Tank graveyard

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

A quick question while we are putting all these older AFVs back into service. Where is all the gas (or if its European, diesel) coming from? An M4 Sherman (indeed most WW2 AFVs from the US) use older gas engines. These had points, carbs and floats that would have to be changed to enable the use of ethanol (methanol won't work in these older engines). Who's fabricating the new piston rings, bucket tappets, and lifter springs that will be needed to withstand the higher burn temps of ethanol? There is this idea out there that all of these older vehicles are "plug and play" with alternative fuels just like the newer "FlexFuel" cars mandated in the US today. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the major reason the US didn't switch to ethanol or a gas/ethanol mixture during the Oil Crisis was the inability of older gas engines to use ethanol without damage. I remember the old jeeps and gamma-goats; They wouldn't run properly if there was too much water in the gas.

You would have to switch them over to run on ethanol and methanol - just as was done with thousands of other vehicles in the game. I didnt say you would be able to just fire them up and take them out (now if you had gasoline or diesel thats different - and most of the older vehicles I am talking about ran on diesel by the way - unless you are talking WWII vehicles only)

By the way FYI - the Super Sherman that Littlefield has that has the live barrel and is 100% operational that he got from Israel - it has a diesel engine

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin
The Mexican Army is not trained to take on armored forces - they are basically an anti-insurgency force, not a force trained to take on tanks. Now could they have been trained to do this - yes, at least the initial forces that were sent into the US. However I am betting that by 2001 the replacement conscripts that make up most of their forces didnt get much in the way of training before they got sent into the US.

Ridiculous. The Mexican infantry trains for anti-armor missions just like any other. They field an assortment of anti-armor weapons throughout their organization. The Mexicans in real life field recoilless rifles and these is a far easier round and fuse to manufacture. The Mexicans may have a far more robust AT defense in T2K given M40A1 106mm RRs in the force structure. M3 Carl Gustaf RRs at company level too, again a far easier round to manufacture. Both are essentially fuse superquick and the warhead is HEAT. "


Its one thing to be trained in how to use a weapons system - its another to be trained to use alternate ways to take out a tank other than a bottle of flaming gasoline. And the Mexican Army, as per multiple canon references and also real life references, is mostly a conscript army that is specifically trained to take on rebels, not armored forces.

Thats why in the game they needed Division Cuba - because the Soviets in Cuba had what they didnt have - a fully armed and equipped division armed with tanks and anti-tank weapons. Thats what stopped the 36th in its tracks during the counterattack.

And if the Mexicans are so well trained against tanks then why does a force that includes APC's and anti-tank weapons basically get butchered by the Soviets during the taking of Brownsville - per the module if they get there they only lose a single BTR against a large well equipped marauder force?

By what is being said here by several people that Soviet force, which only included BTR's and trucks, no tanks of any sort, which had no artillery support by the way, with all its infantry mounted in vehicles, should have been butchered left and right by all those veteran soldiers that were part of what was described as a very well equipped and trained Mexican marauder force (they were Mexican Army that had went marauder) - so that shows the reality of what armor does to marauder forces in the game

If they couldnt stop a small force of BTR's in an urban assualt that were unsupported by artillery then I highly doubt they could have handled tanks

[Olefin]

And as for parts and ammo - keep in mind that the US in real life had a lot of old M48's still sitting in storage or waiting for transfer to other armies or for disposal as well as ammunition for those tanks in storage - and one of the biggest of those stowage yards is in Northern California

and the M48 and M60 tank share a lot of parts -meaning that its not that big a logistical leap to keep M48's going that come out of the tank graveyards, storage areas or museums

remember the M88 recovery vehicle had a lot of parts that came from both the M48 and the M60 - meaning that parts procured for that vehicle will also work to repair and keep going an M48 in the field

so those old M48's and older model M60's would actually be quite easy to keep going in the field once you brought them back into action - including ammo and spare parts - not as easy as an M1 - but it could be done for a country desperate for tanks and armored vehicles - which pretty much describes the US after Omega

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

And as for parts and ammo - keep in mind that the US in real life had a lot of old M48's still sitting in storage or waiting for transfer to other armies or for disposal as well as ammunition for those tanks in storage - and one of the biggest of those stowage yards is in Northern California

and the M48 and M60 tank share a lot of parts -meaning that its not that big a logistical leap to keep M48's going that come out of the tank graveyards, storage areas or museums

remember the M88 recovery vehicle had a lot of parts that came from both the M48 and the M60 - meaning that parts procured for that vehicle will also work to repair and keep going an M48 in the field

so those old M48's and older model M60's would actually be quite easy to keep going in the field once you brought them back into action - including ammo and spare parts - not as easy as an M1 - but it could be done for a country desperate for tanks and armored vehicles - which pretty much describes the US after Omega

Sierra Army Depot is in Northern California.. It is a huge ammunition and vehicle depot. If it wasn't heavily nuked in canon it should have been.

