RPG Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 02-22-2015, 11:47 AM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Just to challenge convention....... Wouldn't the more modern M1s and M60s be sent overseas and older M48s kept at home? The better to fight them there, than fight them at home. Any M60s or newer still on U.S. soil would be Guard units or Federal units waiting to ship, or training units churning out replacements for losses overseas.


Further, wouldn't the States individually be getting any armor no matter how old operational? While it doesn't make sense for the Army on a large scale to throw effort into a getting a M4A2 Sherman or a M3 Stuart operational a State can fund them as one offs... Swapping the radial for a cummins diesel. Having machine shops make AP or Canister shot for a 75mm or 37mm. Turning over gun shops looking for 1919s. Lots of towns have WW2 relics and plenty of WW2 generation vets that know how to get these things running.

Even in WW2 there was appeals for any hobbyist with the right skills to turn out war materials. Wooden crates for example. Firing pins, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-22-2015, 12:55 PM
schnickelfritz schnickelfritz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: People's Republic of Illinois
Posts: 123
Default

t is possible and somewhat common for M3/M5 Stuart owners to convert their 2-engine power plants for 350 or 454 Chevy V-8s. This would be advantageous for an owner who has bought one without engines or whose engines are not practical to rebuild.

I am not sure if a M24 Chaffee can benefit from this, but I wouldn't doubt it.

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-22-2015, 01:07 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,302
Default

Keep in mind the thread with the very real possibility that the tanks and other armored vehicles at the Littlefield collection, many of which had live barrels and operational fire control systems, would have been used in 2000 and 2001 to get the CA MilGov units some armor

and remember that the Mexican's only real tank they had (at least based on real world info) was the Stuart tank

As for the Sheridans taking on other tanks - most likely by the time the Army got around to getting more of them in the fight their wouldnt have been many tanks on the other side left to get in the fight

most likely they would have been used openly against infantry that didnt have ATGM's or RPG's - look at the Texas module for instance - the marauder and Mexican units described had very few of either of those weapons - there a Sheridan could be decisive in a battle -

and there is always this - its cold blooded but it works - i.e. you use the Sheridans to draw fire and find the enemy ATGM's and tanks and then take them out with the only M1A1 or M60 or M48 you have operational
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-22-2015, 02:24 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
Keep in mind the thread with the very real possibility that the tanks and other armored vehicles at the Littlefield collection, many of which had live barrels and operational fire control systems, would have been used in 2000 and 2001 to get the CA MilGov units some armor
I wonder how much of it would have gone to the collection with the V1 timeline and without a collapse of the Soviet Union. In that rather darker world less of this stuff would have gone to collectors and more kept by nation states for reserves and militia call ups or training. That said some of it would be a more of a logistical burden than help as armor support. I would see them in the defense of critical assets like air fields, rail yards, supply depots, and refineries before I would see burdening a unit with even one. Their too susceptible to modern light anti armor weapons lacking spall liners, fire extinguishers, compartmentalized fuel, and ammunition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
and remember that the Mexican's only real tank they had (at least based on real world info) was the Stuart tank
I would have sworn they had some Shermans and Lees too. I don’t know why in this any of the timelines that this Mexican army did not atleast purchase some T55s from Cuba or Nicaragua. Those are light enough to move quickly with a civilian semi and low boy trailer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
As for the Sheridans taking on other tanks - most likely by the time the Army got around to getting more of them in the fight their wouldnt have been many tanks on the other side left to get in the fight
Tanks draw fire. Everybody moves under the umbrella of their own fire support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
most likely they would have been used openly against infantry that didnt have ATGM's or RPG's - look at the Texas module for instance - the marauder and Mexican units described had very few of either of those weapons - there a Sheridan could be decisive in a battle -
The first operational kill of a tank is world war one and that was with artillery, the preferred engagement method. ATGMs and LAWs are defensive weapons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
and there is always this - its cold blooded but it works - i.e. you use the Sheridans to draw fire and find the enemy ATGM's and tanks and then take them out with the only M1A1 or M60 or M48 you have operational
Shouldn’t need to do that. A maneuver commander preps probable locations with artillery fires that only stop (shift to the next target) as the armor platoon arrives on it with infantry support.

