Stepping backward.. Lower tech.

[Olefin]

the welders we had were almost all too old to be drafted - and welders who are trained in welding armor plate would have been needed on the home front for sure - plus keep in mind that York didn't just make new vehicles - it did lots of re-manufactures and upgrades as well

The Army made sure that those welders stayed right where they were after 9/11 for sure - we didnt lose any of them to call-ups, even the ones in the Guard or the Reserve - not with all the Bradley's, M88's and MRAP's we were working on

[ArmySGT.]

Iraqi Freedom isn't on par with a national mobilization like WW2. Not even with the mobilization for Desert Storm.

For comparison, look at the ages and occupations of Seabees in WW2.

None of those is any comparison for the conditions in the U.S. after the canon nuclear exchange, famines, and plagues. Those do not discriminate.

Back to older but, survivable systems that make sense to resurrect in T2k.

M113 production.... Strykers and LAVs are working, but are considerable more complex..... maybe some M113 IFV conversions? M901s?

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

M113 production.... Strykers and LAVs are working, but are considerable more complex..... maybe some M113 IFV conversions? M901s?

Hmmm M113 production would already be going. IRL the M113 production for the US army ran till 1992 when the last vehicle, an M577 series
command post vehicle, rolled off the production line.

Addition orders from Kuwait and Thailand, kept the production line running till 1998 IHS Land Warfare Platforms: Armoured Fighting Vehicles
19-05-2015

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Which I assumed right away........ I don't think it is until the 1970's (my example) that integrated a computer to run filters and make full use of a hydrophones sensitivity. The 40's and 50's are vaccuum tube systems with transistors only making units smaller, but not more efficient to the best of my limited knowledge.

Are the displays on these commercial systems even large enough to do Anti submarine or counter sabotage (anti-diver) operations without a penalty for the operator? Do they have variable modes and systems to screen out some or most noise?

The other issue with commercial/recreational depth finders is that they are always "active" (pinging to recover the info you need). A sub WILL know you are there because it can track YOUR depth finder's signal. And it will know it AT A MUCH GREATER DISTANCE THAN YOU CAN "SEE" THE SUB. This is one very big issue with any ACTIVE ELECTRONIC DETECTION (radar,sonar, radio sweepers, etc...).

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Iraqi Freedom isn't on par with a national mobilization like WW2. Not even with the mobilization for Desert Storm.

For comparison, look at the ages and occupations of Seabees in WW2.

None of those is any comparison for the conditions in the U.S. after the canon nuclear exchange, famines, and plagues. Those do not discriminate.

Back to older but, survivable systems that make sense to resurrect in T2k.

M113 production.... Strykers and LAVs are working, but are considerable more complex..... maybe some M113 IFV conversions? M901s?

M88A1 and M88A2 are about as old and survivable as it gets - very easy to maintain, come with a blade and crane, perfect for use to recover and repair vehicles you need as well as a host of engineering jobs that a T2K military would be doing

M109 SPG - based on older tech and perfect for the military to use for defending their base areas - not many marauders who could stand up to it and for those who don't know what it is it looks like the biggest tank in the world

Bradley - you may not have TOW's but that 25mm is more than enough to deal with anything most marauders or Mexican units will have

you would only be able to build what you had parts on hand for - but in those days we used to keep up to six months inventory on hand - get power going again and that's a lot of vehicles to use, built at a low rate of production, to be able to re-equip whats left

[ArmySGT.]

Since the microchips and advanced circuitry to make ATGMs is out of the question in the near term..... T2K - T2K10....

For the defense? A return to towed AT guns by the West? The 105mm and 120mm tank armaments mounted to two or four wheeled chassis?

Even the 25, 30, 35, and 40mm belt fed chain guns...... light armor and support fire.

I know these all function in much superior manner mounted on a mobile armored chassis (IFV or MBT). However, given the constraints on manufacturing and resources, a 105mm AT gun towed be a deuce and a half would be a boon for a light infantry battalion.

[Draq]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Since the microchips and advanced circuitry to make ATGMs is out of the question in the near term..... T2K - T2K10....

For the defense? A return to towed AT guns be the West? The 105mm and 120mm tank armaments mounted to two or four wheeled chassis?

