RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old 02-24-2015, 07:00 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 885
Default

This thread does bring up an interesting thought. What if the locals decided to "upgun" an APC or "rearm" an old tank with a gun they could actually make powder charges and ammo for? Be pretty funny seeing an old WW2 tank with a Civil War era black powder muzzle loading cannon mounted in it. These "Destructive Devices" are both common and popular (which means they could turn up anywhere) and come in both "old school" Civil War era models and new manufacture versions. The locals could make both the shot and powder it uses with relative ease. It may be only a one shot weapon, but it could dominate a force with only small arms. Any thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-25-2015, 01:45 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swaghauler View Post
This thread does bring up an interesting thought. What if the locals decided to "upgun" an APC or "rearm" an old tank with a gun they could actually make powder charges and ammo for? Be pretty funny seeing an old WW2 tank with a Civil War era black powder muzzle loading cannon mounted in it. These "Destructive Devices" are both common and popular (which means they could turn up anywhere) and come in both "old school" Civil War era models and new manufacture versions. The locals could make both the shot and powder it uses with relative ease. It may be only a one shot weapon, but it could dominate a force with only small arms. Any thoughts?
As you can imagine with a group that's been around this long, some ideas and discussions circle back around from time to time. I'll see if I can dig through the archives and find some of the discussions we had on the exact same subject a few years back.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-25-2015, 03:04 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,484
Default

Here are some old threads that talk about reloading ammo and have some references to the use of black powder:

Improvised ammunition

Ammo reloading

Pictures of homemade guns

Improvised weapons and equipment

Post-exchange gunpowder production

Black powder

And here's a few threads that talk about modifying military vehicles:

Modified vehicles in T2K

Gun trucks

Using captured vehicles

M551A2 Sheridan

Questions about home guard/militia units

And this thread has elements of both:

Surplus armor in T2K
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli

Last edited by Targan; 02-25-2015 at 03:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-25-2015, 05:07 AM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

Division De Cuba:

Had me wondering about Gitmo. What would of become of the Navy Facility there? Does the timeline show it abandoned? Or would they have reinforced like their did during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Or, did the personel die in a blaze of glory and the radio went silent?

That could be a source of some US weapons for the Division.

Another issue, since Cuba liked to export and share with the world the joys of socialism with the like of good ol Che. Do you all think there could be a battalion of volunteers that would go with the Russians to fight those evil imperialist Yankees? Or, as Cuba tends to do, a light "Boatlift" in an effort to get rid of undesirables? Sending them as "support" for the Russians.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-25-2015, 08:18 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,231
Default

At 200 a round for the license Littlefield could afford to have quite the arsenal - remember we are talking about a multi multi millionaire here - this isnt some guy with an old M113 in his garage - this is a guy who had more tanks and armored vehicles than most countries have

Oh and by the way - Sadat threw the Soviets out of Egypt long before the timeline ever deviated from ours - Egypt is a US allied nation in this timeline - they were buying US equipment and by 1989 were considered a US ally - so getting ex-Soviet stuff from Israel and Egypt would have been easy to do

one thing that also could be done would be to use any vehicles as pure gun platforms - i.e. turn them into the equivalent of a WWII tank destroyer or self propelled gun without a turret - mount a small cannon or AA gun or heck a helicopter gunship rocket pod on it and send it into combat
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-25-2015, 03:41 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
At 200 a round for the license Littlefield could afford to have quite the arsenal - remember we are talking about a multi multi millionaire here - this isnt some guy with an old M113 in his garage - this is a guy who had more tanks and armored vehicles than most countries have

Oh and by the way - Sadat threw the Soviets out of Egypt long before the timeline ever deviated from ours - Egypt is a US allied nation in this timeline - they were buying US equipment and by 1989 were considered a US ally - so getting ex-Soviet stuff from Israel and Egypt would have been easy to do

one thing that also could be done would be to use any vehicles as pure gun platforms - i.e. turn them into the equivalent of a WWII tank destroyer or self propelled gun without a turret - mount a small cannon or AA gun or heck a helicopter gunship rocket pod on it and send it into combat
Since Mr. Littlefield did not buy munitions, machinery to manufacture munitions, or even chemicals to produce even propellants, is proof enough to me that he never intended to in the first place. Let alone the federal laws that would have to be overcome.

