Tank graveyard

[swaghauler]

as for artillery and mortars - the chance of hitting a moving tank with an unguided mortar round or artillery round fired from a group of three or four weapons is basically nil

and while the books made up a lot of excuses thats the scenario we have to work with - and its why tank graveyards in T2K are potential supply depots and not just wastes of good tanks like they are here in our world

Any forward observer worth his salt would "prefire" on a tank (call fire on where he thought the tank would be in about 5 seconds). Starting in the late 80's, Fire Direction took an order of magnitude increase in capability (even with WW2 M114s or Vietnam era M102s) due to the invention of laser rangers and GPS.
Even in the aftermath of an Exchange; It would be possible to equip a forward observer with a civilian laser rangefinder (the kind you find at gun shops) and a GPS. These devices used together (if GPS signal is present) will give even an average Forward Observer a pinpoint CEP (1 to 3 meters).

We have the advantage of Hindsight, unlike the Devs. We should use our hindsight to improve the game. The devs believed that M48s and M60s would "soldier on" in mothballs. We know that they did not. This doesn't change the premise of the game; We should strive to "modernize" Twilight with our 20/20 view of the last years depicted in the game.

[Panther Al]

The Leopard I has always had composite armor as original armor...it is a product of the MBT - 70 program.

You have your Leo's confused.

The Leo 1 Predates the MBT70 program, where as the Leo 2 program was built off of the German successor to the failed MBT70. So, no, the Leo 1 has no composite armour as originally built (later marks did on the turret, after a fashion).

[Raellus]

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.

It's surprising that they haven't repurposed those hulls. The Israelis still field heavy APCs based on the T-55 hull (the "Achzarit"*) and they use other obsolete MBT hulls for dedicated combat engineering vehicles. Those must be bottom-of-the-barrel examples to be completely discarded.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF_Achzarit

[ArmySGT.]

It's surprising that they haven't repurposed those hulls. The Israelis still field heavy APCs based on the T-55 hull (the "Achzarit"*) and they use other obsolete MBT hulls for dedicated combat engineering vehicles. Those must be bottom-of-the-barrel examples to be completely discarded.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF_Achzarit

They are just making purpose built engineering and breeching equipment on newer hulls. The obsolete systems are probably running out of parts and it would be expensive and redundant to make parts for those and Merkava Mk3 and Namurs. That and they have been going heavy on wheeled armored MRAP types lately.

[Raellus]

They are just making purpose built engineering and breeching equipment on newer hulls. The obsolete systems are probably running out of parts and it would be expensive and redundant to make parts for those and Merkava Mk3 and Namurs. That and they have been going heavy on wheeled armored MRAP types lately.

That makes sense. They have so many old T-54/55 chassis, though, a lack of spare parts probably isn't prohibitive. And I reckon that the unit cost of the Achzarit is considerably lower than that of the Namer.

That said, the Namer looks badass. I'd take a Namer over an Achzarit any day. It was evaluated by the U.S. as a Bradley replacement. I kind of wish it'd won.

[Raellus]

An HE or WP 81mm mortar round can take out even the most modern MBTs. A direct hit on the engine deck can cause a total mobility kill. A hit close enough to the wheels/track/track return can cause a temporary mobility kill.

[ArmySGT.]

You have your Leo's confused.

The Leo 1 Predates the MBT70 program, where as the Leo 2 program was built off of the German successor to the failed MBT70. So, no, the Leo 1 has no composite armour as originally built (later marks did on the turret, after a fashion).

You're probably right. I am thinking of some cut away views of various tanks and Leo I's where a part of that. Might be a later model of Leo I that I am thinking of.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

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.

The Israelis rebuilt their M48s as ATGM carriers. They apparently still think enough of them to keep them in the line in that role.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I see such places as the Littlefield collection as a great resource but for their workshops, not so much for the vehicles.
I think this because I see the major issue with trying to bring older armoured vehicles back to life is simple economics - how many resources are you going to consume to bring back a very mixed fleet of vehicles with limited potential

I think the newer vehicles might be brought back for direct combat and the older vehicles for recce work depending on the perceived threat but they all will be subject to the economics - is it really worth pouring all these resources into a vehicle that could be fuel hungry, has no ammo, has limited spares, is a maintenance hog etc. etc.
I think the answer can be yes but on a very limited scale. If not, they're going to be destroyed so the enemy can't get them.

These places simply don't have the resources that a proper vehicle maintenance facility has access to. If you end up committing serious quantities of materiel on a vehicle or three that you are a bit nervous of sending into combat for any of the reasons mentioned above - then yes, sometimes no vehicle is better than any vehicle.

