Tank graveyard

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by LT. Ox

Here goes...
Thermite, I can make it right here in my little shop. I am near 67 years old but I can get close enough to a tank in this part of the world to use said thermite in one of perhaps a dozen locations on any armor.

Steel wool from the cleaning aisle in supermarkets and big box supply stores burned in a metal pan with some alcohol removes the soap and renders this into ferrous oxide. The best source for powdered aluminum is an auto paint shop. The glitter in fleck paint is powdered aluminum that comes in big bags. You can make any size or shape thermite charge you like. They largest I have seen was on the internet…. A .50cal ammo can filled nearly to the top with a road flare for a fuse. Something that could cut a steel bridge support that was easy to carry and easy to use.
Now is that just wishful thinking? I think not but then I have been in the field for a week or two at a time, I got tired. How many hours do you think anyone will sit in our presumed world of 2000 to 2013 in a tank?

Originally Posted by LT. Ox

If you separate the foot soldier from armor even in our modern tech world it is a target for a number of tactics to render it ineffective.
I can also make a claymore, now said separation is a fact. What personnel are still around will be buttoned up. I know what they taught us a long time ago about staying buttoned up without infantry support. They taught us the positon we were to assume was our head between our legs and kissing our well you should say a prayer cause your goin to judgment soon.

Those and the improvised grape shot charges with drain pipe, spent brass, C4, and a way to detonate. Command detonating something like CS to scatter the infantry protecting the tank happens too.

Originally Posted by LT. Ox

A note on who will or will not be roaming around in the States. Just because a person has taken an oath to defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic does not mean that person will not take whatever he can. I have spent a good deal of time in study and observation of organized crime and served with two states taskforces related to them. Those being California and Colorado and they were related to drug trafficking. The major players were Motorcycle outlaw groups and Latin and Hispanic groups IE MS13 etc.
Weapons; way more than any prepper groups I ran across and the outlaws have the willingness to use them.
Training; both groups had a large number of prior service personnel and they worked at training others in the “clubs”.
Money; or the means to procure needed equipment, that goes without question.
My take is the threat posed by such groups is perhaps more serious than ANY other and more so her in the States than any other area of the
World (except down under, I had to put that in!!)

Yeah, all this. X2

[Raellus]

There are literally dozens of ways to kill a tank. No one is claiming that it's easy to kill a tank, or that every method is 100% effective 100% of the time. That said, I can't believe we're having this argument. Why is it that, for so many people, an issue needs to be either black or white?

If you don't believe that infantry can take out an MBT without dedicated AT weapons, read up on Japanese tactics on Okinawa, or recent insurgent IED use in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and/or Gaza. If you don't believe that mortars and/or WP are hazardous to MBTs, read literally any book on ground combat in WWII.

Don't get me wrong, if I was a grunt in the T2KU, I'd love to have an MBT on my team. That said, I'd do everything in my power to make sure that that tank used appropriate tactics and was always supported by dismounts before rolling into trouble. The minute you start rumbling around in your tracked and armored beast like you're invincible is the minute some teenager with a Molotov cocktail sets your engine on fire.

[LT. Ox]

Originally Posted by Raellus

There are literally dozens of ways to kill a tank. No one is claiming that it's easy to kill a tank, or that every method is 100% effective 100% of the time. That said, I can't believe we're having this argument. Why is it that, for so many people, an issue needs to be either black or white?

If you don't believe that infantry can take out an MBT without dedicated AT weapons, read up on Japanese tactics on Okinawa, or recent insurgent IED use in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and/or Gaza. If you don't believe that mortars and/or WP are hazardous to MBTs, read literally any book on ground combat in WWII.

Don't get me wrong, if I was a grunt in the T2KU, I'd love to have an MBT on my team. That said, I'd do everything in my power to make sure that that tank used appropriate tactics and was always supported by dismounts before rolling into trouble. The minute you start rumbling around in your tracked and armored beast like you're invincible is the minute some teenager with a Molotov cocktail sets your engine on fire.

And In a nut shell!
That is why tactics keep evolving and why they are followed.

Laugh, by the way I did not say I would like to try any of the above methods.

[Olefin]

Never said tanks are invincible - there are lots of ways to take them out. The question is will they be facing people who know how to take them out.

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.