I don't like hand wave things just to hand wave them. People I have played with want plausible excuses for things not their intelligence insulted. Billionaires that buy fantastic weapons and never have bureaucratic government problems is a movie called Iron Man.

It is reasonable and plausible in the T2K timelines that a hobbyist like Littlefield would have Korean war and earlier vehicles and equipment. Given the radical changes in the timeline that differ from our own; I find it implausible that operational 60s and later equipment would have gone to a collector.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-25-2015, 08:26 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
As you can imagine with a group that's been around this long, some ideas and discussions circle back around from time to time. I'll see if I can dig through the archives and find some of the discussions we had on the exact same subject a few years back.
Thanks for the links to the old threads. I really enjoyed them.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-26-2015, 08:01 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
Since Mr. Littlefield did not buy munitions, machinery to manufacture munitions, or even chemicals to produce even propellants, is proof enough to me that he never intended to in the first place. Let alone the federal laws that would have to be overcome.

I don't like hand wave things just to hand wave them. People I have played with want plausible excuses for things not their intelligence insulted. Billionaires that buy fantastic weapons and never have bureaucratic government problems is a movie called Iron Man.

It is reasonable and plausible in the T2K timelines that a hobbyist like Littlefield would have Korean war and earlier vehicles and equipment. Given the radical changes in the timeline that differ from our own; I find it implausible that operational 60s and later equipment would have gone to a collector.
sorry but an old M60A2 Starship and a Conqueror tank are hardly fantastic weapons - and you can own live shells in this country for a license fee that is very affordable - and for the right price you can get anything in this country -

and if you use the V2 timeline then he could have gotten everything he had basically - even the original timeline is totally plausible for 90% of his collection - and the T2013 timeline means he got it all

and either way the man had exactly what you need to maintain and rebuild tanks and armored vehicles including a very loyal and dedicated staff

but again either way its how you approach the game versus how I approach it - and everyone's campaign is different in how non-canon is handled

Last edited by Olefin; 02-26-2015 at 03:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-26-2015, 11:07 AM
Silent Hunter UK Silent Hunter UK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 296
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
Oh and by the way - Sadat threw the Soviets out of Egypt long before the timeline ever deviated from ours - Egypt is a US allied nation in this timeline - they were buying US equipment and by 1989 were considered a US ally - so getting ex-Soviet stuff from Israel and Egypt would have been easy to do
Indeed, a number of the MiGs used in CONSTANT PEG are believed to be ex-Egyptian ones.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-26-2015, 07:25 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
sorry but an old M60A2 Starship and a Conqueror tank are hardly fantastic weapons - and you can own live shells in this country for a license fee that is very affordable - and for the right price you can get anything in this country -
That M60A2 would have been recycled into an M60A1 or sold to Israel that would have done the same. Jordan would have liked to have the Conqueror, South Africa, even Israel again. Israel would have converted the conqueror to one of the turretless counter IED engineer vehicles that sweep between one kibbutz and the next.

Old and obsolete to the 1st world powers like NATO is still adequate to those not so advanced. In any of these timelines without a collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact to economic difficulties means a continuance and escalation of brushfire wars in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
and if you use the V2 timeline then he could have gotten everything he had basically - even the original timeline is totally plausible for 90% of his collection - and the T2013 timeline means he got it all
So your saying all these smaller 3rd world nations like those in south America still using M24s, M41s, and M48s would not have been snapping any of these things up for spares if nothing else.
I donít think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
and either way the man had exactly what you need to maintain and rebuild tanks and armored vehicles including a very loyal and dedicated staff
Maintaining museum quality sureÖ.. I think he could have a reasonable collection of WW2 and Korean era equipment. The items from the 60s forward would be in the hands of 3rd world countries in local conflicts fueled by money from either NATO or the Warsaw PactÖÖ Afghanistan, Angola, Eritrea, Sinai, Cyprus, Vietnam, Laos, Chad, Libya, Pakistan, India, as examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
but again either way its how you approach the game versus how I approach it - and everyone's campaign is different in how non-canon is handled
I donít like to insult my players with far fetched per case scenarios. If bad guy needs to be stronger to counter a powerful PC team or to give the PC a target worthy of their efforts, then a reasonable and plausible means for a tank or APC to be there can be better devised than because billionaires like tanks.