Plus any armoured vehicle recovered from a museum/collector's fleet may not be as armoured as it looks. There's no telling how much damage the armour took before it was restored because these places want a vehicle that looks as though it's working, they don't need to replace damaged armour plates with new armour plates. In most cases it would either be too expensive or they simply wouldn't be allowed to buy armour plate - if you want it, you cut up a donor vehicle for it.

Like I say, I think the workshops are the real treasure in these places, all those tools and POL stores, stocks of basic metal and various fasteners (rivets, bolts etc. etc.) They'll be worth more for keeping current vehicles running than they will be for resurrecting older types.

[CDAT]

You can take on tanks in any environment. Forest preferably, urban is second best.
Turrets can only engage targets to their relative front. When the turret is facing away from you sprint for the tank. The -10 depression of the gun applies to the coaxial too. In close and a tank has to rely on infantry or another tank to protect it from sappers.

Yes, but if you can not sneak up on them, or do not know they are there it will be murder on the troops on the ground. One experience I know of my brother was in the battalion command tank section (two tanks) they were parked behind the TOC when an infantry company came out of the woods to take the command post, the two when the CP saw the troops coming up the hill they let the tanks know and the two tanks destroyed the company with no losses on there side. Now yes this was in training with MILES gear but if it had been live the results most likely would have been the same. Infantry can do anything, but with out the right tools they can not do everything. No anti-tank weapons, you are going to have a very hard time taking out a tank, even a WWII one. As for if you get to close for the weapons, if it is a single tank maybe. If there is more than one we can just shoot the troops as it will not do any damage to the tank. Also some tricks that some used, fire your smoke grenades they are WP. WP will not hurt the tank but does the infantry. Some tankers have put Claymores around the tank with the controls ran to the driver so if you get close just fire it off, and say good night to the troops. Again it does not real damage to the tank (messes up the paint and that is about it).

Tankers opening the roof hatches to engage infantry with the TC or loaders machineguns Let them. Their dead very fast from massed small arms fire and then the hatches are open. Yes, please do that. That TC hatch or loader hatch coming open is exactly what the infantry want. The massed fired on all the periscopes and gunner sights is to blind them and force them to open up.

You do know that not all tanks have to expose them self to use some/all of there machine-guns. For example both the M1 and the M60 can fire there Commanders MG from inside with out exposing them self at all. Some other thoughts when I was in basic (early 90's) they were still using some M60 and so we took some classes where they talked about them. The M1 was the worlds deadliest tank (you can argue other nations equivalents), and the M60 was considered the worlds best defensive tank, it did not have the mobility the M1 had, but had a better thermal sight, more ammo and from prepared positions would have torn up any tank in the world at the time.

Let your tank sit out in the open...... That just calls down artillery or mortar fire. Roof hit and it is toast. Smoke mission and it cannot engage targets.

Artillery yes, mortar I do not think so. One of my drill sergeants talked about how his tank in Desert Storm drove through an anti-personnel mine field, they were part way in before they noticed it, after they got out looked for damage. All that it did was take some rubber off the tracks. Tanks are very tough (not invulnerable but very tough). As for the smoke, if it is not thermal smoke do not expect it to give you any cover, we can see through smoke.

Bundle of C4 and WP grenades on a pole..... Slip that under the tank from up close.... If you don't blast through the belly armor the WP is going to heat it up quick.

As already covered WP does not really affect the tanks, C4 you are going to have to spend some time placing it if you want it to do more than just mess up the paint. Good luck with that if you have a half way competent tank section.

[robert.munsey]

<snip>
"You can take on tanks in any environment. Forest preferably, urban is second best. "

Spoken like a true 'light fighter'. While you 'can' take on any tank in any environment and you name the two best environments to do so, most of what you write is based on old tactics and the fact that you have an inexperienced crew.
An 'experienced' crew is one that has trained together for no less than six months. Once you get an experienced crew, most of what you point out is null in void.

"Turrets can only engage targets to their relative front. When the turret is facing away from you sprint for the tank. The -10 depression of the gun applies to the coaxial too. In close and a tank has to rely on infantry or another tank to protect it from sappers."

Wow...this assumes that the tank will sit still and let the 'sapper' to close with the tank. No tanker worth his salt will fight closed hatch. I never did so. I have watched units in NTC (Ft. Irwin) get slaughtered trying to fight open protected when I was an O/C. In Iraq we never fought closed hatch and we were in a 'Urban' environment. Don't get me wrong, a tank can get killed, especially when you don't have support, but to say all you need is a set of brass balls and some C4, is stupid and short sighted.

"Tankers opening the roof hatches to engage infantry with the TC or loaders machineguns Let them. Their dead very fast from massed small arms fire and then the hatches are open. Yes, please do that. That TC hatch or loader hatch coming open is exactly what the infantry want. The massed fired on all the periscopes and gunner sights is to blind them and force them to open up."