Doctrinally, on first sighting the flash and smoke of an ATGM the crew executes a turn toward the launcher or oblique across the front, fires smoke grenades, and starts the smoke generator. The gunner engage the launch are with the coaxial machinegun aided by thermal sights to make life hard for SACLOS systems like Mexican BGM-71 TOW 1 systems. The Battalion FO behind them is shifting BN 81mm mortars onto the enemy ATGM source using the armors tracers to backtrace the launcher. The Brigade FO is calling down the Divarty reserve 105mm to saturate that area too. The infantry support is going to dismount move up, call for a shift fire by the BN and BDE FOs and then mop up that launcher and any support it had. Any commander that was using his troops as live bait would be sacked and probably court martialed for good cause. Soldiery is dangerous but, one expects not to be wasted needlessly. You can get a new tank from the factory is six months or a year but, crewmen are going to need 18 years to hatch.

Last edited by ArmySGT.; 02-22-2015 at 05:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-22-2015, 04:14 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,302
Default

the question is whether or not there would any divisional artillery to fire at enemy ATGM teams - by 2000 the Mexican Army has almost no artillery left and if you look at many of the light divisions with as few men as they have left several of them might be down to foot infantry and a few mortars and thats it

As for the Mexican Army - the only Shermans they ever got were basically engineering vehicles - they had Stuarts for tanks but they never invested in anything heavier than APC's and armored cars otherwise as their main opponents were either bandit groups, internal rebel groups that had no armor of any kind and drug lords and criminal groups - in other words they didnt need tanks

Now here the real question is whether or not in 1996 and 1997 would they have tried to get some armor from possibly the Brazilians or maybe the Israelis after it was pretty obvious that things were getting very very bad indeed worldwide and they knew that possibly the US might start looking at their oil resources - if they did then they you could be looking at Sherman tanks from Israel, more Stuarts to complement the force they had from South American countries that were operating them (for instance Paraguay) and also some stuff from Brazil

But not sure if the US would ok Israel shipping them to Mexico - at least not after Israel joined up with CENTCOM as an ally - and the fact that they would have to ship them thru the Med which was a very unhealthy place to be in 1996 and 1997

Now could you see some T-55's from Cuba and Nicaragua - possibly - but since Cuba was trying to stay under the US radar they might not have arrived till after TDM - by then the US wasn't in much of a position to stop trade from Cuba to Mexico (after all they didn't stop the Soviets being shipped from Cuba to Mexico and they were a much bigger threat than a freighter full of T-55's) - and if Nicaragua openly supported the Soviets there might not have been many of those tanks still around after a few US airstrikes

As for Littlefield's collection - keep in mind that a lot of his Soviet stuff he got from places like Egypt and the like - and while he won't have his SCUD he would probably have most of his Western tanks, APC's, armored cars and the like - the ones he obtained before the Twilight War start between the Soviets and Chinese are more than enough to help MilGov a lot - and his other big contribution are his techs and his shop - which is exactly what you need to put stuff like the Sheridans back together and into operation
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-22-2015, 08:37 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
The problem with tanks is that sooner or later they are going to go up against the other guys tanks. In order to beat the other guys, you have to able to shoot first, hit first and kill or disable with that shot. The atgm had a narrow engagement window at best, you might get one or maybe two missiles off before you had to switch to conventional rounds, then your maximum possible rate of fire was two rounds per minute. Shoot and scoot is your mantra.

The drawbacks of the Sheridan restricted it the role of infantry support vehicle, in a single battalion, in a single division. It was kept in that role because it was the only tank that could be air dropped. Even that division depended on regimental antitank companies equipped with TOW for its primary antitank defense.

