Tank graveyard

[Olefin]

Museums aren't large workshops specifically intended to refurbish and repair AFVs (although they may have a small workshop attached). Therefore the likelihood of vehicles being present has to be greater (although still relatively low).
This of course presumes the facility and the factory down the road weren't targeted by nukes or bombed conventionally until they were wastelands (highly likely).

Ok lets say this one more time since its been said ad naseum before - Littlefield's museum/collection had a fully equipped shop to repair and refurbish tanks and other armored vehicles including speciality welding fixtures, equipment that you could fit an entire tank body in and rotate it in order to make welding and armor repair more efficient, a stock of spare parts that would make most depots jealous and specially trained technicians and welders and machinists that not only could but did recreate needed spare parts from blueprints he had to bring tanks and other armored vehicles back to fully operational status including, in many cases, live barrels and breech blocks to replace ones that had been de-milled. (and if they couldnt make it he found it and bought it - and in the US its amazing what you can find - for example the Auction Hunter episode where they found a storage bin with a live tank barrel in it)

And most of the Soviet stuff he had on hand he got from places in Africa or Asia that used to operate it - including some that the Israelis had captured. Thus if the Soviets don't fall he still has most of his collection that he had in our world - not the SCUD of course but the older Soviet stuff - yup.

This wasnt a static display of equipment that was painted to look new - this was basically a fully operational tank repair facility that had a museum attached to it

[Olefin]

And fyi - a lot of military equipment gets brought back from the dead from similiar graveyards all the time by collectors and sometimes even companies like BAE - when we built M109A5+ vehicles foe Chile we had to get parts from all over - some of which were in very very bad shape but could be reclaimed still with effort. And you would be amazed what vehicles we refurbish look like when we got them back from depots - I saw M109's and M88's that literally you would think were total wrecks that we managed to restore to fully operational status

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I agree, the Littlefield Collection for example, is a very good resource. As long as you have sufficient personnel with the right skills and sufficient resources to get the parts & to refurbish them.
It is an amazing resource, but it is not the panacea that it's often presented as.

[Legbreaker]

I agree, the Littlefield Collection for example, is a very good resource. As long as you have sufficient personnel with the right skills and sufficient resources to get the parts & to refurbish them.
It is an amazing resource, but it is not the panacea that it's often presented as.

Absolutely. It's also a LOT more limited than a dedicated industrial scale facility as could be found at Karkov which is designed to handle dozens, even hundreds of AFVs virtually simultaneously.

Museums also generally hold obsolete equipment, and although T-72's aren't exactly cutting edge, they're certainly more current than Shermans, T-34's and Panthers.

Out of the two, I know which one holds more value in a military setting.

[Olefin]

Actually any tank holds value in a military setting especially by 2000-2001 - a standard WWII era Sherman tank doesnt have a hope in hell against a T-72 for instance -but against a homemade armored car, against troops that dont have anti-tank weapons (which remember have become pretty rare by 2001, especially in certain areas that didnt have a lot of them to begin with), against a BMP-C or BTR that has a non-operational gun system its more than sufficient

and keep in mind the situation in the US as per the canon -i.e. by 2000 the US military was putting anything that had a turret and an operational gun into its stocks as a tank - thus an old WWII Sherman would qualify as a tank to MilGov and CivGov

look at what just happened in the Ukraine - the rebels took an old Soviet tank from a museum, made it operational and used it in combat successfully against Ukranian troops who didnt have anti-armor weapons on them until the tank broke down and was captured by the Ukranian troops

and most US marauder groups dont have anit-tank weapons beyond a bottle of flaming gasoline - i.e. look at Alleghany Uprising - those kinds of weapons are not in the hands of the marauders - so a single old Sherman tank there would literally be something they couldnt handle unless they get to Molotov cocktail range

[Olefin]

Absolutely. It's also a LOT more limited than a dedicated industrial scale facility as could be found at Karkov which is designed to handle dozens, even hundreds of AFVs virtually simultaneously.

Museums also generally hold obsolete equipment, and although T-72's aren't exactly cutting edge, they're certainly more current than Shermans, T-34's and Panthers.

Out of the two, I know which one holds more value in a military setting.

By the way - most tank museums dont have Panthers (there are only five in the entire US, with the rest in Europe) or T-34's (unless its in Europe)- but what they do have are tanks like the Pershing, the M47, the M48, the M60, the Walker Bulldog and the M103 - and those tanks could give a T-54/T-55/T-64 a run for their money -

[ArmySGT.]

What is Rolled Homogenous Armor?

What is Layer Composite Armor?

Why is the first one obsolete since the mid 1970s?

[Legbreaker]

What is Rolled Homogeneous Armor?

What is Layer Composite Armor?

Why is the first one obsolete since the mid 1970s?

And that right there is why Karkov holds far more value than any number of museums and private collections.

[Legbreaker]

http://balashnikov.com/showthread.php?5307-Where-Israeli-Tanks-go-to-Die

Can't believe the Israeli's are scrapping AFVs, especially Merkavas (even if they are Mark 1's)!

[Olefin]

Oh I am not saying those museums and Littlefield's shop and collection are better than an actual manned depot - but they are a lot better than nothing or a blacksmith and an auto mechanic trying to bring an old M47 back to life to fight marauders or the Mexicans

[ArmySGT.]

Littlefield and a handful of volunteers took absolute wrecks and turned them into not only factory-fresh looking but running and fully operational examples of AFVs, and not just WWII vehicles either (and what of it if they were WWII-era: if I have a tank, even if it's very very old and you have no tank at all I win).