The majority of M48s I have seen are used as targets on live fire ranges.

I have shot them up with Mk19s and AT-4. The Air Force drops bombs on them and the Artillery uses them as armor in the open targets and for FOs to practice lasing a target.

That is where the majority of U.S. M48s not transferred in sales to foreign countries reside. Live fire impact areas.

[Olefin]

yes they did use them as targets in real life - but they also held a lot of them for sale to foreign nations - in that time period the US still had hundreds of them in storage in Italy for instance

So they definitely still had them available for their own forces - and for people like the Turks and Koreans who still operated them

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Its one thing to be trained in how to use a weapons system - its another to be trained to use alternate ways to take out a tank other than a bottle of flaming gasoline. And the Mexican Army, as per multiple canon references and also real life references, is mostly a conscript army that is specifically trained to take on rebels, not armored forces.

Thats why in the game they needed Division Cuba - because the Soviets in Cuba had what they didnt have - a fully armed and equipped division armed with tanks and anti-tank weapons. Thats what stopped the 36th in its tracks during the counterattack.

And if the Mexicans are so well trained against tanks then why does a force that includes APC's and anti-tank weapons basically get butchered by the Soviets during the taking of Brownsville - per the module if they get there they only lose a single BTR against a large well equipped marauder force?

By what is being said here by several people that Soviet force, which only included BTR's and trucks, no tanks of any sort, which had no artillery support by the way, with all its infantry mounted in vehicles, should have been butchered left and right by all those veteran soldiers that were part of what was described as a very well equipped and trained Mexican marauder force (they were Mexican Army that had went marauder) - so that shows the reality of what armor does to marauder forces in the game

If they couldnt stop a small force of BTR's in an urban assualt that were unsupported by artillery then I highly doubt they could have handled tanks

I don't understand what you are trying to say. This has no coherent beginning, middle, or end.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. This has no coherent beginning, middle, or end.

Actually it has a very coherent point

According to you and others marauder forces, especially those composed of trained military men, should be able to deal with tanks easily, especially if they arent supported by artillery. You can easily peel off their supporting infantry and take them out.

So what do you have at Brownsville in the Texas module - a very well armed marauder force which was a Mexican Brigade that had turned marauder but which was still organized and had officers and NCO's. They had APC's, anti-tank missiles and were well equipped per the module.

They got attacked by a small column of Russian armored vehicles who had no artillery or air support.

With what has been said here that Russian force should have been butchered. But what happened - they lost a single BTR in the attack, butchered the Mexican force and took Brownsville with very low casualties

thus, in the minds of the people who created the game, they didnt see Mexican Army or typical marauders able to take on armor and win

and while they mentioned the characters, who had fought in Europe, knew how to take on tanks, the Mexicans and marauder forces in Texas specifically were mentioned as not knowing how to deal with them because they hadnt been exposed to armored warfare as in Europe

I.e. they may have had guys who had seen old movies on throwing a bottle of flaming gasoline at tanks and they had a few guys trained to fire RPG's - but other than that all they knew how to do when armor showed up was run - and those were Mexican troops

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Actually it has a very coherent point

According to you and others marauder forces, especially those composed of trained military men, should be able to deal with tanks easily, especially if they arent supported by artillery. You can easily peel off their supporting infantry and take them out.

So what do you have at Brownsville in the Texas module - a very well armed marauder force which was a Mexican Brigade that had turned marauder but which was still organized and had officers and NCO's. They had APC's, anti-tank missiles and were well equipped per the module.

They got attacked by a small column of Russian armored vehicles who had no artillery or air support.

With what has been said here that Russian force should have been butchered. But what happened - they lost a single BTR in the attack, butchered the Mexican force and took Brownsville with very low casualties

thus, in the minds of the people who created the game, they didnt see Mexican Army or typical marauders able to take on armor and win

and while they mentioned the characters, who had fought in Europe, knew how to take on tanks, the Mexicans and marauder forces in Texas specifically were mentioned as not knowing how to deal with them because they hadnt been exposed to armored warfare as in Europe

I.e. they may have had guys who had seen old movies on throwing a bottle of flaming gasoline at tanks and they had a few guys trained to fire RPG's - but other than that all they knew how to do when armor showed up was run - and those were Mexican troops

Because the authors wanted it to happen that way. Simply because for all the points you mention they should have slaughtered the Russians.