The typical guy on the street is not trained in how to take out tanks or armored vehicles either. And marauders in general in the US are probably not all full of deserters and ex-veterans - and remember this is the mid 90's - meaning that not everyone had access to the internet like today and could just type in "how to take out a tank" on google

as for artillery and mortars - very few tanks have ever been taken out of action by artillery and mortar barrages unless you are talking about massed barrages by dozens of guns and even then you are lucky to do much in the way of damage - now I am not saying a tank is invulnerable to cannon or mortar indirect fire - they make all kinds of nasty guided weapons for the artillery

but by 2001 those are all gone - or so few in number that the chances of running into a unit that has any is very small - and certainly not something a marauder or barely supplied Mexican unit is going to have

I sure as hell wouldnt want to be driving around in an older tank in 1997-98 in the Twilight War - not against the modern weapons of that era

but by 2001 any tank is definitely something to be feared because most of those weapons are gone which makes taking one out a lot harder - and yes there are lots of ways to take out tanks that experienced veterans know about even if they dont have guided weapons or missiles or other nasty items to use - but give the tank infantry support and a lot of those ways are going to be pretty hard to put into effect - i.e. its one thing to get up close and personal and blow the treads off the tank or put explosives under it if its unsupported - its another when you try that against the tank with infantry support along for the ride

and you would have to be the artillery Davey Crockett to nail a moving tank with a single artillery piece or mortar on its roof with unguided shells - especially since said tank as part of a MilGov force would probably have its own artillery support doing its best to nail said enemy artillery

as for laser guided rounds - yes those would be quite effective - and also very very rare per the equipment lists in ever version of the original game by 2001 - so even with a civilian laser designator you need the rounds to make it useful - which are as rare as hens teeth

go thru the modules and see how many foes have such weapons outside of possibly the armies in Iran and maybe Division Cuba in Texas - certainly not the Mexican Army - if they did the Soviets would have lost a hell of a lot more equipment taking Brownsville because with the backing that force had they would have had the rounds if they were around - but they werent

[Olefin]

Oh and Sgt - yes I do have my disagreements with canon - there are a lot of holes in it you could drive any tank of your liking right thru - but the basic premise of what tanks are still in operation, how many are left and why by mid July of 2000 is one that I find believeable - and the fact that MilGov and CivGov were calling anything in the US with a turret and a gun a tank by mid July of 2000 even more so tells me they would be raiding museums, collections, graveyards to get anything into operation they could get their hands on

If they are calling M728 CEV's tanks (as the US Army guide specifies) then I dont see them being too picky as to what they would take for tanks in that situation

And the US Army still had war stocks of 90mm ammo for the M48 in the real world into the time frame of the game

[Raellus]

I guess the argument is not that tanks are invulnerable, but that the "typical" marauder, c.2000, wouldn't know how to kill them. That's not a black or white issue either.

Certainly, this would be true of some marauders- completely inexperienced and ill-equipped forces. These folks would probably experience what the Germans called "tank fright". They would be much more likely to panic when encountering any kind of heavy armor; they probably wouldn't know how to destroy a tank without dedicated AT weapons.

That said, not all marauders are going to have that little experience/training when it comes to dealing with armor.

In every Europe-based campaign module I've looked at, most marauder groups are described as being, in effective, deserters- men with military experience. Many of these guys would have enough experience with armor not to freak out when encountering one or two tanks. Furthermore, they might know a couple of tricks to disable or destroy armor. I'm sure that at least some Mexican/Cuban/Soviet marauder groups operating in CONUS would be similarly capable.

Another variable is access to AT weaponry. Even an old 1st gen. LAW could take out WWII and most Cold War era MBTs, if used correctly. Heck, the Germans were handing out Panzerfausts to 14-year-old Volksturm units in the last days of WWII. With very little training and no experience, some of these kids managed to kill T-34 and JS-2 MBTs.

[robert.munsey]

Yes I agree that tanks are not invincible, but t seems that a few are posting that it is very easy to do so with A, B and C and viola you have a smoking ruin. It is not that easy. However I have seen some stupid tankers get them selves into trouble.
So the tank grave yard or Museum would allow a force to acquire something that 'could' tip the balance. That item maybe a tank or just an APC, but the point is that it will tip the balance until the other side figures out how to restore the balance if they have lost. That is the GM's role in the game.
That aside, any infantry men that say they can whip out a tank with all the items mentioned, I will say that depends on a few factors, but it is not as simple as put together some home made C4 and put it on a bundle and blow the tank up. Nor is it easy to pull the tank off the VFW yard and fill it up with fuel and send it on it's way either.
However at least all posters here are thinking how a item from a tank grave yard would effect their game. Also others have posted tactics a player group could use to overcome the obstacle, after they put some steel back into their spines of the NPCs that just faced the metal monster.