Millionaires and billionaires didnít get that way spending money. Sure Mr. Littlefields collection was worth a lot, and gained in value as other vehicles were scrapped. What doesnít give it value is live ammunition at $200 per shell above the base cost, plus the outrageous monthly insurance.
Then ammunition doesnít sit infinitely, propellants and explosives naturally decay. Is he going to shoot 10% to 50% per year from every vehicle to rotate stock? Not a chance. The wear and tear on the vehicles alone would be unacceptable.

Ordnance isnít built or maintained by mechanics no matter how clever they are. Fuses, even of the impact type, have little to nothing at all incommon with anything on the tank, but another fuse.
Any Twilight timeline is a violent place and I doubt anything would sit around as surplus to be collected by hobbyists.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-27-2015, 07:26 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,231
Default

ArmySgt - the timeline isnt that much more violent than our current timeline up until the start of the Soviet Chinese war - there would still be surplus equipment to be had by those who had enough money

and there is always surplus equipment to be had for the serious collector who has enough money and he was both

keep in mind that many third world nations don't operate much in the way of tanks - like Mexico for instance

and many of the vehicles he had he rebuilt from the ground up - these werent pristine vehicles that drove up ready to fire - these were lovingly rebuilt by him over the years - if you are a Third World nation you are going to want to buy fully operational tanks and armored vehicles - not ones that need a year in a rebuild shop to bring them back up to spec while you search spare parts collections and use old drawings to make parts one at a time

he didnt buy this tanks right off the lot - that Panzer IV that he had looked literally like a piece of crap when he got it - and it took years to fix it -

Frankly if you dont like the Collection then dont use it in your campaign -heck unless you are playing in CA or AZ it would never even come into play

And while you keep talking about how crappy it would be to have a WWII or Korean era tank in a fight, the Croats, Serbs and Bosnians used a bunch of old WWII tanks in the fight in Yugoslavia in the mid 90's - and they worked quite well
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-27-2015, 02:10 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
ArmySgt - the timeline isnt that much more violent than our current timeline up until the start of the Soviet Chinese war - there would still be surplus equipment to be had by those who had enough money

and there is always surplus equipment to be had for the serious collector who has enough money and he was both

keep in mind that many third world nations don't operate much in the way of tanks - like Mexico for instance

and many of the vehicles he had he rebuilt from the ground up - these werent pristine vehicles that drove up ready to fire - these were lovingly rebuilt by him over the years - if you are a Third World nation you are going to want to buy fully operational tanks and armored vehicles - not ones that need a year in a rebuild shop to bring them back up to spec while you search spare parts collections and use old drawings to make parts one at a time

he didnt buy this tanks right off the lot - that Panzer IV that he had looked literally like a piece of crap when he got it - and it took years to fix it -

Frankly if you dont like the Collection then dont use it in your campaign -heck unless you are playing in CA or AZ it would never even come into play

And while you keep talking about how crappy it would be to have a WWII or Korean era tank in a fight, the Croats, Serbs and Bosnians used a bunch of old WWII tanks in the fight in Yugoslavia in the mid 90's - and they worked quite well
Still seen nothing here to convince me otherwise. When V1 doesn't support your argument, you say V2. When V2 doesn't you say V3.

When the ammunition comes up you say he is a millionaire, just buying munitions because he can.

You haven't convinced me, because you keep moving the goal posts.

This is relevant to anywhere in the U.S., because a great many collections exist both private and public. That is really my interest in this thread. There has to be a plausible excuse for using the resources to get them going and operational. Just because it is a tank, doesn't mean anyone is going to be stupid enough to go into battle in it. If M203 and BG-15s can kill them from 150 to 300 meters out, these relics won't even be safe with a infantry unit to screen them. Then they are in rendered useless in an attack, only to be marginally effective in a defense. Let alone that with high explosives most would be hampered severely with the poor penetration capabilities of hardened steel shot for the main armament.

Pz IIs and M3 would get killed just by a marauder with an M203.

It is barbarically negligent to kill soldiers by sending them into battle in some of these things.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 02-27-2015, 02:49 PM
raketenjagdpanzer's Avatar
raketenjagdpanzer raketenjagdpanzer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,208
Default

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

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.