Rolled Homogenous armor, No spall liner, no fuel compartmentalization, No crew compartmentalization, no fire suppression gear, unprotected fuel lines, engine covers and compartment lack diversions for burning fuel (molotovs), most importantly no ammunition compartmentalization.

Any WW2 armor is going to be separated from infantry support and artillery then killed in detail by modern experienced infantrymen.

I give it 10 minutes if in the defense and under two if someone were to try to use one in an attack.

Tanks are not invulnerable.

[ArmySGT.]

http://balashnikov.com/showthread.ph...anks-go-to-Die
Can't believe the Israeli's are scrapping AFVs, especially Merkavas (even if they are Mark 1's)!

Even the MK 1s are a drain on resources when they a fielding the MK3 and the MK4 is in development.

Those M48s, M60s, and T55s don't stand a chance against the current ATGMs and can't fight at night anyway. Israel doesn't have a lot of friends that they can sell to any way. The ones that they would sell to can do better than this stuff at home.

[Olefin]

Rolled Homogenous armor, No spall liner, no fuel compartmentalization, No crew compartmentalization, no fire suppression gear, unprotected fuel lines, engine covers and compartment lack diversions for burning fuel (molotovs), most importantly no ammunition compartmentalization.

Any WW2 armor is going to be separated from infantry support and artillery then killed in detail by modern experienced infantrymen.

I give it 10 minutes if in the defense and under two if someone were to try to use one in an attack.

Tanks are not invulnerable.

never said they are - but most marauder forces are hardly experienced infantrymen - most dont have any training at all in how to take on tanks - and it also depends if those commanding the tanks are stupid enough to send them into an urban environment where its a lot easier to kill them - its one thing to rain Molotov's down from the rooftops its another to go after a tank sitting in the open without good cover nearby to get close - especially if the tank has sufficient machine gun ammo on board for the coax and any turret mounted machine guns - if its just main gun weaponry then that tank is dead meat

and modern anti-tank weaponry, by 2001, is getting pretty scarce outside of areas that were battlefields - you wont find many marauders with TOW's or RPG's in Iowa for instance - so again that tank resurrected from the local museum may be quite the force multiplier for the local milita

as for MilGov forces using the older tanks - now you have older tanks supported by experienced infantry and artillery - which makes them quite effective indeed

[unkated]

50 years of Tank vs Tank Development in a nutshell

What is Rolled Homogenous Armor?

Rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) is a type of armor armor vehicles made of a single steel composition (thus 'homogeneous') as compared to cemented or layered armor using different compositions in different parts of the plate, which RHA is 'worked' by rollers applying pressure while the plate is hot.

It was the primary tank armor from the 1930s until the 1980s (and later for non-tank AFVs).

What is Layer Composite Armor?

Composite armour is a type of vehicle armour consisting of layers of different material such as metals, plastics, ceramics or air. Most composite armours are lighter than their all-metal equivalent, but instead occupy a larger volume for the same resistance to penetration. It is possible to design composite armour stronger, lighter and less voluminous than traditional armour, but the cost is often prohibitively high, restricting its use to especially vulnerable parts of a vehicle. Its primary purpose is to help defeat high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds.

There are several flavors of this, including British-developed Chobham armor used by the British and Americans.

However, because governments are cagey about just how tough their layered armor is, modern shell penetration is sometimes expressed in RHA equivalent, as the resistance of RHA is more consistent.

The US Army (among others) use Depleted Uranium (DU) in their penetrators 9since the late 1980s), as these are dense, allowing more mass in the volume of the penetrator - meaning it hits harder.

Why is the first one obsolete since the mid 1970s?

HEAT rounds (and AT Missile warheads) began to become the primary tank vs tank round in the 1960s & 70s, since the race for bigger guns to defeat armor was reaching the point where bigger guns wouldn't fit in a tank. (Yes, you could make a tnk beig enough, but then the vehicle weight soared and the energy needed to move it rose....

Then APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot) rounds were developed; these are kinetic kill rounds that fire a penetrator (think very tough spear that is much thinner than the round's diameter) at high speed.

Reactive armor is supposed to try to defend against these by blowing up the penetrator before it hits the tank's armor.

There is lots more detail than this; search the internet for more detail.

Uncle Ted

[Olefin]

Rolled Homogenous armor, No spall liner, no fuel compartmentalization, No crew compartmentalization, no fire suppression gear, unprotected fuel lines, engine covers and compartment lack diversions for burning fuel (molotovs), most importantly no ammunition compartmentalization.

Any WW2 armor is going to be separated from infantry support and artillery then killed in detail by modern experienced infantrymen.

I give it 10 minutes if in the defense and under two if someone were to try to use one in an attack.

Tanks are not invulnerable.

Which doesnt keep the Soviets from equipping divisions with T-54's and T-55's in the game - they are a pretty common tank - so given your above comment shouldnt they have all been destroyed long before 2001? (when in game canon they are still in deployed divisions in Europe, Korea, China and Iran and still effective)

Thus a tank that has none of the advantages and features of more modern tanks, designed during WWII, is still fighting on the battlefields of the Twilight War as an effective tank.

Let alone the M48, the M60, the Leopard I, the AMX-30, etc.. - all of which are part of the game and all of which dont have composite armor, although some were retrofitted with reactive armor blocks to help against HEAT