I have to be nice to the infantry, but remember you guys hate to admit, but you need us tankers......and you cannot do it all yourselves.
Crusty old tanker......

[robert.munsey]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I guess the argument is not that tanks are invulnerable, .

Yes the tanks are! Don't listen to the "light Fighter" Hype!

We just need grunts as much as they need us.......

[Olefin]

By the way older tanks aren't all equipped like WWII Shermans FYI

M48A3 - spall liner for the crew, infrared fire control system installed

M60A3 had a laser rangefinder, solid state ballistic computer, and crosswind sensor and a tank thermal sight. They were also fitted with a muzzle reference system, a Halon fire extinguishing system, a vehicle engine exhaust smoke system, and hardware to allow the mounting of equipment such as chemical alarms.

[Legbreaker]

Tank crews do not have eyes in the back of their heads. They have some MASSIVE blind spots, especially when buttoned up. Therefore, with a bit of patience and some small amount of skill, it's not that hard to sneak up close enough to use improvised AT weapons against them.
Yes, it takes balls, but it can be done.
This is why tanks should NEVER operate in close country without infantry support.
https://youtu.be/V7fZ4wxWP1Q

And older tanks are much more vulnerable to improvised weapons than newer one. Isn't that one of the reasons tank design is always being improved? Taking a 50+ year old AFV onto a modern battlefield is just begging for destruction.

[Olefin]

and again - I highly doubt that MilGov and CivGov would go thru the effort of bringing older tanks back to life and deploying them in combat and forget that they need infantry support

if you read this thread it sounds like that marauders are all experienced veterans who can knock out tanks with ease and that the organized military forces of the US are rookies who send tanks out with no infantry support of any sort to fight infantry, which no one has tried since 1943 since the Germans found out the hard way why that didn't work at Kursk

thus the tankers don't need eyes in the back of their heads - that's what the sergeant leading a couple of squads of infantry is there for while the tank uses its main gun to take out fun things like other tanks, APC's, pillboxes etc..

Plus tanks have become something of a rarity by 2001 - so while there may be people who know how to take out tanks they may not be ready to do so - its one thing if you have been facing tanks for years - its another when one shows up out of nowhere to support that pesky infantry you are used to fighting

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Tank crews do not have eyes in the back of their heads. They have some MASSIVE blind spots, especially when buttoned up. Therefore, with a bit of patience and some small amount of skill, it's not that hard to sneak up close enough to use improvised AT weapons against them.
Yes, it takes balls, but it can be done.
This is why tanks should NEVER operate in close country without infantry support.
https://youtu.be/V7fZ4wxWP1Q

And older tanks are much more vulnerable to improvised weapons than newer one. Isn't that one of the reasons tank design is always being improved? Taking a 50+ year old AFV onto a modern battlefield is just begging for destruction.

That's why track drivers call mechanized infantry, "Crunchies!"

[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.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Never said tanks are invincible - there are lots of ways to take them out. The question is will they be facing people who know how to take them out.

I think they wil. They war has been going for a long time. There will be people who have been rotated back from other fronts to form the core of green units and to be the trainers in regional schools. Those “Recondo” and other schools built by Divisions and Corps. Then there are men and women mustered out missing limbs or broken backs that find themselves civilians again.

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.

Originally Posted by Olefin

The typical guy on the street is not trained in how to take out tanks or armored vehicles either. And marauders in general in the US are probably not all full of deserters and ex-veterans - and remember this is the mid 90's - meaning that not everyone had access to the internet like today and could just type in "how to take out a tank" on google

Mid 90s I could pull down material like this from BBS and archives at many .edu address while on staff duty in Taegu, ROK.

I routinely got Army and Air Force manuals at yard sales and used book stores because getting some through Army publishing was a wish and a dream. This was the heyday of Paladin Press and all their adventure and military books. In the 80s had books on military equipment, tactics, and history even in the crunchy pot smoking hippy town I grew up in. This and the VFWs and American Legions have millions of WW2, Korea, and Viet Nam vets in their 40s – 60s… Those marauders can damn well find the experience as can local militias and mutual defense groups.