Even the 25, 30, 35, and 40mm belt fed chain guns...... light armor and support fire.

I know these all function in much superior manner mounted on a mobile armored chassis (IFV or MBT). However, given the constraints on manufacturing and resources, a 105mm AT gun towed be a deuce and a half would be a boon for a light infantry battalion.

Undoubtedly. I see this world war era tactic making a quick comeback in order to save the fancy tech stuff for emergencies.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And don't forget the portee concept - a truck slightly modified to allow it to carry and use an artillery piece on its bed. This gives the advantage of leaving the gun in its original configuration so that it can be used in the conventional manner but also allowing it to be used from the truck that transports it allowing the gun a modest shoot & scoot ability. The gun on truck combination also has better mobility than a conventional truck with towed gun.

While it's been stated (notably on the wiki page for portee) that the modern terms for such a setup are "gun truck" or "technical", I disagree. The "en portee" concept doesn't have the gun mount permanently fixed to the truck bed as is typically the case gun trucks and technicals.
The concept has been resurrected a few times over the decades with the last one I know of being the M777 Portee from BAE Systems in 2005.
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/m777_portee.htm

This image shows a New Zealand Army Austin K5 truck with an Ordnance QF 6-pounder AT gun in portee configuration as used in the North Africa campaigns of WW2. The website states, "These vehicles were adapted to serve as platforms for a 6pdr Anti Tank gun in the desert when battles were very fluid affairs moving over considerable distances and the guns were required to be put into action quickly."
Website link http://www.shoplandcollection.com/he...-k5-gun-portee



Note that in this case, the gun has simply been chained to the bed, some trucks were modified with wheel channels to make loading and unloading the gun easier such as in this picture

The K5 from the first image had a payload of up to 3 tons so the 6-pdr used less than half that capacity leaving enough spare for the crew and a decent ammo load. So even with the weight of a modern artillery piece, the more capable trucks of the 1970s onwards, should be able to handle the portee configuration with ease.

[Targan]

My father's father was a New Zealand Army infantry captain when he fought in the North Africa campaigns. He was commanding a unit of Bren Gun Carriers when they relieved Tobruk. He fought in Crete too. His war ended when he had half his moustache shot off.

[unkated]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Iraqi Freedom isn't on par with a national mobilization like WW2. Not even with the mobilization for Desert Storm.

For comparison, look at the ages and occupations of Seabees in WW2.

None of those is any comparison for the conditions in the U.S. after the canon nuclear exchange, famines, and plagues. Those do not discriminate.

Back to older but, survivable systems that make sense to resurrect in T2k.

M113 production.... Strykers and LAVs are working, but are considerable more complex..... maybe some M113 IFV conversions? M901s?

None of these make sense to me.

By the time things get bad enough for a a national production board to consider such a reconfiguration (post TDM), the ability to coordinate and execute the creation of a brand new production line for this simpler product (and that's what it would be; M113 production lines are long gone by 1997) is gone.

Promulgating simpler weapon designs that could be produced at a workshop level (such as the Sten or M3 Grease Gun) is one thing; an M113 is quite another.

Remember that the production line for an M113 or a cannon is NOT one workshop or even one factory. For the M113, the engine is built and assembled elsewhere; the shipped for inclusion in the M113; the transmission another; track components are forged in one (or more) locations; assembled in another; then shipped to the M113 assembly point; armor panels are assembled elsewhere.

I think post TDM things are falling apart too fast. The new (old) component assembly lines would never have completed. That's 6 months to a year of time when they are being built, producing nothing.

Rather than trying to coordinate retooling several factories in the face of growing chaos, I'd suggest a better plan would be to simplify the existing designs, such as cheaper electronic components (targeting, radio,radar, etc) - though I think these too would slow and break down due to failures in the transportation network.

Uncle Ted

[Apache6]

I think a good model to look at for real world capabilities would be the "up-armoring kits" shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan once IEDs were recognized as THE threat.