.50 BMG passes right through what little armor a BTR has.

Originally Posted by Olefin

Actually it has a very coherent point

Now, back to what I said earlier...... I can't make sense of that post. I read it three times. Could you edit that and clarify it? One subject per paragraph, one sentence with the argument and main point, then supporting evidence in other sentences. Please.

Seriously, it is like an episode of drunk history. I thought I was bad about automatic writing and spilling it out as it has come to mind.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Because the authors wanted it to happen that way. Simply because for all the points you mention they should have slaughtered the Russians.

.50 BMG passes right through what little armor a BTR has.

Now, back to what I said earlier...... I can't make sense of that post. I read it three times. Could you edit that and clarify it? One subject per paragraph, one sentence with the argument and main point, then supporting evidence in other sentences. Please.

Seriously, it is like an episode of drunk history. I thought I was bad about automatic writing and spilling it out as it has come to mind.

Army SGT - what I posted makes very good sense to me and there is nothing wrong with my writing style - and frankly if you are trying to bait me to break the board rules you are not going to get anywhere

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Army SGT - what I posted makes very good sense to me and there is nothing wrong with my writing style - and frankly if you are trying to bait me to break the board rules you are not going to get anywhere

No. I am asking you to write it again, to clarify. I can pick the parts out of it, but it is a very confusing read. You're jumping back and forth. Editing that would make it readable and your point clear.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Because the authors wanted it to happen that way. Simply because for all the points you mention they should have slaughtered the Russians.

.50 BMG passes right through what little armor a BTR has.

Now, back to what I said earlier...... I can't make sense of that post. I read it three times. Could you edit that and clarify it? One subject per paragraph, one sentence with the argument and main point, then supporting evidence in other sentences. Please.

Seriously, it is like an episode of drunk history. I thought I was bad about automatic writing and spilling it out as it has come to mind.

With the .50 is that first hand experience or just hearsay? I ask because several things that I had been told were fact, when we got the chance to test for our self found out to be untrue. I was told that within one magazine of 5.56 you would chew through the armor of a M113, the 7.62X51 would go in and bounce around, and the .50 would make Swiss cheese out of it. When we go the chance to shoot one (OK it was an old ITV), after hundreds of rounds of 5.56 you were hard pressed to find any place that looked like it had taken any real damage. The 7.62 just left tiny little marks, and the .50 BMG left pock marks. This was with green/black tip. Right before us was some Brits and there Warriors with TP ammo did not even penetrate, it did leave nice sized dents were each round hit, had it been war stock ammo I have no doubt that it would have penetrated.


Olefin I also thought that it made sense, if you are looking at this objectively. If you are looking at it with rose colored lenses it may not.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by CDAT

With the .50 is that first hand experience or just hearsay? I ask because several things that I had been told were fact, when we got the chance to test for our self found out to be untrue. I was told that within one magazine of 5.56 you would chew through the armor of a M113, the 7.62X51 would go in and bounce around, and the .50 would make Swiss cheese out of it. When we go the chance to shoot one (OK it was an old ITV), after hundreds of rounds of 5.56 you were hard pressed to find any place that looked like it had taken any real damage. The 7.62 just left tiny little marks, and the .50 BMG left pock marks. This was with green/black tip. Right before us was some Brits and there Warriors with TP ammo did not even penetrate, it did leave nice sized dents were each round hit, had it been war stock ammo I have no doubt that it would have penetrated.

Now I am talking about the BTR-60 and BTR-70. Can't say for the -80 or -90 from the side.

The M113 is rated for 7.62N AP ammo.... So that is what is supposed to happen. 7.62N in AP has black tips.

.50 BMG does penetrate especially SLAP to ricochet around the inside, still takes more than one strike at zero degrees deflection in the same place. M113s are also rated against 155mm / 152mm shell fragments though I can't remember if it is 20 meters or 50 meters from point of detonation.

Originally Posted by CDAT

Olefin I also thought that it made sense, if you are looking at this objectively. If you are looking at it with rose colored lenses it may not.

Let's stick to the discussion.

[robert.munsey]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Now I am talking about the BTR-60 and BTR-70. Can't say for the -80 or -90 from the side.

Let's stick to the discussion.

At what range is the US M61 AP going to penetrate the side of a BTR-60?