The only combat test of Sheridan in a traditional tank role was in Vietnam. It was easy to knock out with RPGs. It's armor protection was so bad, that if the crew was not killed immediately, they had to bail out before the ammo fire finished the job.

In Desert Storm, the Sheridan was used as a bunker buster and was never used against Iraqi armor.

When it was first introduced, it was a gee-whiz tech solution and it didn't work. It is to the eternal credit of its crews that they were able to perform their missions in spite of its drawbacks, but there are good and sound reasons why the decision was made to remove it from service. I find it hard to come up with any reason why scarce resources would have been wasted in trying to bring the Sheridan back into operational service.

I can think of one reason.

DESPERATION with little other options.

Then again, remove the gun from the turret and install a Bushmaster or a TOW system or something else that is common and fairly simple.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-22-2015, 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 jester View Post
I can think of one reason.

DESPERATION with little other options.

Then again, remove the gun from the turret and install a Bushmaster or a TOW system or something else that is common and fairly simple.

Done
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-22-2015, 11:03 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,711
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
Just to challenge convention....... Wouldn't the more modern M1s and M60s be sent overseas and older M48s kept at home? The better to fight them there, than fight them at home. Any M60s or newer still on U.S. soil would be Guard units or Federal units waiting to ship, or training units churning out replacements for losses overseas.


Further, wouldn't the States individually be getting any armor no matter how old operational? While it doesn't make sense for the Army on a large scale to throw effort into a getting a M4A2 Sherman or a M3 Stuart operational a State can fund them as one offs... Swapping the radial for a cummins diesel. Having machine shops make AP or Canister shot for a 75mm or 37mm. Turning over gun shops looking for 1919s. Lots of towns have WW2 relics and plenty of WW2 generation vets that know how to get these things running.

Even in WW2 there was appeals for any hobbyist with the right skills to turn out war materials. Wooden crates for example. Firing pins, etc.
In a nut shell...you would have had M1A1 and M1A2 assigned to Germany, REFORGER would pull the same vehicles from the POMCUS sets. The National Guard follow up divisions would have a mix of M48A5/M60A1/M60A3/IPM1.

The equipment sets left by the Regular Army units committed to REFORGER, they were intended to be shipped as battlefield replacements, this, filled out with new construction and battlefield repaired tanks was was what was supposed to keep the Army going.

So, arguments can be made that the NG divisions would be equipped with front-line gear, especially prior to shipment overseas, reasonable. Right up to the Mexican invasion, then it becomes a come as you are war.
__________________
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
  #39  
Old 02-22-2015, 11:36 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,711
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jester View Post
I can think of one reason.

DESPERATION with little other options.

Then again, remove the gun from the turret and install a Bushmaster or a TOW system or something else that is common and fairly simple.
Sigh...I work as auditor for DOD, I get paid the big bucks to travel to these storage facilities just to count the gear AND what condition it is in. Trust me, the M551s in "storage" are in no condition to be locked, cocked and ready to go.

They will require very extensive rebuilds on the scale of what is done at Anniston Army Depot. You will then have to find serviceable missiles and cannon ammo and again, there is not that much out there, that has not been condemned.

As far as slapping 75mms guns, TOWs, etc., Canon has this output going to the LAVs and other front line equipment, just how much can be spared to bring back to life an out-dated hulk left to rot in the desert sun for the last quarter century?
__________________
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
  #40  
Old 02-23-2015, 01:03 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

I was speaking in gaming terms and desperation and imagination. Look at the vehicle guide, WWII the mods done to armor. Or even Vietnam and the "Gun Trucks."

As I said earlier, I've never even seen a Sheridan. Just going with the concept of using what is available to bring it online in some useful manner. And never was the idea of bringing it back to go toe to toe with modern 1st tier armor.

But, remember some pact nations still have T-55s and T-64/5s as their tier 1 armor. And then, how old is the T-72? Which if I recall correctly, the T-90 is just an updated T-72 since the T-80 didn't work as promised...or am I getting them reversed?