Units in theater did a lot with existing materiel. At least the Marine Corps responded pretty quickly in developing and shipping armoring kits (I'm not saying the Army didn't, but I know the USMC did).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ground/mak.htm

"Strapping" on extra armor to an already existing fleet of HMMWV or other vehicles is 'easier' then producing a whole new fleet. I think a lot of hillbilly armor would be used by stateside units. Some of that hillbilly armor might be applied to 'standard' commercial heavy duty trucks (like FORD F250 or larger).

Look at what the Mexican Narco Cartels have been able to produce in underground facilities. I'm certain that many US cities/or states could produce something at least as good. The USMC depots at Albany, Ga and Barstow, CA would be able to produce some interesting vehicles since they store a LOT of semi obsolete kit and have a very good supply of machine tools, skilled machinists and 'stock materiel.'

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by unkated

None of these make sense to me.

By the time things get bad enough for a a national production board to consider such a reconfiguration (post TDM), the ability to coordinate and execute the creation of a brand new production line for this simpler product (and that's what it would be; M113 production lines are long gone by 1997) is gone.

Promulgating simpler weapon designs that could be produced at a workshop level (such as the Sten or M3 Grease Gun) is one thing; an M113 is quite another.

Remember that the production line for an M113 or a cannon is NOT one workshop or even one factory. For the M113, the engine is built and assembled elsewhere; the shipped for inclusion in the M113; the transmission another; track components are forged in one (or more) locations; assembled in another; then shipped to the M113 assembly point; armor panels are assembled elsewhere.

I think post TDM things are falling apart too fast. The new (old) component assembly lines would never have completed. That's 6 months to a year of time when they are being built, producing nothing.

Rather than trying to coordinate retooling several factories in the face of growing chaos, I'd suggest a better plan would be to simplify the existing designs, such as cheaper electronic components (targeting, radio,radar, etc) - though I think these too would slow and break down due to failures in the transportation network.

Uncle Ted

What you say is true, and I am not going to dispute that.... My point is that the M113 is simpler and easier to get back into production. Take the Sherman as a model, mediocre in every category. Spam the war with 100,000 of them and things go quickly into their favor.

The Continental engine and the Allison transmission of the A2 are the same as those in quite a few pieces of heavy equipment (bulldozer, front loaders, etc). Those are going to be built regardless of the war effort.

Most of the engines / transmissions in U.S. fighting vehicles are found in civil engineering equipment.

The one piece that is most difficult to produce in fact is the cast hull....

I might well be very wrong... but, I don't think the U.S. can even make a cast hull in 2016 with the current environmental laws and other compliance issues.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

And don't forget the portee concept - a truck slightly modified to allow it to carry and use an artillery piece on its bed. This gives the advantage of leaving the gun in its original configuration so that it can be used in the conventional manner but also allowing it to be used from the truck that transports it allowing the gun a modest shoot & scoot ability. The gun on truck combination also has better mobility than a conventional truck with towed gun.

While it's been stated (notably on the wiki page for portee) that the modern terms for such a setup are "gun truck" or "technical", I disagree. The "en portee" concept doesn't have the gun mount permanently fixed to the truck bed as is typically the case gun trucks and technicals.
The concept has been resurrected a few times over the decades with the last one I know of being the M777 Portee from BAE Systems in 2005.
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/m777_portee.htm

This image shows a New Zealand Army Austin K5 truck with an Ordnance QF 6-pounder AT gun in portee configuration as used in the North Africa campaigns of WW2. The website states, "These vehicles were adapted to serve as platforms for a 6pdr Anti Tank gun in the desert when battles were very fluid affairs moving over considerable distances and the guns were required to be put into action quickly."
Website link http://www.shoplandcollection.com/he...-k5-gun-portee



Note that in this case, the gun has simply been chained to the bed, some trucks were modified with wheel channels to make loading and unloading the gun easier such as in this picture

The K5 from the first image had a payload of up to 3 tons so the 6-pdr used less than half that capacity leaving enough spare for the crew and a decent ammo load. So even with the weight of a modern artillery piece, the more capable trucks of the 1970s onwards, should be able to handle the portee configuration with ease.

