozens of vehicles. However the way the Soviet Union made those tanks into monuments does make restoring them a hell of a lot easier than what happens in the West. Although the vast majority of such WW2 monuments featured the T-34-85, the Soviets did "preserve" other vehicles in the same manner. Again, it's not going to let some unit equip dozens of old tanks but it does make the notion of equipping a unit with one or two older Soviet amoured vehicles easier to achieve.

All in all, with that information it's easier to justify why some group or other has a pair of T-34's on strength (or one or two other Soviet armoured vehicles) or even, if the PCs find out such info, why the PC group might end up with some of those vehicles.

A good source for relics is Surviving Panzers, which tries to keep track of the surviving armored vehicles from both World Wars. There look to be a lot of plinth-mounted IS-3 and IS-3M heavy tanks.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Vespers War

A good source for relics is Surviving Panzers, which tries to keep track of the surviving armored vehicles from both World Wars. There look to be a lot of plinth-mounted IS-3 and IS-3M heavy tanks.

Found a similar site a couple of months ago detailing steam engines and their approximate state of (dis)repair.

[Vespers War]

I had forgotten about this, but the IS-3M in Konstantinovka (on page 31 of Surviving Panzers' IS-3 document) was started up by pro-Russian forces in Ukraine in 2014, so not only is it plausible, it's been done.

[Raellus]

An interesting piece with some information on how long it takes a resident of the Bone Yard to be returned to operational status.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-the-bone-yard

I'm sure the process could/would be sped up during wartime, but I wonder by how much, realistically, especially because manufacturers would also be trying to expand their production lines for new aircraft.