Lots of assumptions there buddy...and spoken like a true light fighter.....once the snaps of hornets (incoming fire) starts I drop down and tell the gunner to hose the area with coax and light the grunts up with fifty, all while the driver is moving. Why do you think we have TUSK kits and SCWS or 'Pope' glass. It is snipers, not massed infantry or smalls arms fire. SNipers killed one of our lieutenants during our last few months in Habbaniyah, Iraq, when the insurgents got smart and started having trained snipers shoot at us. When just mounted the windscreen glass in ad-hoc side shields. That allowed us to operate open hatch and not get shot, but it still could happen.

Let your tank sit out in the open That just calls down artillery or mortar fire. Roof hit and it is toast. Smoke mission and it cannot engage targets.


Yeah, yeah heard this allot too. You know it tanks over 54 rounds from 8 155mm howitzers to concentrate the rounds to knock out a tank (mostly mobility kills mind you). Look at the studies from Sill on this, 432 rounds and one tank kill out of four tanks to show for it and those tanks were STATIONARY.
Granted in the Ad-Hoc stateside Museum quality tanks you could rain death and get a few more, but be serious.

Bundle of C4 and WP grenades on a pole.. Slip that under the tank from up close. If you dont blast through the belly armor the WP is going to heat it up quick.

Dang boy, use an IED, it is much better. That old Nam trick doesn't work any more. The WP grenade does nothing to the tank but piss the crew off. I think you meant M8 Thermite grenade.
Also take a look at the amount of explosive in anti-tank mines to get an idea of the amount of power you need. Hand Grenades don't do it.

I agree that modern ATGMs would be scarce. Unguided rockets like the RPG No.

I think there would be a lot more RPGs then most people think. In the states however I would agree, that they would be scarce. Now homemade rockets, ok but they would not have ready made EFP warheads, unless you have a machine shop and a ready supply of copper.

RPGS most of all, then systems that need a more sophisticated launcher like LAWS or AT4. Recoilless rifles are going to have a huge resurgence. If you can make mortar and artillery fuzes you can make these.

By fuzes I take you mean simple fuzes (point detonating) right Because many modern (even WW2) fuses use very sophisticated arming systems to get them to explode at the right height. above the ground.

You can even mount a TVS-5 on an M40A1 recoilless and give it passive night fighting capability to 1000 meters.

Wow that is an OVER statement of the TVS-5. I have never seen one that good, Even with the rebuilt depot ones with the new image tubes. The TVS-5 sucks donkey urine (and I am being nice).

No you have some poor bastard stuck with a fuel hungry and labor intensive beast without a trained crew, without compatible ammunition, no compatible radios except single channel and in the clear, no maintenance personnel to speak of , and a non existent supply chain relegated to one shop with hundreds of other thing to do making one off parts only when ordered that takes day or weeks to produce if all all.

I think we are explaining the what ifs, but the same could be said about the IED makers in Iraq and A-stand (or even the IRA or Columbia). The person supporting and keeping the beast running is a very special person and is part of the battlefield equation that a Commander in T2K will have to weigh on keeping a tank around.

Any smart commander would refuse this tank as the waste of resources it is.

Your words, and lets just say that we disagree. I will take a tank any day. However I am biased as I am a crust old DAT.

Now where is that can of fuel.......

[LT. Ox]

What the heck

Here goes...
Thermite, I can make it right here in my little shop. I am near 67 years old but I can get close enough to a tank in this part of the world to use said thermite in one of perhaps a dozen locations on any armor.
Now is that just wishful thinking I think not but then I have been in the field for a week or two at a time, I got tired. How many hours do you think anyone will sit in our presumed world of 2000 to 2013 in a tank
If you separate the foot soldier from armor even in our modern tech world it is a target for a number of tactics to render it ineffective.
I can also make a claymore, now said separation is a fact. What personnel are still around will be buttoned up. I know what they taught us a long time ago about staying buttoned up without infantry support. They taught us the positon we were to assume was our head between our legs and kissing our well you should say a prayer cause your goin to judgment soon.
A note on who will or will not be roaming around in the States. Just because a person has taken an oath to defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic does not mean that person will not take whatever he can. I have spent a good deal of time in study and observation of organized crime and served with two states taskforces related to them. Those being California and Colorado and they were related to drug trafficking. The major players were Motorcycle outlaw groups and Latin and Hispanic groups IE MS13 etc.
Weapons; way more than any prepper groups I ran across and the outlaws have the willingness to use them.
Training; both groups had a large number of prior service personnel and they worked at training others in the oeclubs.
Money; or the means to procure needed equipment, that goes without question.
My take is the threat posed by such groups is perhaps more serious than ANY other and more so her in the States than any other area of the
World (except down under, I had to put that in!!)