Another issue, how many US armored vehicles have been completely destroyed to the point they are written off and not sent back to be rebuilt? Unless its a catastrophic kill of course. And would this not be the case if the balloon went up? This as I recall was the case in WWII where green crews got in after the holes were patched and the blood washed out.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 02-23-2015, 01:58 AM
Askold Askold is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 49
Default

T-90 was designed in the same factory that builds T-72s. Separate factories made T-72 and T-80 and when Russia (after the collapse of Soviet Union) wanted to replace them with a more modern tank the two factories made competing models and the T-72 factory won. It has several upgrades including ones taken from T-80. (One big factor on the winner might be that T-80 was much more expensive. It was supposed to be the "quality" tank that is less numerous than the cheap T-72 and will only be given to elite units but I guess they either couldn't afford it or just decided that the idea was stupid.)

Slightly related on the topic, I tried to find a comparison between T-72 and T-90 but instead stumbled on this "non-intentional" comedy article:

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/poli...-abrams_t90-0/
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-23-2015, 02:10 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
Sigh...I work as auditor for DOD, I get paid the big bucks to travel to these storage facilities just to count the gear AND what condition it is in. Trust me, the M551s in "storage" are in no condition to be locked, cocked and ready to go.
I believe you, absolutely, but what about 20 years ago?
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-23-2015, 04:48 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,711
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jester View Post
I was speaking in gaming terms and desperation and imagination. Look at the vehicle guide, WWII the mods done to armor. Or even Vietnam and the "Gun Trucks."

As I said earlier, I've never even seen a Sheridan. Just going with the concept of using what is available to bring it online in some useful manner. And never was the idea of bringing it back to go toe to toe with modern 1st tier armor.

But, remember some pact nations still have T-55s and T-64/5s as their tier 1 armor. And then, how old is the T-72? Which if I recall correctly, the T-90 is just an updated T-72 since the T-80 didn't work as promised...or am I getting them reversed?

Another issue, how many US armored vehicles have been completely destroyed to the point they are written off and not sent back to be rebuilt? Unless its a catastrophic kill of course. And would this not be the case if the balloon went up? This as I recall was the case in WWII where green crews got in after the holes were patched and the blood washed out.
In the Vietnam War, the Sheridan earned a rep as a death trap for its crews. It was the first combustible case ammo tank to enter service and there problems with propellant escaping from the round and accumulating on the turret floor with dire results when the hull was penetrated by rpg/mines. Another problem was that the combustible case did not fully ignite in the chamber, when the breech was opened, this flaming debris fell back into the turret, sometimes igniting the round the loader was preparing to load. To overcome this problem, a high air pressure air line was installed to.blow this debris down the tube, this was one of the reasons for the lousy rate of fire. The missile came in for its own loading issues, it could only be loaded one way into the gun, resulting in a notch being cut into the breech...think about trying to "key in" a missile during an engagement!

The fun and joy doesn't end there! The missile was a 1st gen IR beam rider that required the gunner to maintain lock on target throughout the missile flight time. Bad enough, but the missile had a host of problems, especiallyduring sunny days, bright reflections as well as a hordes of reliability issues, bad enough when the missile doesn't fire...it's perverse desire to try go for other targets, like that bright sunny thing in the sky, just ruins a crews day.

Another problem was the electronics of the fire control system...temperamental doesn't begin to describe the issues, both Sheridan and the later M60A2 Starship spent more time in the maintenance shop than on the firing line.

Add the fact that the Sheridan would have spent almost 20 years in storage in the desert by the time of the Mexican invasion...
__________________
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
  #44  
Old 02-23-2015, 05:05 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,711
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
I believe you, absolutely, but what about 20 years ago?
These tanks started being put into storage before 1980, the gun-missile launcher and it's assorted problems where the chief reason why. They were being replaced in the armored cavalry regiments with M48/M60A1, and in the divisional cavalry squadrons cavalry squadrons by M150. About the only unit with them was with the 82nd Airborne. Last armor crewman training course for the Sheridan was in 1978, after that, it was armor basic and then OJT at the battalion.