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? 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.

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.
__________________
THIS IS MY SIG, HERE IT IS.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-27-2015, 03:59 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,231
Default

Sgt - first off I am not moving the goalposts

Timelines

V1 - he still gets almost every tank and vehicle he had that was made pre-1970 that was in his collection and even some of the Soviet Stuff - Egypt still becomes a NATO ally and gets rid of its Soviet stuff, Israel still captures a bunch in the various wars they had

V2 - he gets the same plus even some Soviet stuff he could have obtained from the former East Germans and the Yugoslav remnants

2013 - he gets his whole collection including the Scud missile

no one is moving the goalposts - the posts move because of the events in the timeline change

as for munitions - hmm lets see MilGov decides to make use of his collection - well there is where the munitions come from as one possibility - another is that a machine shop (which per canon are capable of turning out mortar shells and the like) make a small amount of solid shot shells for the vehicles

or he obtains munitions the old fashioned way - he buys them pre-war - maybe only enough to give one basic ammo load or less for the vehicles with live barrels - and he had lots of storage room to keep them in

and for our info most of the tanks and artillery pieces didnt have live barrels - so the Stuarts and PzkII and Pzk IV you seem to obsess about and the Lee and the British WWII tanks arent going anywhere as tanks - but they sure could be modified to be turned into gun platforms for other weapons for the US Army or turned into tracked gun vehicles instead of wheeled ones -

and anyone who uses a M203 against the tanks that he did have with live barrels is going to end up dead

you might want to actually research his collection like I did and find out what worked and what didnt - and what only needed a .50 to be fully operational like most of his APC's

and per canon - by 2000 anything with a gun on it and tracks was being used as tank in the US by the various groups fighting

thats pretty clear that if it had a turret, a gun and could move they used it

plus keep in mind that the main marauder threat is a bunch of guys armed with shotguns, civilian rifles and if they were really lucky some M-16's they might have looted out of a National Guard armory - none of which have a hope in heck of hurting anyone in a tank

and again - per canon - from the Texas module - even the Mexican Army by 2000 was mostly foot infantry with rifles - you would be lucky if a whole unit had one or two anti-tank weapons of any sort with them -

this isnt charging Soviet Division Cuba with a bunch of original production Shermans and Stuarts

this is taking on marauders and Mexican infantry who the only thing they can do against a tank is hope they get close enough to use a Molotov on it or maybe manage to blow a tread off with dynamite

and frankly any commander who had working tanks and APC's and artillery pieces sitting right there and didnt use them when he had no tanks of any sort and no armored vehicles in his unit is not one whose men will stay with him long
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 02-27-2015, 04:17 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,343
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Given the penchant the game designers had putting odd equipment in odd places, I think the Littlefield collection fits nicely. They have British and German units stay in Canada. They have an Alaskan Invasion by the Soviets. They have a US division get "lost" by 800 kilometers.

When I played I tried to give the 49th some color by adding 24 DUKW transports which were "requisitioned" when one of their brigades was near the Wisconsin Dells (where they are used for recreational touring).

Personally I would give Littlefield a little more eccentric personality (and more money and power). Maybe add a little John DuPont and Howard Hughes. Make the collection an obsession that leads to grey and black market deals.

Once you enter that world you find corrupt quartermasters, Insurgents who capture a single vehicle (and have no support for it), a dictator's cousin looking for a little cash, plus anything that would be above board.

You have to make Littlefield crazy to have the collection armed before TDM, but if you throw in a little of DuPont's or Hughes paranoia it might work. Personally I would not have the collection armed until "Wojo" type plants spring up.

Last edited by kato13; 02-27-2015 at 04:20 PM. Reason: remembered miles but it was kilometers
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 02-27-2015, 04:34 PM
raketenjagdpanzer's Avatar
raketenjagdpanzer raketenjagdpanzer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,208
Default

I should also point out the matter of vehicles that 40mm rounds can take out - the M1 (of any stripe) is still vulnerable in almost all arcs to RPG-7 fire. When they were taken out with them in OIF the Army (and Marines) didn't pull them off the line and mothball them.
__________________
THIS IS MY SIG, HERE IT IS.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 02-27-2015, 04:37 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,231
Default

I agree with you Kato - and Raketenjagdpanzer has a big point too - just that shop of his, which he would have had no matter what the timeline, would have been invaluable

just imagine - its 2000 and you have a fully manned (his techs weree as dedicated as he was after all) and operational tank repair depot that can take a tank that is basically a pile of junk and make it operational again

and there sits MilGov units with all kinds of tanks and armored vehicles with issues that need to be fixed - its a marriage made in heaven

and I could easily see him obtaining stuff once the war started with various bribes if not beforhand - especially if he saw how the world was getting pre-TDM and figured it might be a damn good idea to have some munitions to arm his collection
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 02-27-2015, 05:20 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Again, we are back to where we are not going to agree.