Originally Posted by Olefin

as for artillery and mortars - very few tanks have ever been taken out of action by artillery and mortar barrages unless you are talking about massed barrages by dozens of guns and even then you are lucky to do much in the way of damage - now I am not saying a tank is invulnerable to cannon or mortar indirect fire - they make all kinds of nasty guided weapons for the artillery

The very first ever destruction of a tank in combat is WW1, a British tank killed by German artillery. Armor survives most artillery barrages because there is enough armor to shrug off shrapnel given that the artillery round detonates a certain number of meters distant. Light armored vehicles still get penetration at ranges under 10 meters especially the very thin Russian APCs. That is just VT or variable time fuse that detonate overhead to maximize shrapnel. HE shells with superquick and concrete penetrating fuses are what you shoot at armor when you see it. These detonate in contact with the hull or penetrate lighter armored areas like the roof or engine cover before detonating inside.

Originally Posted by Olefin

but by 2001 those are all gone - or so few in number that the chances of running into a unit that has any is very small - and certainly not something a marauder or barely supplied Mexican unit is going to have

Sure you’re out of “Copperhead” and ICM probably by this point those are the kind of rounds that Commanders tend to horde though. Doesn’t matter as HE with fuse superquick is common as dirt and any battery by T2K has abundant practice putting those in the circle. Three shells per tube from a battery is going to ruin any tanks day

Originally Posted by Olefin

I sure as hell wouldnt want to be driving around in an older tank in 1997-98 in the Twilight War - not against the modern weapons of that era

Probably goes for most anyone.

Originally Posted by Olefin

but by 2001 any tank is definitely something to be feared because most of those weapons are gone which makes taking one out a lot harder - and yes there are lots of ways to take out tanks that experienced veterans know about even if they dont have guided weapons or missiles or other nasty items to use - but give the tank infantry support and a lot of those ways are going to be pretty hard to put into effect - i.e. its one thing to get up close and personal and blow the treads off the tank or put explosives under it if its unsupported - its another when you try that against the tank with infantry support along for the ride

That is why I and others have stressed again you have to separate the enemy infantry dismounts from the enemy armor first. You hammer them area with artillery, mortar, and plunging MG fire and killed them, wound them, or send them looking for overhead cover. It isn’t easy and you’re going to be on the receiving end of the other guys indirect fire too. Infantry in the defense with prepared defenses is tough to dig out.

Originally Posted by Olefin

and you would have to be the artillery Davey Crockett to nail a moving tank with a single artillery piece or mortar on its roof with unguided shells - especially since said tank as part of a MilGov force would probably have its own artillery support doing its best to nail said enemy artillery

If forces are in contact and organized in fighting units then the counter recon battle is ongoing as is the counter artillery battle. Commanders have 2/3s the artillery tasked to their scouts and 1/3 tasked as counter battery fire to get the other guys tubes. On going with or without fancy counter battery radar systems to use. Russians task rocket battalions and saturate grid squares just to kill NATO artillery. Who is using single tubes? Batteries are at a minimum 2/3 their standard range without RAP rounds from the forward line of troops in contact. Those artillery units will be dug in and with a dedicated trans units in support. Even towed artillery in going to be in abundance with only ammo, trucks, and fuel being an issue. I always kept the grids for artillery battalions written down. Arty being far to the rear almost always had their field kitchens up and there was hot coffee.

Originally Posted by Olefin

as for laser guided rounds - yes those would be quite effective - and also very very rare per the equipment lists in ever version of the original game by 2001 - so even with a civilian laser designator you need the rounds to make it useful - which are as rare as hens teeth

To my knowledge the is no such animal as a “Civilian Laser Designator”….. I think you are using the wrong nomenclature for a civilian laser range finder mentioned earlier. Laser range finders give you exact distance to a target often including the azimuth / declination too. A laser designator is shines a beam onto a target visible to the operator, the laser guided round homes in on the reflected laser light. When that laser is in the proper spectrum and strobing in the correct time, that way rounds are not missing targets with multiple laser signatures in the area or counter measure dazzlers in use.

Yes, I agree that laser guided munitions by T2K would be rare, mostly expended, and with the loss of industrial capacity small chance of replacement. Those are few to begin with, most designated for high value targets like command vehicles and FO vehicles any way. Sometimes for high pay off targets like a bridge or bunker in a valley out of direct fire and without air support to kill it for you.