So figure in storage for about 12 or so years, no development work to correct the known issues, and very few personnel familiar with the beast.

I'd find it far more likely that it would have been stripped and melted down.
__________________
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
  #45  
Old 02-23-2015, 05:13 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,711
Default

My own point of view with regards to scavenging equipment is that some of this gear was worn out when it was retired...and the DOD does not spend funds beyond the bare minimum to store this gear. It's a fun game idea to have the players bring such gear out to help out with the ole marauder band, but trying to keep such equipment requires a decent workshop, mechanics, power, raw material and so on. Tanks require an extensive logistical train, just to keep them running in a piece time army...In a Twilight timeline, I'm surprised that there are so many runners.
__________________
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
  #46  
Old 02-23-2015, 11:35 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,302
Default

Keep in mind that you only need that impressive logistical train for a lot of tanks - and by 2000 no one has a lot of tanks anymore except the French - also most fronts are pretty static so the tanks that are left arent doing a lot of movement - many of them would be static much of the time just due to a lack of fuel

and the Sheridans were highly prized in Vietnam to be able to support the infantry - and that is what they would be doing here - supporting infantry not taking on enemy tanks

also keep in mind that the majority of the Sheridans that are probably running are ones near the training centers that still used them - who had the techs, the shops, the parts, etc.. to keep Sheridans running - we arent talking about units in Alaska we are talking about California (NTC at Fort Irwin) and Louisiana/Texas (JRTC at Fort Polk)
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-23-2015, 11:43 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,302
Default

and by the way with the run up to the war and the fight that the Chinese needed vehicles I could easily see the Army getting a couple hundred Sheridans ready to send to them - and by the time they had them ready to go with ammo and working the war had started with the Soviets and they had a more pressing need for armor - at first possibly for training and then later after the TDM as better a Sheridan than nothing
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-23-2015, 12:46 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

Um, there is a depot near Irwin that can do tanks....MCLB which has the facilities, it would also mean they have the talent in the community since most people try to live close to work even if its in the middle of the desert.

When I was in I spent 6 months doing vehicle maintenance just short stripping the vehicles down to nothing and rebuilding them and I was a infantryman. Our mechanics however did have that skillset. Add civilians in the community who have similar skills at mechanic and metalwork and the talent can be assembled.

Spares would be a problem, but then salvaging from destroyed vehicles could provide those parts or civilian vehicles that have similar parts, or even modifications to accept such parts.

Another place to aquire armor, The Patton Tank Museum near the Ca/AZ border on the edge of Joshua Tree National Park.

They have several dozen M48 tanks, some restored, some stripped for spares. But, again with modifications, cannibalizing and using civilian parts that would be compatible one could put together a dozen tanks. Weapons systems is another issue though. But, a moveable armored beast with the hull and working tracks and engines is a lot and any weapons systems are just icing on the cake.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-23-2015, 06:31 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
Keep in mind the thread with the very real possibility that the tanks and other armored vehicles at the Littlefield collection, many of which had live barrels and operational fire control systems, would have been used in 2000 and 2001 to get the CA MilGov units some armor

and remember that the Mexican's only real tank they had (at least based on real world info) was the Stuart tank
In all honestly I don't think at the federal level much of the Littlefield collection would matter. Most of the WW2 stuff doesn't have spares. The armor that it has is to light against even 73mm of BMP1s, and RPGS would eat them. Making ammunition would divert critical assets from making munitions for current generation stuff. Do you make 100 75mm Pak40 rounds for a Panzer IV that is probably not going to get off three rounds.