The one issue we have here is that outside of the 57mm Pack Howitzer (which is still being used for ceremonies), we don't have a howitzer or gun small enough to mount on the bed of a truck. We'd be relegated to Mortars, Recoilless Rifles, and Autocannon as truck guns.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

You have the M119 howitzer, a licence produced version of the British L119 Light Gun. At just under 2000kg it could be carried by trucks of 3-ton or more capacity.
To be fair though, there wouldn't be a lot of them, they entered service in 1989 with the 7th Infantry Division.

[WallShadow]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/060d4ea...some-help.html

Now, to get a six-shooter chambered for these...

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

What you say is true, and I am not going to dispute that.... My point is that the M113 is simpler and easier to get back into production. Take the Sherman as a model, mediocre in every category. Spam the war with 100,000 of them and things go quickly into their favor.

The Continental engine and the Allison transmission of the A2 are the same as those in quite a few pieces of heavy equipment (bulldozer, front loaders, etc). Those are going to be built regardless of the war effort.

Most of the engines / transmissions in U.S. fighting vehicles are found in civil engineering equipment.

The one piece that is most difficult to produce in fact is the cast hull....

I might well be very wrong... but, I don't think the U.S. can even make a cast hull in 2016 with the current environmental laws and other compliance issues.

As stated above the M113 was in production at FMC San Jose facility in California with assistance by Aiken, Steel Products Division until 1998

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by WallShadow

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/060d4ea...some-help.html

Now, to get a six-shooter chambered for these...

Good info I remember someone asking what if there was any ammo left for the Iowa Class Big Guns. Now you know, and Knowing is Half the battle

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

You have the M119 howitzer, a licence produced version of the British L119 Light Gun. At just under 2000kg it could be carried by trucks of 3-ton or more capacity.
To be fair though, there wouldn't be a lot of them, they entered service in 1989 with the 7th Infantry Division.

Yes but only an HEMTT could carry it (in a ready-to-fire condition) because of the gun's 21+ft length. Carrying an M119 on a 5-ton would "weight" the truck's tailgate (because of barrel overhang) and cause the steering to feel
"light" (unresponsive). You couldn't fire it without destabilizing the 5-ton with the recoil either. You'd be better off shooting modified 105mm howitzer rounds out of a recoilless rifle. Before someone screams foul... Yes, 105mm cannon rounds CAN BE modified to fire in a Recoilless Rifle of the same caliber. There was a tail fin and propellant assembly developed to do just this. It was a "bolt on in the field" modification kit made by the same company that competed in the JADAM tail kit trials. I don't know if the Army ever adopted the kit, though.

[ArmySGT.]

Found this.... and I think this stays with the spirit of the thread.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

What you say is true, and I am not going to dispute that.... My point is that the M113 is simpler and easier to get back into production. Take the Sherman as a model, mediocre in every category. Spam the war with 100,000 of them and things go quickly into their favor.

The Continental engine and the Allison transmission of the A2 are the same as those in quite a few pieces of heavy equipment (bulldozer, front loaders, etc). Those are going to be built regardless of the war effort.

Most of the engines / transmissions in U.S. fighting vehicles are found in civil engineering equipment.

The one piece that is most difficult to produce in fact is the cast hull....

I might well be very wrong... but, I don't think the U.S. can even make a cast hull in 2016 with the current environmental laws and other compliance issues.

Are the older machines still in storage? The KCK GM plant still has parts of it's WWII bomber assembly line in storage, but with out men who know the tooling and its age I doubt its value. A better track is making gun trucks and stripping cannon from hulks. Perhaps a plant making partial wood, metal trucks like the German Opel-Blitz of WWII.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

Are the older machines still in storage? The KCK GM plant still has parts of it's WWII bomber assembly line in storage, but with out men who know the tooling and its age I doubt its value. A better track is making gun trucks and stripping cannon from hulks. Perhaps a plant making partial wood, metal trucks like the German Opel-Blitz of WWII.

It has been my experience that much of the equipment is sold as scrap. There are dealers that buy up equipment for resale but, often there isn't any support from the original manufacturer........ Sometimes you have to manufacture your own parts.

[.45cultist]

A massive technical college program also seems to need creation. The machinists and welders will need to expand their numbers.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Found this.... and I think this stays with the spirit of the thread.