A U.S. government that provides HE munitions to a millionaire eccentric with a militaria fetish.

A machine shop that can be replicated anywhere there is a shop that services heavy construction equipment. The only thing that sets it a part is some of the skill sets of the technicians and the manuals available. Saying that though, heavy equipment mechanics typically made their start in military service.

Diversion of resources to make munitions for an obsolete caliber with in a multi-front global conflict.

No, diesel to put these into action, let along move them by rail, or tractor trailer to near the marshaling area.

All the timelines with a strong Communist Bloc and worldwide brushfire wars of proxy between NATO and the Soviet Union.

A M203 High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP) has the potential to penetrate 2 inches (50mm) into Rolled Homogenous Steel (RHA) at zero degrees deflection. One per fire team. Now look over the armor thickness on these relics and see how long they will last against the lightest of anti-armor weapons.

Killing tanks with handweapons like molotovs, burning sulphur, satchel charges, dropping a building on them isn't that difficult once you drive the supporting infantry off. Chechnya taught the Russian Army that lesson with the loss of T-80s to underscore the point.

I am utterly unconvinced.

How ever my interest is post apocalyptic genre, not WW3. So I only care about solid, plausible explanations without a confluence of preposterous circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 02-27-2015, 05:33 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer View Post
I should also point out the matter of vehicles that 40mm rounds can take out - the M1 (of any stripe) is still vulnerable in almost all arcs to RPG-7 fire. When they were taken out with them in OIF the Army (and Marines) didn't pull them off the line and mothball them.
Notably because the insurgent tank hunting practice was to attempt to overwhelm the tank with volley fire expending 20-30 RPGs some with recently supplied ChiCom and Russian tandem warheads. Those tanks weren't lost or out of action long. I will concede that they were put out of action temporarily and tank crews killed or maimed permanently. Insurgent RPG gunners got lucky hitting hatches from on top. Tanks immobilized because multiple RPGS were used to destroy the drive sprocket (bogie?). Some were lost to simply packing the road with several artillery shells filled set to command detonate. Those RPGS did shut some M1s down but, only just by hits to the gunners sights, commanders visor blocks, etc. It takes 20 to a 100 men and near or completely suicidal dedication.

That also brought out the T.U.S.K. program.

If you can find an instance where an RPG-7 standard round penetrated the hull through the armor and not a more vulnerable point like a vision block or weapon sight I would genuinely like to read it.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 02-27-2015, 06:09 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,231
Default

The shop had the ability to weld armor plate - I used to work for a company that produced military vehicles - i.e. the M88, the M109, the Bradley, etc..

you need special equipment and training to be able to weld heavy duty armor that miltary vehicles use - and I worked for a company that builds heavy construction equipment - plus that shop had equipment that could easily handle a tank turret or tank body -

and we used to qualify our welders to work on armor - the qualifications you need for working on construction equipment is not what you need to properly weld a heavy armored vehicle together

as to a lack of diesel - well thats why the military converted their vehicles to run on methanol and ethanol - so most likely they would do it here

as for lack of tank transports - have a feeling that the US military still has them and they could use them to move those tanks to where they are needed - and they run on methanol and ethanol too

yes those tanks are vulnerable to those rounds - and so are Bradley's, M113's, Bufords, LAV-25's, etc.. - and I highly doubt that MilGov has parked all those vehicles just in case someone has an M203 HEDP round on them

yes it has the potential to penetrate that steel at 150 meters range - whats the effective range of a .50 caliber machine gun on those grenadiers? and thats if they even have those rounds by 2000 in any quantity at all let alone actual RPG's

and I would rather have a tank to fight in that was designed as a tank than converted bank armored cars - which per canon are being used as armored vehicles by MilGov, CivGov and New Amerca

if they are issuing Peacekeepers to the 49th to make up for lost tanks then I bet they would rather have actual tanks instead no matter what their vintage than a Peacekeeper

