Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BTR in Nevada

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BTR in Nevada

    The 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR), a predominantly Tennessee National Guard unit, was deployed to Europe in January, 1997. Although the fighting in Germany had entered a lull with NATO forces having reached their declared stop-line at the Oder River and along the East German-Czechoslovak border, the Kremlin was not ready for peace. Soviet maritime aircraft, submarines, and surface combatants that had survived the Battle of the Norwegian Sea continued to attack convoys crossing the Atlantic from North America to Europe. The convoy carrying the equipment of 278th ACR took heavy losses while in the mid-Atlantic. The remaining equipment of the 278th ACR was consolidated upon arrival in the Netherlands and used to equip a single squadron of the regiment. The regiment temporarily was sidelined to await the arrival of replacement materiel.

    In early February, Pact forces in western Czechoslovakia attacked NATO forces in southern Germany. The attackers were Soviet and Czechoslovak. The defenders were mostly Dutch. SOUTHAG, under Dutch command since mid-December, gave ground in a bitterly-fought contest that took the Soviets by surprise. The Soviet leadership had intended to inflict such losses on the Dutch Army that the Netherlands would follow France and Belgium out of the war. Instead, the resolve and skill of the Dutch troops as they waged their fighting withdrawal sapped the Pact offensive of its strength. The arrival of German and American reinforcements enabled SOUTHAG to switch to the counteroffensive; within fourteen days, Pact forces had been pushed back to their start lines.

    Despite the satisfactory outcome of the February campaign, SACEUR recalled more than a few hair-raising moments. 278th ACR had sat on the sidelines of the fighting, champing at the bit to enter the fray. SACEUR decided that rebuilding 278th to fighting strength took priority. His chief of staff observed that the USAF Security Forces (SF) maintained a large park of light armored fighting vehicles (LAFV) at its air bases throughout Western Europe. Much to the chagrin of the Air Chief in Europe, SACEUR requisitioned enough LAFV to bring 278th ACR up to strength. The Air Force would have to shuffle its remaining vehicles among its air bases until replacements arrived in-theater.

    In Korea and in the Gulf, fighting had seriously depleted the numbers of AFV in US Army formations. In both theaters, the senior leadership adopted the practice of appropriating USAF SF vehicles for use in the Army. The USAF deployed replacement LAFV from its bases in CONUS, promising the CONUS security squadrons that they would be re-equipped as soon as possible. However, by January 1997 the demand for armored cars like the V-150 had far outpaced production. Anxious to meet the needs of Third World clients in the climate of superpower confrontation, the Department of Defense moved the resupply of USAF SF in CONUS to the bottom of the priority list.

    At the same time, NATO leaders were dealing with the enormous quantities of captured Warsaw Pact materiel. Even before the Pact offensive in southern Germany, the NATO nations had captured thousands of MBT and tens of thousands of lighter AFV, along with artillery, multiple rocket launchers, trucks, and other military end items. The action in February underscored the desirability of moving at least some of this hardware out of Germany. The PRC, which was building for an all-out offensive in late Summer 1997, expressed an interest in acquiring some of the Pact gear NATO had captured. Some Western-aligned Third World nations, like Pakistan and Egypt, were also interested in acquiring some of the NATO haul. Accordingly, the materiel captured between October and January was divided between the NATO countries for use, disposal, or refurbishing for resale as each nation saw fit. It was universally agreed that captured Pact fighting vehicles would not be used by NATO combat forces, as chances for friendly fire incidents were simply too great.

    From late January onward, NATO-controlled sealift vessels making the westward trip across the Atlantic bore captured Pact AFV to CONUS. Some vehicles would go to US arms manufacturers for refit. Others would go for testing by the US military. Still others were set aside for use at the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin, despite the fact that the Army had rejected using captured Iraqi vehicles for training following Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Among the interested parties were the USAF SF who were operating either with much-reduced numbers of LAFV or entirely without LAFV.