If anything the most recent generation stuff probably as someone will be around that can operate it and maintain it. WW2 and Korea would get fobbed off to state militias to guard the ports, airports, and water dams. If it can't use modern ammunition and diesel the fed governments are going to take a pass, this would just burden a logistics system that is already near collapse.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-23-2015, 06:34 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Come to think of it....... The Israelis would be in the market for Shermans and Halftracks..... They operate those now in 2015 in support roles. The Shermans as Trailblazer engineering vehicles and the halftracks as supply and commo vehicles with all terrain capability.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 02-24-2015, 09:01 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
In all honestly I don't think at the federal level much of the Littlefield collection would matter. Most of the WW2 stuff doesn't have spares. The armor that it has is to light against even 73mm of BMP1s, and RPGS would eat them. Making ammunition would divert critical assets from making munitions for current generation stuff. Do you make 100 75mm Pak40 rounds for a Panzer IV that is probably not going to get off three rounds.

If anything the most recent generation stuff probably as someone will be around that can operate it and maintain it. WW2 and Korea would get fobbed off to state militias to guard the ports, airports, and water dams. If it can't use modern ammunition and diesel the fed governments are going to take a pass, this would just burden a logistics system that is already near collapse.
The Panzer doesnt even have a live barrel so I dont expect to see that in action

But the AMX-13, the Conqueror Heavy Tank, the M50 Sherman (which can hold its own quite nicely in a tank fight against most of what the Mexicans have) and the Centurion Mk13 Tank that they have will do the job nicely - I dont expect his Stuarts, Lees and any German WWII tanks to get into the fight as they dont have live barrels but the rest have operational guns

and you would be surprised how much ammo there is around still for many of those vehicles

and they wont need to make a lot of ammo by 2000 - probably one basic load per vehicle is about all they will ever need - keep in mind that the entire Mexican Army in California has 10 AFV's by 2001 - and by that we are talking Stuarts and armored cars - and most units will be luckly to have one RPG with a couple of rounds at best
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-24-2015, 10:06 AM
rcaf_777's Avatar
rcaf_777 rcaf_777 is offline
Staff Headquarter Weinie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Petawawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 961
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
Now could you see some T-55's from Cuba and Nicaragua - possibly - but since Cuba was trying to stay under the US radar they might not have arrived till after TDM - by then the US wasn't in much of a position to stop trade from Cuba to Mexico (after all they didn't stop the Soviets being shipped from Cuba to Mexico and they were a much bigger threat than a freighter full of T-55's) - and if Nicaragua openly supported the Soviets there might not have been many of those tanks still around after a few US airstrikes
Is there any details on what the Soviet would have in the South-West US in way of Armour?

Cuba had only one ship capable of carrying armour, a Polnocny-class landing ship which could carry about 8 armored personnel carriers, Im guessing BTR-60or 70s.

I dont see the Soviet Division have much left in the way of personel or equipment left in Cuba given that the Soviet are fighting China and NATO.

I also remember reading about the Cubans wanting to get rid of Soviets, I am guessing that could do with some sort of US Airstrikes earlier in the war?

The Mexican Navy could help out too but at the time of TW 2000 the Mexican Navy had only USS Clearwater County (LST-602) Crica 1943 for sea transport

I'm not sure what if any soviet armour could fit in the Cargo Hold?

I am also thinking the cubans might be "You can leave with what ever you can carry"

just some thoughts
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-24-2015, 10:51 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,302
Default

This was an estimate I put in the Soviet Division Cuba thread based on real world data and what I figured the Soviets might get from the Cubans

As to how they got there - it really depends on if they landed the material at a friendly port versus by assault - considering the Mexicans were already in Texas I think its the friendly port situation

From the Soviet Division Cuba thread

"So at the very least you are looking at a 3000-3500 man training brigade and a motorized rifle regiment of 3000 men along with those manning the eavesdropping facility (3000 strong) and the naval personnel that manned the resupply facility for a total of 11,000 men.

That, combined with withdrawn personnel from various embassies in the area and possibly KGB and GRU personnel who were in Cuba would make for enough manpower for sure for a division.