Originally Posted by Olefin

go thru the modules and see how many foes have such weapons outside of possibly the armies in Iran and maybe Division Cuba in Texas - certainly not the Mexican Army - if they did the Soviets would have lost a hell of a lot more equipment taking Brownsville because with the backing that force had they would have had the rounds if they were around - but they weren’t

That is plot device…. The necessities of the narrative dictated that to have the outcome the authors wanted. Like an awful lot of the events described to bring about the game setting.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by robert.munsey

Yes the tanks are! Don't listen to the "light Fighter" Hype!

We just need grunts as much as they need us.......

What do you call four tankers and a frag grenade? Spam in a Can!

What do you call four tankers and WP grenade? Extra crispy

What do you call four tankers without ammo? Passengers

What do you call four tankers without fuel? Foot patrol

What do you call four tankers and a Molotov cocktail? Southern fried!

What do you call an idling tank? Clothes drier.

What do you call a tank stuck in mud? Opportunity knocks!

What is closed up tight, covered in oil, and stinks to high heaven? You might have said tankers, but I meant canned fish.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Oh and Sgt - yes I do have my disagreements with canon - there are a lot of holes in it you could drive any tank of your liking right thru - but the basic premise of what tanks are still in operation, how many are left and why by mid July of 2000 is one that I find believeable - and the fact that MilGov and CivGov were calling anything in the US with a turret and a gun a tank by mid July of 2000 even more so tells me they would be raiding museums, collections, graveyards to get anything into operation they could get their hands on

If they are calling M728 CEV's tanks (as the US Army guide specifies) then I dont see them being too picky as to what they would take for tanks in that situation

And the US Army still had war stocks of 90mm ammo for the M48 in the real world into the time frame of the game

Then by all means be forth coming..... saying "I follow canon" when you don't is ridiculous. Everyone here has their own biases and feelings about the game material. Just come out with you opinion and be prepared for others to scoff or laugh at it as you do theirs. It is to be expected, understood, and respected.

[Raellus]

Hey guys, this is starting to get pretty chippy. Let's all dial it down a couple notches, take a deep breath, and consider agreeing to disagree. It's pretty clear by now that no one involved in this argument is going to change his mind.

[CDAT]

I was basing my comments on my real life experience, I spent about half my time as a Tanker, before moving over to EOD. In the late 2000's last time I did a large ammo destruction, the US still had ammo for weapons that we no longer have (some WWII) so I do not think getting ammo for them would be as hard as some think. I also think that if you want to set it up so that the side with tanks has troops that do not know there job, and the other side has super troopers then yes you can take out the tanks. But if both sides are the battle harden vets with the limited amounts of ammo the game provides you will have a very hard time taking out the tanks. Make a HEAT round is not something you are going to do in a garage shop, most likely you are not going to be able to make many fuzes in the garage shop. There is a reason that you do not see many homemade fuzes besides point detonating in the sand box.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by CDAT

I was basing my comments on my real life experience, I spent about half my time as a Tanker, before moving over to EOD. In the late 2000's last time I did a large ammo destruction, the US still had ammo for weapons that we no longer have (some WWII) so I do not think getting ammo for them would be as hard as some think. I also think that if you want to set it up so that the side with tanks has troops that do not know there job, and the other side has super troopers then yes you can take out the tanks. But if both sides are the battle harden vets with the limited amounts of ammo the game provides you will have a very hard time taking out the tanks. Make a HEAT round is not something you are going to do in a garage shop, most likely you are not going to be able to make many fuzes in the garage shop. There is a reason that you do not see many homemade fuzes besides point detonating in the sand box.

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/201...rebels/100086/

Pictures #20 and #21 is guy reusing RPGs.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by CDAT

Make a HEAT round is not something you are going to do in a garage shop, most likely you are not going to be able to make many fuzes in the garage shop.

Perhaps not somebodies backyard shed, but there's plenty of workshops in any town, even some villages with the necessary machinery for small scale production.
Skill and knowledge/plans are the big issue - that and fuses.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/201...rebels/100086/

Hmm, so why is a supposedly Russian made rocket pod (#23 for example) clearly printed in English?

[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

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.

[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

[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.

[unkated]

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?

The easiest way would be to pull the engine and replace it with a more modern truck engine of comparable power.

Now, note that I said "easiest", not that it would be easy. It would take a well-equipped garage and a knowledgeable team to do so. But it would probably be easier than to locate working antique replacement parts, or get the specs to some mechanical artist with a well-equipped machine shop to make them from scratch.

Uncle Ted

[unkated]

Legbreaker, next time post pictures that are less controversial, like scantily clad women, or perhaps political cartoons. Those never cause trouble

Uncle Ted