Heck they are using M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle's as tanks then they really dont care much what they have for tanks

Last edited by Olefin; 02-27-2015 at 06:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 02-27-2015, 06:45 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
The shop had the ability to weld armor plate - I used to work for a company that produced military vehicles - i.e. the M88, the M109, the Bradley, etc..
you need special equipment and training to be able to weld heavy duty armor that miltary vehicles use - and I worked for a company that builds heavy construction equipment - plus that shop had equipment that could easily handle a tank turret or tank body -
and we used to qualify our welders to work on armor - the qualifications you need for working on construction equipment is not what you need to properly weld a heavy armored vehicle together
The formula isnít a mystery or super secret knowledge. Letít not pretend it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
as to a lack of diesel - well thats why the military converted their vehicles to run on methanol and ethanol - so most likely they would do it here
That is one of the failures of the T2K setting. Now they probably get the idea from the M35 2 Ĺ which has a multi-fuel engine. That doesnít mean it can run on pure ethanol or methanol. The fuel mix for a M35 still must be greater than 50% diesel, kerosene, crank case oil to lubricate the pistons. Pure ethanol would seize the pistons very fast. The only other vehicle that would run would be the turbine in an M1 Abrams until the alcohol destroyed any gaskets and lines.

The brewing fuel bit only works for gasoline motors for a short time, again alcohol attacks those gaskets and lines not formulated against its corrosive effects.

It is a major handwave for the entirety of the story or there would be few or no military vehicles at all without oil production and refining to get diesel on the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
as for lack of tank transports - have a feeling that the US military still has them and they could use them to move those tanks to where they are needed - and they run on methanol and ethanol too
For one, they do not run on methanol and ethanol except it the T2K universe. Trains are out since railyards are a strategic target on their own and typically in a large urban area another target of strategic nuclear weapons. Civilian lowboys could move around APCs and light armor, it is going to take a HET to move an M1 with any efficiency. I would say some are around, these are a support vehicle and some are going to make it through the tactical nukes destroying rear area marshalling yards and forward support battalions. These burn a lot of fuel though. These are also valuable as transport for any and everything else. Escorted HETs on MSR Tampa between Scania and BIAP with tons of anything and everything like sack concrete, concertina wire, plus pallets of sandbags. They wouldnít go on ethanol or methanol though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
yes those tanks are vulnerable to those rounds - and so are Bradley's, M113's, Bufords, LAV-25's, etc.. - and I highly doubt that MilGov has parked all those vehicles just in case someone has an M203 HEDP round on them
All the modern vehicles you name have things like spall liners, fire suppression systems, and ammo compartmentalization in their favor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
yes it has the potential to penetrate that steel at 150 meters range - whats the effective range of a .50 caliber machine gun on those grenadiers? and thats if they even have those rounds by 2000 in any quantity at all let alone actual RPG's
This is the wrong thread to go into infantry anti armor tactics but, having a .50 isnít going to do them much good. A tank without infantry protecting it is a dead tank.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
and I would rather have a tank to fight in that was designed as a tank than converted bank armored cars - which per canon are being used as armored vehicles by MilGov, CivGov and New America
If they are using bank armored cars then those guys are pants on head retarded to start with. The best possible use is as scouts or convoy escorts. These do not have the armor to be anything more than the lightest battle taxi that would carry infantry forward and drop them off 500 to a 1000 meters from the objective.
Another writers fiction that has somehow gained traction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
if they are issuing Peacekeepers to the 49th to make up for lost tanks then I bet they would rather have actual tanks instead no matter what their vintage than a Peacekeeper
If the 49th is using Peacekeepers this explains how they lost their tanks to begin with. It is all for the story though, so that is the way it has to be, realistic or not.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 02-27-2015, 07:16 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,231
Default

actually they used the Peacekeepers as replacements for the armor they lost fighting Soviet Division Cuba

and bank cars being used as APC's are in both "A River Runs Thru It" by MilGov and in the Florida module being used by New America and quite effectively so against guerrillas who have no anti-armor weapons