If you look at what is written about them in the Texas module you can see they had a mix of BTR-70's and BMP's, with the BTR-70's being more prevalent which suggests it was a BTR Motorized Rifle Regiment and not a BMP one. Also what is interesting is that unless they were heavily reinforced by the Cubans with tanks, a MRR only has about 41 total tanks - a single tank battalion with an extra tank in the HQ section. Given what they had left it would mean they had only lost 26 tanks taking on the 49th which doesn't sound that realistic given the composition of the 49th. Most likely that means the Cubans reinforced them with tanks from their own units, thus resulting in the mix of tanks they have left - i.e. mostly T-72 or T-80 but also could be types the Cuban Army was equipped with.

So if you base its composition on historical information:

One Motorized Rifle Regiment - 3000 men with one tank battalion and three BTR battalions (which would have some BMP's as well) - the one on duty in Cuba

One Motorized Rifle Regiment - again about 3000 strong, most likely being the training personnel - armed with Cuban material - most likely a mix of BMP-1's and BTR-60's along with a tank battalion of T-62's

One Tank Battalion - another 40 or so tanks, again most likely Cuban T-62's or T-54/55 - 165 men

Recon Battalion and Engineering Battalion - around 350 men each

Artillery Regiment, SAM Regiment, various other support battalions - most likely formed from the signal and support troops in Cuba - about 3600 men or so if they were formed at full strength

One Helicopter Squadron of about 18 helicopters with at least some surviving to 2001, most likely heavy on attack helos, probably reinforced by captured American civilian helicopters (as mentioned in the Texas module the Soviet commander was hoping to use the fuel to get his attack helicopters back into operation) - maybe 200 men

Add it up its about 11,000 men - which matches what Gorbachev said was there in 1991

Plust that gives the Soviets around 120 tanks of various types at the start - which gives them more than enough to engage the 49th with a real possibility of victory when you add in the BTR's and BMP's that are with them"
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-24-2015, 02:46 PM
rcaf_777's Avatar
rcaf_777 rcaf_777 is offline
Staff Headquarter Weinie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Petawawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 961
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
One Motorized Rifle Regiment - again about 3000 strong, most likely being the training personnel - armed with Cuban material - most likely a mix of BMP-1's and BTR-60's along with a tank battalion of T-62's

One Tank Battalion - another 40 or so tanks, again most likely Cuban T-62's or T-54/55 - 165 men

Add it up its about 11,000 men - which matches what Gorbachev said was there in 1991

Two to think about

1. As stated above, how do you transport BTR and Tanks with only two ships? Mexico has one old LST for cargo and troops and Cuba has the other one that will have to many runs to haul the BTRs, not sure if it can haul any tanks. And its Cuban, not sure they would let them the Soviet use or take away equipment they are going to need. Cuban might worried about rebel or later US invasion. Think about the problems with Op Omega?

2. In 1991 there was 11,000 men in Cuba, after war with China and NATO how many would be left and fit to fight? I mean your not going to keep a fully equipment division with top of line gear, on a small island when you need troops at home are you? How about resupply too? do you think once the shooting starts the US is going to let the soviet resupply of any kind in Cuba?
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-24-2015, 03:13 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,302
Default

Actually I have a feeling they were stranded there and the US had a lot more issues to worry about - plus they probably didnt think things would get so bad that any Soviet troops from Cuba even had a chance to make it to US soil

as for transport - you can load APC's into freighters and other kinds of ships as well - but you are right about the tanks - one possible source could be a Soviet transport that can take tanks being "interned" by the Cubans - or possibly even some neutral ships - once the nukes started flying I could see a Liberian flagged vessel, for instance, decide that any port is better than eating a torpedo in the Gulf or risk docking in any port anywhere near oil facilities in the US or Mexico or Venezuela

Its one of the deus ex machina aspects of the timeline

Stuff like

How did they transport Soviet Division Cuba without the proper ships or fuel with enough tanks to hand 49th Armored its head before it got Stingray tanks and Peacekeeper Armored Cars as replacements for all the tanks they lost against Soviet Division Cuba?

How did the Greek Navy's light ships destroy the escorts of the convoy to Turkey when most of their ships were WWII retreads or missile ships that have about a five minute survival time against a task force with Harpoons?