    A small commission of USAF SF officers and NCOs conducted a study of the Pact vehicles available to determine whether a suitable replacement for their LAFV could be found. Quickly, the Air Force team decided that the BTR-80A combined the characteristics of light armor, good mobility, troop and equipment capacity, and reliability. A pilot program was established for the purpose of testing a slightly refitted version of the BTR-80A. The BTR-80A2 would receive a 25mm autocannon in place of its 30mm gun, and the coaxial 7.62mm MG would be replaced by the same 7.62mm MG used on many US Army vehicles. The Soviet-manufactured diesel engine would be replaced by a commercial US engine. Among the handful of USAF bases participating in the program was Nellis AFB in Nevada.

    Nellis employed a substantial number of BTR-80A2 in November, 1997. When the Las Vegas area fell apart during the "97-"98 winter, Air Force security personnel widely used their BTR in an effort to keep a lid on violence. A number of these vehicles were still operating in June, 1998 when the surviving personnel of Nellis AFB and all other military facilities in Nevada were ordered to move their entire base of operations to California in support of 6th US Army. A new warlord calling himself Shogun managed to acquire several of these vehicles, crews, and mechanics during the move from Nellis to Sacramento and afterwards. These vehicles figured into the fighting between 46th Infantry Division and the Shogun"s forces in late 1998 as the 46th moved through northern Nevada en route from Colorado Springs to Sacramento.

    As of April, 2001 three BTR-80A2 are still operable and serving in the Gunryo, the army of the Shogun. Now called dragons, these fighting vehicles serve as light tanks for the Shogun"s motorized force.

    Webstral
    “We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.

  • #2
    Really good, but I'm thinking there'd probably be far less captured vehicles than you've written.

    As far as I know, the majority of Pact vehicles aren't as durable as western AFVs when hit by the larger weapon systems. Unless entire regiments or even divisions surrendered to the west while still in good order, I'd have thought maybe only 1 in 10 (just to pick a figure) of all Pact vehicle losses would be due to capture rather than destruction.

    The same would probably hold true for western vehicles lost, however there may be a higher percentage of repairable vehicles.

    Of course that's just my impression.
    If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

    Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

    Mors ante pudorem

    Comment


    • #3
      Captured vehicles includes non-functional vehicles with some salvage value.
      “We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.

      Comment


      • #4
        This is true. I presume you'd have everything shipped out in captured condition Repaired later by the receiving nations
        If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

        Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

        Mors ante pudorem

        Comment


        • #5
          There is a possibility for large scale captures as well in my opinion, if the opening stages of the Twilight War played out using the Western tactics of decapitation strikes then several intact units might have been isolated and behind the front with no orders.

          Many of these units would either be rolled over or destroyed as they tried to fight back, but some, possibly lower echelon units or ones that were war weary from the Eastern War might have just surrendered on mass. A company of motor infantry that did this would yield something like twenty vehicles (I don't have time to look it up so I could be way out) and a batallion lots more.

          Granted, this wouldn't happen too often, but it is within the realms of possibility in my opinion, certainly enough for Webstral's posit to be within the realms of willing suspension of disbelief. Certainly enough for me, good job Webstral, I like the work!

          Comment


          • #6
            Interesting for sure. Although the whole idea of driving a BTR, ick! Although a BRDM would be much better.

            I can see the idea of them not being used in Europe, that would be risky. And the idea of them being used in CONUS would be a good idea for dealing with Civ Gov, NA and the assorted rogues, bandits and marauders and warlords. I can even see them on the California front, as long as they stay out of Texas and the Division De Cuba.

            Some issues though:

            Transport and shipping facilities could be a problem. The vessels will they be there Will they sit in harbor the extra couple days or weeks now to load them making prime targets for Pact air and sea forces At sea, more comerce raiders, a laden vessel handles slower than a unladen.

            An d of course the facilities to load and unload such vesels, since many of the major port facilities were severely damaged.

            Refitting the thingswith the ramp up in production will it be available I mean the facilities, the personel and the materials to do so.

            Crews need to be trained to repair and maintain and even use them.

            Russian gear, its bass ackwards in many ways, and the labels, guages, parts and such will all be in Russian.

            It would be interested, but also there are several design flaws of pact vehicles, as an American I love the fuel cell in the back doors, something I am sure they aren't thrillled with. Size, most pact armored vehicles are made for people smaller than the average American, that can be a problem.