and we are talking about T2K here - so in the canon they have converted vehicles to run on methanol and ethanol and have done so since 1998 when gasoline and diesel got short

basically outside of Oklahoma, Ohio, Kenya, and Iran there arent many military vehicles they have that arent running on alcohol and have been doing so for quite a while

so you may not like it but thats the world those of us who play the game have gotten used to

and the lack of anti-armor weapons by 2000 is why any remaining tanks are as effective as they are - look at the Soviet Vehicle Guide and it specifically states how effective one APC is because the guerrillas its fighting have almost no anti-armor weapons

look at the Soviet attack on Brownsville in the Texas module - they lose a grand total of one vehicle to anti-armor weapons in close in fighting - not exactly a ringing endorsement of the availability of anti-armor weapons
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 02-27-2015, 08:13 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
actually they used the Peacekeepers as replacements for the armor they lost fighting Soviet Division Cuba
They why isnít important, it is the how. If they are using them as tanks in frontal attacks against a dedicated defense meant to hold ground those are going to be dead to the first DsHK 38/42. Having any AT rocket or missile is irrelevant against a bank car which is armor up to 30.06 or 7.62N AP ammo. A 120 motor will take one out with just a near miss and shrapnel.

That is taking exceptional liberties with calling a bank car meant to protect cash from robbers a military armored vehicle.
If they are and that is canonically correct, who is in charge of this 49th ? The post office? Because something is seriously wrong in the implementation of combined arms theory over there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
and bank cars being used as APC's are in both "A River Runs Thru It" by MilGov and in the Florida module being used by New America and quite effectively so against guerrillas who have no anti-armor weapons
How loosely are we defining ďUse as an APCĒ because again to use these even moderately successfully they are battle taxis or convoy escorts. Either taxing troops with 500 to 1000 meters to avoid engagements and leaving the infantry to themselves; option two is as a convoy escort that hopes to survive the initial ambush and belch out troops to counter attack. Any other way and all I can forsee is a loss of the vehicle quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
and we are talking about T2K here - so in the canon they have converted vehicles to run on methanol and ethanol and have done so since 1998 when gasoline and diesel got short
Which is still ridiculous and not a ringing endorsement for the setting either. They canít manufacture parts or support armies in the field, yet all sides can engineer a engine replacement, manufacture this, ship these globally, and refurbish every vehicle in the fleet combat or combat support with a new gasoline / ethanol motor. See the shortfalls in that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
basically outside of Oklahoma, Ohio, Kenya, and Iran there arent many military vehicles they have that arent running on alcohol and have been doing so for quite a while
It is elemental handwavium for the sake of having military vehicles for the players and the opposing forces. Letís just call that what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
so you may not like it but thats the world those of us who play the game have gotten used to
Yup, I bought my first copy of T2k in 1986, doesnít mean the story holds water any better than a colander then or now. Would be better to dispense with the ethanol foolishness and state that the coal oil conversion process doesnít have the same outputs as the pre-war petrochemical. So it takes months to get enough for a large offensive. Easy peasy, still works with the slow advance and long periods of settling in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
and the lack of anti-armor weapons by 2000 is why any remaining tanks are as effective as they are - look at the Soviet Vehicle Guide and it specifically states how effective one APC is because the guerrillas its fighting have almost no anti-armor weapons
Which is again ridiculous given the simplicity of rudimentary shape charges with a government capable of doing so. Panzerfausts and Bazookas can comeback into fashion if everyone is into WW2 relics and bank cars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
look at the Soviet attack on Brownsville in the Texas module - they lose a grand total of one vehicle to anti-armor weapons in close in fighting - not exactly a ringing endorsement of the availability of anti-armor weapons
Which is a plot point necessary for the author versus a ringing endorsement of combined arms theory. It was necessary for the story, so that is the way it went.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 02-27-2015, 09:28 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,231
Default

Urban Guerrilla

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

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

US Vehicle Guide

Peacekeeper entry

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

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

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

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

Soviet Army Vehicle Guide

BRDM-3

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

again showing that antitank weapons are at a premium by 2000

Red Star Lone Star

The Mexican armed forces are armed with a mix of rifles - no machine guns, no anti-tank weapons. The only guys with RPG's are the guys in Brownsville and the Soviets and the only grenade launchers in the whole module are in the hands of the Texian Legion who got them from a MilGov unit that didn't have any armor
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 02-27-2015, 10:05 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
Urban Guerrilla

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

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

US Vehicle Guide

Peacekeeper entry

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

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

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

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

Soviet Army Vehicle Guide

BRDM-3

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

again showing that antitank weapons are at a premium by 2000

Red Star Lone Star

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

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

Lets go with number one. Bank cars.