How did the Soviets somehow have more ships in the Pacific than the USN did to where they could succesfully pull off an assault on the Candaian coast and then try and drive on Seattle?

Last edited by Olefin; 02-24-2015 at 04:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-24-2015, 04:18 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

I am not buying it that private collections like the Littlefield collection would have 60s, 70s, and 80s vintage equipment in any T2K timeline. To many actions and brushfire wars plus a strong Soviet Union backed by a Warsaw Pact makes that stuff to valuable to sell to collectors when Third world nations are so vulnerable.

Most of the WW2 / Korea era is of dubious capability as it can be killed with 80s and 90s models of rifle grenade, 40mm HEDP, and any LAW or RPG. The soviets were / are making new munitions for WW2 calibers like 57mm, 76mm, and 85mm I don't think anyone in the West bothered and focused solely on inservice calibers.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-24-2015, 04:48 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,302
Default

He was collecting stuff back when the Cold War was still hot - and he got a lot of his Soviet stuff from places like Egypt and Israel that either didnt need it anymore or who had captured it in fighting

Look at his tank's that still have live barrels

Conqueror - long out of service with the British even during our Cold War

AMX-13 - being phased out by the French

Super Sherman - he got that in trade for some stuff that an Israeli museum wanted

the Centurion Mk13 - again out of service when he got it

all you need is a guy with a lot of money and a lot of interest and a lot of passion and connections - Littlefield had them all

as for ammo - again lots of money can do wonderous things to find hard to get items - if he had the money to buy the tanks then getting a small quantity of shells is probably well within his means - maybe one complete ammo load per vehicle worth - but I wouldnt bet against it

and frankly if you can believe a lot of the other things in the T2K timeline then Littlefield having a Conqueror and Mk13 Centurion is a pretty small pill to swallow

and he had a shop and technicians who could and did take tanks and equipment that were basically wrecks and restore them to operation on a regular basis - pretty handy guy to have around
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-24-2015, 05:58 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
as for ammo - again lots of money can do wonderous things to find hard to get items - if he had the money to buy the tanks then getting a small quantity of shells is probably well within his means - maybe one complete ammo load per vehicle worth - but I wouldnt bet against it
I would. The BATF considers each round of ammunition a "Destriuctive Device" that must be applied for separately. So whatever the cost, and additional $200 per shell, and additional costs for storing them in a BATF approved secure facility.

HE and other things don't store forever even in ideal conditions.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-24-2015, 06:03 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
He was collecting stuff back when the Cold War was still hot - and he got a lot of his Soviet stuff from places like Egypt and Israel that either didnt need it anymore or who had captured it in fighting

Look at his tank's that still have live barrels

Conqueror - long out of service with the British even during our Cold War

AMX-13 - being phased out by the French

Super Sherman - he got that in trade for some stuff that an Israeli museum wanted

the Centurion Mk13 - again out of service when he got it

all you need is a guy with a lot of money and a lot of interest and a lot of passion and connections - Littlefield had them all
Egypt would still have been a Soviet allied nation at that time.

These would be out of service with the armies in 1st world countries of Europe and North America , but they are not for Africa, Asia, countries like Iran. Countries that field them because they inherited them from the last government and can't afford better and need spare parts anyway.

Not buying it. There are smaller players in the proxy wars of the cold war that would be extremely happy to get these.

The only one of those you mention I would accept would be the M50 because no one, but Israel or a collector would have wanted it at that time in history.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-24-2015, 06:49 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
I would. The BATF considers each round of ammunition a "Destriuctive Device" that must be applied for separately. So whatever the cost, and additional $200 per shell, and additional costs for storing them in a BATF approved secure facility.

HE and other things don't store forever even in ideal conditions.
Not to mention that while solid shot is fine; you have to get a testing/development exemption from the BAFT for possession of explosive or armor piercing rounds. Otherwise it would be illegal to possess, transport, buy, or use said rounds.
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 01:41 AM.


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