            Overall though it would be a cool idea for internal or domestic forces backhome, it would just have limitations.

            Crews would need extra training and need to be smaller in stature <oooh a special group of women AF SF types, or regular police using them> who would have some Russian taught to them to read some of the parts and such, as well as the drivbing characteristics.
            "God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Legbreaker View Post
              This is true. I presume you'd have everything shipped out in captured condition Repaired later by the receiving nations
              Exactly my intent. The folks who are qualified to repair AFV in Germany have very full lives at this point. Back in Canada and the US, cannibalization and substitution can proceed without the threat of airstrikes. As Simonmark6 points out, captured AFV seldom will be fully operable, although NATO does capture fully intact prizes on occasion. The sheer numbers of disabled vehicles strewn across East Germany, though, virtually ensures that cannibalization will yield enough of the right kinds of parts to restore a small percentage of the recovered AFV to operational status even before the issue of manufacturing new parts is raised. Obviously, this is an enormous job; the number of Pact AFV made operational prior to July 1997 will be a small slice of the big pie of vehicles captured in Europe. Nevertheless, I do believe there's a logic to having a few Pact fighting vehicles spice up encounters in North America by appearing in unexpected locations.

              Webstral
              “We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.

              Comment


              • #8
                In WWII, the Germans captured litterally thousands of weapons and vehicles during the encirclement battles which characterized the opening months of Barbarrossa. A lot of it was completely undamaged. They used many of those captured weapons and vehicles, mounting, for example, captured 76mm DP guns on tracked vehicle chasis and using them as SP AT guns. They captured so many Mosin Nagant rifles and PPsH submachine guns that they each received official Wermacht designations when issued to Axis units. They did the same with captured 203mm howitzers and other Soviet artillery. And, of course, captured T-34s were repainted and used by some Panzer units.

                So, I can see large numbers of captured Soviet/WTO gear being used by NATO forces. I haven't, however, thought about those weapons being shipped back to CONUS for use there. It seems like they'd be better put to use in the ETO. Former East German armorers and mechanics and such would be perfect for refurbishing damaged PACT gear and getting it back into circulation with the various NATO armies. But, I suppose that so much PACT gear would be captured in the opening drive towards Soviet soil that quite a few could be spared for shipment back to the States before the nukes started flying. So, what you've postulated, Wed, is completely plausible.

                Here in the Tucson area, I get to see military gear routinely being shipped north and south on the I-10 Highway, mostly on flatbed trucks. It's mostly U.S. gear nowadays (lots of Humvees and MRAPs and the army's new 105mm gun) but I've seen a BTR-2, an MTLB, and a M1973 SG gun on flatbeds too. They were all heading south so I assume they were being taken to Fort Huachuca.
                Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

                https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
                https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
                https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
                https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
                https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module

                Comment


                • #9
                  Here is the question then.

                  What would the conditions be that a vehicle could be captured/salvaged to where it can be returned to operational status

                  I mean as mentioned alot of PACT APCs have that nasty fuel tank in the backdoor which sets the things easily aflame. And a vehicle that has been burnt out would most likely end up in a catrastrophic kill.

                  So anything hit by a modern anti armor missile would most likely not be in any condition to salvage. Mines well if it took some minor suspension damage maybe.

                  A soldier with an AT rocket giving it an ass shot would make it useless due to the fire hazard above.

                  Those are just some things, so really what type of hits would it take where they could be resurected
                  "God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Couple of comments on the shipping issues:-

                    Transport and shipping facilities could be a problem. The vessels will they be there

                    I would assume that the same ships that were bringing reinforcements across would be used to bring this stuff back. You wouldn't need any extra ships - I don't see Europe exporting much (except casualties...) so basically you just take advantage of the "empties", as and when they arise.

                    Will they sit in harbor the extra couple days or weeks now to load them making prime targets for Pact air and sea forces

                    You are assuming old fashioned general cargo ships, which I don't think would be used to transport most military stuff in these circumstances. Even if the container loading system is stuffed (primarily thos huge straddle cranes that put the boxes onb to the ships), the ramp on a Ro-Ro ship makes the turnaround time a couple of days max ( a definite boon when in Damman in Saudi, much less convenient in New Orleans or Kobe...). And in most cases, loading and discharging is carried out simultaneously, so the stay in port would be much less prolongued than you would think.