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

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

Use it as an APC, lose it quickly.

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

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

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

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

Bank cars as APCs is an author taking tremendous liberties with the real capabilities of men and equipment.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 02-27-2015, 10:41 PM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 1,717
Default

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

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

As I say, the debate is throwing out a lot of interesting and useful information but for me ultimately, it is a purely intellectual exercise because I personally don't see T2k as a game of raising masses of armoured vehicles to keep WW3 going. I've always thought of the combat vehicles as rare and kept for "special occasions".
Protecting your enclave is obviously important but the resources dedicated to keeping those armoured vehicles in combat could be better used to keep the population alive and growing food.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 02-27-2015, 11:47 PM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

Peacekeeper Armored cars;

One was forsale at DRMO recently for about 5k.

My boss and partner both worked with them. At any given time 1/3 of the vehicles would be down. Durring movements, another 1/3 of the vehicles would break down.

I doubt any Peacekeepers would survive to be used as replacements.

Further, no vision, poor braking, poor power to weight ratio, poor steering, all of which are the recipe for disaster in short order. And much worse in "field" conditions.

Further, they had primitive crew conditions. Heat exhaustion of those inside was a given. In cold conditions they worse more clothes which made it almost impossible to move inside the vehicle or get out with any speed.

As for using civilian armored cars, gotta agree. A death trap if used on anything beyond a modern maintained road. Off road, or as a combat platform a death trap. I could see them as a gun platform if a turret is mounted and they are left to keep roads clear, run on sturdy flat areas like a runway or cleared roads.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 02-28-2015, 08:25 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,709
Default

Straight out of the improvised munitions handbook, an effective antitank weapon can be made from two sticks of C4, a fuse, and a Coke-Cola bottle, simply mold the explosive around the upper part of the bottle, insert fuse assembly and place on the vehicle, good enough to penetrate up to 3 inches of armor.

Basic rules for antitank is to get the crew to button up, thus reducing their visibility, then get in close and use your antitank weapons against the rear of the vehicle.

Ideally, you want to damage the suspension, either by breaking the track or damaging the running gear, once the vehicle is immobilized, you can then then hamper their vision, disable weapons or blow the hatches off. You can also access the engine compartment and plant charges against the fuel cells.

There used to be a class taught at the Armor Officers Course, where it was demonstrated just how easy it was to get up close and personal with a tank. You could disable the running gear with as simple a method as jamming a log into the road wheels (i still cringe at the arse-chewing I got for that stunt). Blankets or spray paint is great for disabling periscopes/vision blocks, blocking the barrels with cleaning rods, rocks,etc. even something as crude as using a sledge hammer to damage the muzzle of a machine gun, or stuff a termite or WP grenade into the muzzle of the cannon. At that point, with the crew helpless, they can surrender or wait for the hatches to be breached.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 02-28-2015, 08:37 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,709
Default

Wheeled vehicles are even easier to disable, especially if you can get them off road. Even all-wheeled drive has issues with vertical obstacles, anything that gets one or more wheels into the air...or blocking them with something too heavy to for them to push will immobilize them enough for a close assault.

So what can the crew do to protect themselves? By placing Claymores in improvised mounting on the hull, the crew buys themselves especially time. Running with one or more wingman allows another vehicle to "scratch your back" when those irritating infantry types try to ruin your day. And, of course, staying out of terrain ideal for close assaults, until after friendly infantry has cleared it.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 02-28-2015, 11:14 AM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Sorry, skipped over your post replying to others so here goes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer View Post
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 donít really decline or stop their military misadventures regionally or globally. For this reason I assert there really isnít 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 isnít 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer View Post
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 isnít 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. Littlefieldís 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer View Post
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 guyís 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 donít 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer View Post
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 donít 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. Littlefieldís 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 wouldnít be causing breakdowns daily.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.