That is actually a really nice system! The two big issues with doing this to the light gun would be:
1.) The Light Gun uses a normal gas recoil system. This new system uses the "reduced recoil system" pioneered on the 105mm Tank Gun and that would be a MAJOR retrofit to the Light Gun (to avoid overwhelming the 5-Ton's suspension). One way to "overcome" this issue would be to "dismount" the 105mm Howitzers from Spectre Gunships. These already have a similar "recoil reduction system" fitted.
2.) Removing the Light Gun's carriage ALSO REMOVES ALL OF THE GUN'S SIGHTING SYSTEMS. The mounts for new sights would have to be engineered and PRECISELY PLACED in relation to the barrel in order to achieve any accuracy at all.

This is why I made the suggestion above.

All of that being said, I really think that the current Army SHOULD look at a system like the one above. You could run a 6 man Section with just TWO 5-Ton trucks (the gun truck and an uparmored ammo carrier). This system would be cheap AND mobile for use in "Insurgent Theaters" where you need enhanced mobility OVER firepower/range. These would have been great to deploy to Afghanistan during the "surge."

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

All of that being said, I really think that the current Army SHOULD look at a system like the one above.

They are already are looking at a system. In 2004 U.S. Army's Picatinny Arsenal developed the HUMVEE Scorpion

The mortar itself can fire on single shots or on automatic using 4 round clips. Range for direct fire is 1,000m and indirect fire is 4,000m.

The US Army is also working on a 120mm system using Elbit Systems SPEAR - Autonomous Recoil Mortar System (RMS)120mm Mortar System

http://www.hmmwvinscale.com/hmmwvprototypes.htm
http://www.network54.com/Forum/21183...t+the+Scorpion

[rcaf_777]

Here is the production numbers and dates of the M113 which ran form 1964 to 1992, and then restarted again in 1994 and ceased in 1997.

Interesting Points

1. The US Army still has and operates 6,000 M113
2. Over 4,500 were produced in Italy under licence, for their army and export

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

They are already are looking at a system. In 2004 U.S. Army's Picatinny Arsenal developed the HUMVEE Scorpion

The Mortar in the back is a Vasilek mortar purchased from a former Warsaw Pact ally. Maybe this can be introduced into a game as a homebrew? A marauder unit of mixed NATO/pact troops possibly.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

The Mortar in the back is a Vasilek mortar purchased from a former Warsaw Pact ally. Maybe this can be introduced into a game as a homebrew? A marauder unit of mixed NATO/pact troops possibly.

That's what I was thinking, could also be captured equipment too. I wonder how hard the project was?

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

They are already are looking at a system. In 2004 U.S. Army's Picatinny Arsenal developed the HUMVEE Scorpion

The mortar itself can fire on single shots or on automatic using 4 round clips. Range for direct fire is 1,000m and indirect fire is 4,000m.

The US Army is also working on a 120mm system using Elbit Systems SPEAR - Autonomous Recoil Mortar System (RMS)120mm Mortar System

http://www.hmmwvinscale.com/hmmwvprototypes.htm
http://www.network54.com/Forum/21183...t+the+Scorpion

Looking at the mount in this photo, It would be a relatively easy modification. The Hummer mount uses an easily manufactured central strut that mounts right up to the stock carriage mount on the trunion assembly. The recoil is "counter mitigated" by the gas shocks (Long travel 10-Ton gas shocks?) on either side of the mount. Why? Because they point almost perpendicular to the trunnion assembly at max elevation and "oppose" the trunion assembly when the weapon is at lower angles of elevation. This allows them to act as a "surrogate carriage" and reduce the recoil stroke to an acceptable level that the central strut (and the Hummer) can withstand. The gas shocks also "support" the weight of the assembly for ease of barrel elevation and traverse. This is an elegantly simple mount made possible by the short recoil trunion of the 82mm Vasilek mortar.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

The Mortar in the back is a Vasilek mortar purchased from a former Warsaw Pact ally. Maybe this can be introduced into a game as a homebrew? A marauder unit of mixed NATO/pact troops possibly.

I'd like to get one of these to shoot woodchucks in the back yard. Then all I'd need to buy is a 20mm Phalanx for the d****d crows.

[Draq]

This is the way of the apocalypse https://youtu.be/v-XS4aueDUg