                    At sea, more comerce raiders, a laden vessel handles slower than a unladen.

                    Err, no, not really - in fact the difference is negligible, We never figured in cargo quantity when passage planning. And don't forget, an unladen vessel will take on a large quantity of water ballast, for stability purposes.

                    An d of course the facilities to load and unload such vesels, since many of the major port facilities were severely damaged.

                    Well, if you have the facilities to discharge the reinforcements, they will work for the backload. And don't forget, with a ramp, all you need is an undamaged length of quay, no cranes and surprisingly little infrastructure is needed.

                    So I think the logistics of the idea are reasonable - although personally I think the same effort put in to shipping wrecked NATO gear back for repair/upgrade/cannibalisation/scrap would prove more effective in the long run.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dvyws View Post
                      Couple of comments on the shipping issues:-

                      Transport and shipping facilities could be a problem. The vessels will they be there

                      I would assume that the same ships that were bringing reinforcements across would be used to bring this stuff back. You wouldn't need any extra ships - I don't see Europe exporting much (except casualties...) so basically you just take advantage of the "empties", as and when they arise.

                      Will they sit in harbor the extra couple days or weeks now to load them making prime targets for Pact air and sea forces

                      You are assuming old fashioned general cargo ships, which I don't think would be used to transport most military stuff in these circumstances. Even if the container loading system is stuffed (primarily thos huge straddle cranes that put the boxes onb to the ships), the ramp on a Ro-Ro ship makes the turnaround time a couple of days max ( a definite boon when in Damman in Saudi, much less convenient in New Orleans or Kobe...). And in most cases, loading and discharging is carried out simultaneously, so the stay in port would be much less prolongued than you would think.

                      At sea, more comerce raiders, a laden vessel handles slower than a unladen.

                      Err, no, not really - in fact the difference is negligible, We never figured in cargo quantity when passage planning. And don't forget, an unladen vessel will take on a large quantity of water ballast, for stability purposes.

                      An d of course the facilities to load and unload such vesels, since many of the major port facilities were severely damaged.

                      Well, if you have the facilities to discharge the reinforcements, they will work for the backload. And don't forget, with a ramp, all you need is an undamaged length of quay, no cranes and surprisingly little infrastructure is needed.

                      So I think the logistics of the idea are reasonable - although personally I think the same effort put in to shipping wrecked NATO gear back for repair/upgrade/cannibalisation/scrap would prove more effective in the long run.
                      I grew up in the tiny tiny tiny city of LOMITA. It was a hop skip and a jump from the port of Los Angeles/LongBeach and San Pedro. I worked in the area and my best freinds father was head of the long shoremans union <all winy bitches these days> who had a view of the harbor. It takes about 94 hours turnaround time for a vessel, true. Under modern times with the facilities. In T2K will we have those facilities

                      I totaly agree that we should shit NATO gear back and that should have priority! They are reutilizing vehicles from Iraq the rebuild take a couple months, compared to the year it takes for a new one. In war time, I think we could probably pear down the build time to less no more than 3 months for an APC, if of course all things were running and the parts onhand. Call me optimistic, or just a tyrant, but I would providing the parts be on hand ensure the gear would be turning out a platoons worth of vehicles a week. This of course means running round the clock, no union BS! And the parts and aquisition were on hand.

                      But, the crux of the problem of hauling disabled vehicles off a pier or storeyard onto a vehicle hauler, is, you will have to lift them with a forklift or some other similiar vehicle place them and load. The roll on roll off vessels, well the vehicles rolling on and off are usualy mobile on their own. Not so with vehicles that have been blown apart. These need to be moved. And that poses a problem, the vehicles moving them need to be hooked up and unhooked, parts fall off, vehicles fall off their teathers and need to be reattatched and put in place. Alot of this takes a good five to ten minutes and more for a heavy mech vehicle. Even with a dozen of such vehicles, well figure 20 minutes per vehicle well we are talking an hour to load 12 vehicles. And the loaders both vehicles and men will need some downtime daily, let alone over a period of 96 hours.

                      That gives an idea in my mind of some of the issues one would face in such a tasdk, but it woudl be awesome to play. And I for one would love to have my team cruising through the US with a BRDM! It even gives me an idea for a campaign.
                      "God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Thanks, dvyws--I can't add much to your contribution.

                        Overall, I agree with everyone who has pointed out limiting factors behind shipping Pact vehicles to CONUS and Canada and repairing said vehicles. I don't believe that the US is going to refit very large numbers of Pact vehicles by July '97. Among NATO forces, the Germans are almost certainly going to be the NATO players who have the most success with resurrecting Pact gear due to the intimacy the East Germans enjoy (!) with that equipmentas you point out, Raellus.

                        Regarding shipping schedules, I think turnaround time for the Atlantic convoys will have some complicating factors that may open windows of opportunity to load some of the choicer items liberated from the Communists. Although logistics have taken an enormous stride forward with computerization, there are still so many pieces moving in the Battle of the Atlantic that it"s hard for me to see the Atlantic convoys turning around and heading back to the US in short order each and every time. I"m not a Navy man, so I won"t expound on the Navy"s potential difficulties other than to say that the Navy will be fighting a three-ocean war right through the nuclear exchange. Granted, we know that the Western navies establish a clear superiority in the North Atlantic soon after NATO joins the conflict in Germany; however, as was pointed out in the thread on Australia and nuclear attacks, we know little about the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Both of these bodies of water figured prominently in the superpower rivalry. As a result of early losses during the Battle of the Atlantic, the US and Royal Navies probably will find themselves working very hard to provide sufficient escorts for the Atlantic convoys such that the convoys move with the efficiency and alacrity that SACEUR wants. In other words, there probably will be some ships idled in the Netherlands and Germany between legs. This idle time may or may not offer opportunities for the planning authorities to work in loading for westbound shipments.

                        Now I certainly don"t believe westbound convoys will be delayed so that captured Pact gear can be loaded aboard them. I do agree that loading American and Canadian gear for refit will be important.

                        Regarding the state of captured Pact vehicles, I agree that a portion of the Pact AFV will be complete losses. Even catastrophic kills, though, offer some salvageable items. Nor is every kill is a catastrophic kill. One of the lessons of Operation Desert Storm is that APSDFSDU rounds don"t produce catastrophic kills as often as HEAT rounds under conditions where both solid penetrator and plasma bolt penetrate to the interior of the target vehicle. Although the spalling and pyrophoric effects of the uranium solid penetrators do ignite fuel and ammunition, catastrophic kills are markedly fewer among solid penetrator users vis--vis HEAT round users achieving penetration to the interior of the target vehicle. The crew of the target vehicle hit by a solid penetrator is, of course, reduced to hamburger and colloidal slimeeven when they aren"t sucked out of the exit hole by the vacuum created by the passage of the penetrator through the crew space of the vehicle. Although any electronics may have been rendered unusable as a result of an APSDFSDU hit, the rest of the vehicle may be intact, albeit messy.

                        Less dramatically, AFV break down or lose tracks fairly frequently. Due to the nature of the battlefield in East Germany during December, the Soviets may find themselves forced to abandon large numbers of fighting vehicles which are essentially serviceable. Support services among Soviet divisions are markedly inferior to those of Western divisions in terms of abundance (teeth-to-tail ratio) quality (fewer long-term professionals). So long as Soviet forces remain on the offensive, the follow-on forces can collect knocked out vehicles or those that have suffered breakdowns. When the Soviets are withdrawing, they will be incapable of recovering their vehicles to the same degree as their Western counterparts (who may not recover lots of vehicles, either). When III US, V US, VII US, I Br, and II Br Corps (including Canadian forces) roar across the Inter-German Border in early December "96, they are going to hit Pact formations on the attack against West German defenders. The situation may not be a complete replay of Operation Desert Storm, but a lot of the aspects of the Gulf fighting will be recreated. The Anglo-American forces will be fresh. They will have massive air support operating from nearby friendly air bases. The enemy will be tired from seven weeks of hard fighting. It"s going to be a bad, if brief, period for Reds. NATO will recover a lot of fighting vehicles that would be fully operable except for an engine in need of servicing, a broken track or damaged wheel/axle, a dead crew (and a small hole in the armor), or simply an empty gas tank.

                        Sorting all of the captured Pact gear out is going to be a gargantuan task. In all likelihood, vehicles will have to be moved to marshaling points, categorized, and moved onward. The fact that trucks, trailers, and trains are going to have to move westward after delivering their materiel to the front lines offers an opportunity to move all of this hardware, provided that the loading and unloading of the hardware does not seriously impede the process of getting the tools of war forward in January, February, and March. I haven"t considered many of the details of this part of the process.

                        Back in the US, the cash motive may prompt the DoD and applicable contractors to find space for refitting captured Pact vehicles into the flow chart governing the use of skilled labor. Come December, the US is going to be in the war full-time. The losses in Germany, over Western Europe, and at sea will be vastly greater than the losses endured during Operation Desert Storm. The US government is going to have to pay for a lot of hardware. Payments from China will dry up because production for China will probably come to a screeching halt in December, if not in October. Refitted Pact gear can be sold for cash or kind to China and other Third World players. These sales will in no way offset the massive expenditures the US will undertake. However, every little bit does help.

                        The Russian language labels inside the vehicles will have to be replaced, for sure. I"m confident a fairly expedient solution can be found, though. Stickers and stamped sheet metal with English labels will be fairly easy to manufacture compared to some of the other challenges that await.

                        Lack of familiarity with the vehicles will be an obstacle for refitters in the US to overcome, for sure. Translating operators" and maintenance manuals into English will be the first challenge, although this too is probably an issue of lesser significance. Typesetting and publishing aren"t especially difficult in 1997. Getting good translations in a timely fashion will be somewhat more challenging; however, it may be that the appropriate manuals already have been acquired and translated prior to the US entrance into the war. The Chinese will have captured some of the gear and manuals in 1995 and 1996. Surely the US would have obtained copies of these manuals and translated them already. It might be a good exercise for Russian linguists.

                        I foresee the captured Pact vehicles being segregated by type into massive parks where cannibalization can occur on an industrial level. While this is happening, civilian technicians can become familiar with the vehicles. Specifications for the most needed parts can be drawn up and submitted to machine shops around the country while assembly lines are being planned.

                        Sadly for this grand scheme, the nuclear exchange begins in July and catches up with CONUS in November. Some users, like Nellis AFB, will have received complements of vehicles. For the most part, though, the captured AFV will be rusting in Germany, the Netherlands, or in ad hoc depots in North America and the UK. Lack of parts and skilled labor will create a tight bottleneck in the process of restoring captured Pact vehicles to operable condition.

                        Webstral
                        “We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by jester View Post
                          Those are just some things, so really what type of hits would it take where they could be resurected
                          Based on WWII, any AFV that didn't suffer an ammo or fuel explosion, or wasn't completely burned out, could probably be returned service given (1) a means of bringing it to a repair shop, (2) enough trained mechanics and (3) sufficient spare parts. Basically if the hull is still structurally sound the AFVC can be brought back from the dead.
                          A generous and sadistic GM,
                          Brandon Cope

                          http://copeab.tripod.com

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            From my experience with burnt out Pact style vehicles, all of them were burnt out. Even the small penetrators when they send the penetrator rods through they send molten metal inside the compartment which starts things afire as well.

                            And we have the rear hatch fuel tank as I have mentioned which catches fire easily enough again setting them afire.

                            The ones I see that would survive enough to be rebuilt,

                            mobility kills, the engine, transmission or drive train is damaged the vehicle is abandoned. <provided the engine doesn't burn> This however is a simple modular repair but, the parts to a non standard vehicle may be a problem.

                            Mine, rocket launcher or light ordinance hit to the drive train, again taking out a couple wheels.

                            Bogged down in a tank trap or swamp or soft soil or even a river crossing.

                            A concussion that kills the crew.

                            A vehicle accident, a roll over, or even the vehicle slides from a slope, or down a hill etc and the crew is injured or killed.

                            The crew is shot while out of the vehicle.

                            Those are just some of the ideas I can see where a Pact vehicle would be taken intact.

                            However, one question, often vehicles that are forced to be abandoned or about to be surrendered are usualy destroyed, it is quite common among most forces to destroy or disable equipment that has to be abandoned so it can not be of use to the enemy.
                            "God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by jester View Post
                              From my experience with burnt out Pact style vehicles, all of them were burnt out. Even the small penetrators when they send the penetrator rods through they send molten metal inside the compartment which starts things afire as well.
                              Anecdotal experiences are the basis of statistical wisdom. The only thing I can say is that enough American fighting vehicle crews in the Gulf had somewhat different experiences such that the lack of catastrophic kills associated with the use of the silver bullet has been noteworthy in literature on the subject. My conversations with tankers from Operation Desert Storm support the idea that APSDFSDU rounds don't produce catastrophic kills as frequently as HEAT rounds.

                              Originally posted by jester View Post
                              However, one question, often vehicles that are forced to be abandoned or about to be surrendered are usualy destroyed, it is quite common among most forces to destroy or disable equipment that has to be abandoned so it can not be of use to the enemy.
                              I think every army makes destruction of abandoned equipment standard procedure. How often this happens is another question entirely. The Viet Minh defeated the French at DBP with the aid of American 105mm guns provided by the Chinese, who acquired them in Korea. Surely some abandoned vehicles will be destroyed in accordance with SOP. Surely others will not.

                              Good point about rollovers, jester. These will be increasingly common as fighting drags on and crew fatigue builds. Rollovers on the sides of East German roads may be one of the best sources of intact Pact vehicles.

                              Regarding concussion, I believe the Israelis pioneered the technique of using a Maverick with the warhead removed against Arab tanks. The concussion kills the crew and leaves the tank intact for retrieval later. Although I'm inclined to think that the USAF would consider itself above such piracy, the German government may ask its NATO allies that capture be maximized to provide the East German Army with a reserve of Pact equipment--a hedge against the possibility of ongoing war and shortages of materiel.
                              Jester, I think you're right about the difficulties of repairing Pact engines that aren't widely used within the Pact. NATO nations may avoid trying to salvage the oddballs. Common vehicles, like cargo trucks, BTR, and MTLB, probably will be amenable to cannibalization to address almost any breakdown. Alternatively, the engine could be replaced with a Western diesel power plant. This is what I have in mind for the BTR-80A2 in Nevada. Both the corporate bigwigs and the unions at Ford and GM will be delighted at the prospect of providing several hundred more big diesel engines for Pact vehicle refit.

                              This thread had gotten me thinking about the locations and size of depots housing Pact vehicles and equipment within CONUS, plus the fate of the numerous Pact soft-skinned vehicles. Imagine, for instance, that the DoD decides to consolidate all of the BTR or even just all of a single model of BTR at a location in Nevada. The climate promotes long-term storage, the federal government owns something like 85% of the land, there are remote bases in the state, and contractors can be shipped in to work on-post. As an added bonus, Las Vegas and Reno are within easy driving distance for weekends of frolicking. If the BTR park is located in Nevada, then the local warlord potentially has a large stockpile of parts available for cannibalization. It"s a possibility that bears further consideration.

                              Pact soft-skinned vehicles are another matter entirely. Despite the paucity of trucks in Pact divisions relative to the number of trucks in Western divisions, the number of trucks in motor rifle division is still quite large. Soft-skinned vehicles obviously are not nearly as durable as armored vehicles, so a lot more of them will be destroyed by air attack and artillery. (I believe this is the point of interdiction.) By the same token, though, crew fatalities are far more common. Flying objects kill crews in unarmored cabs pretty easily without necessarily destroying the vehicle. There might be a very large number of damaged and broken-down trucks lining the sides of East German roads come Christmas "96. Of course, given the insatiable demand of mechanized formations for fuel and ammunition, intact and easily-repaired Pact trucks might be incorporated into the NATO armies. North America might receive very few trucks. It"s a matter for further consideration.

                              Webstral
                              “We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X