[Legbreaker]

...(except down under, I had to put that in!!)

We only have to worry about the wildlife down here. Anyone you meet is more likely to call you a dick head and then hand you a beer (a real one, not that weak arse camel piss you've got in the US).

[ArmySGT.]

Yes, but if

Oh the oeWhat if game. This is when oediscussion spirals into the ground.

Yes, but if you can not sneak up on them, or do not know they are there it will be murder on the troops on the ground.

Pre dawn darkness and engine idling to charge batteries is an excellent time. Among others.

One experience I know of my brother was in the battalion command tank section (two tanks) they were parked behind the TOC when an infantry company came out of the woods to take the command post, the two when the CP saw the troops coming up the hill they let the tanks know and the two tanks destroyed the company with no losses on there side. Now yes this was in training with MILES gear but if it had been live the results most likely would have been the same.

Actually, No. This is a training scenario. Everything is forced to produce that force on force contact. Find a CP and call artillery on it. Not a good example of what happens. Weapons like the M203 and the grenades cant be simulated in MILES. As for training, better than none! Not a good example for this discussion though.

Infantry can do anything, but with out the right tools they can not do everything. No anti-tank weapons, you are going to have a very hard time taking out a tank, even a WWII one. As for if you get to close for the weapons, if it is a single tank maybe. If there is more than one we can just shoot the troops as it will not do any damage to the tank.

Infantry trains to get it done without ATGMs being available. It is one of these oeNuclear Battlefield training points. EMP could destroy the gunners sights of the Dragon and TOW. Fire, satchel charges, pole charges, command detonated mortar rounds, AT mines rigged to command detonate, using detonation cord and mortar rounds to drop trees or walls on tanks. With more preparation and engineer support then you get AT traps like pits and trenches.

ATGMs are like a crescent wrench in an overflowing tool box.

Also some tricks that some used, fire your smoke grenades they are WP. WP will not hurt the tank but does the infantry. Some tankers have put Claymores around the tank with the controls ran to the driver so if you get close just fire it off, and say good night to the troops. Again it does not real damage to the tank (messes up the paint and that is about it).

This scenario is discussion the relics in the Littlefield and other collectors These dont typically have smoke dischargers. By T2K smoke grenades for those are probably as scarce as anything else.

Now those are valid defenses But they are also one shots.. You are not going to get many properly using the terrain.

You do know that not all tanks have to expose them self to use some/all of there machine-guns. For example both the M1 and the M60 can fire there Commanders MG from inside with out exposing them self at all. Some other thoughts when I was in basic (early 90's) they were still using some M60 and so we took some classes where they talked about them. The M1 was the worlds deadliest tank (you can argue other nations equivalents), and the M60 was considered the worlds best defensive tank, it did not have the mobility the M1 had, but had a better thermal sight, more ammo and from prepared positions would have torn up any tank in the world at the time.

Of those in the discussion this applies to the M48 and the M60 so I agree with you. However, only the M60A3 TTS has a thermal sight for the gunner. The periscopes do not. Blind those periscopes and this doesnt matter.

Artillery yes, mortar I do not think so. One of my drill sergeants talked about how his tank in Desert Storm drove through an anti-personnel mine field, they were part way in before they noticed it, after they got out looked for damage. All that it did was take some rubber off the tracks. Tanks are very tough (not invulnerable but very tough). As for the smoke, if it is not thermal smoke do not expect it to give you any cover, we can see through smoke.

Those in discussion do not have thermal sights, possibly passive / active infrared though.

AP mines sure. They have a charge measured in ounces. Not going to affect a tank tread by itself.

I did the hole deeper, cluster there 81mm HE rounds, remove the fuzes, pack the wells with C4, add a blasting cap just to be redundant, then cap it with the AP mine and weather proof.. I have a mobility kill. Then I wait to engage the recovery team from long range with MG fire and mortars. I want to kill those mechanics and their M88 as badly or more than one line tank.

I separate the tanks from infantry, I separate the tanks from mutual support, then destroy them in detail, usually when and where I can get them to dismount.

As already covered WP does not really affect the tanks, C4 you are going to have to spend some time placing it if you want it to do more than just mess up the paint. Good luck with that if you have a half way competent tank section.

Spread out around the tank, sure. Detonated beneath the hull where the affect is contained another crispy, smoky story. A 8, 10, 15 kilo charge in a satchel under the belly is going to do a lot. Placed against the last road wheel and the belly, the road wheel and torsion bars are coming off. I also have time to make shaped charges or use the cratering charges used to destroy roads, bridges, and bunkers. All depends on what can be carried or what it tanks to lure the tank right up onto it.

[ArmySGT.]

Your words, and lets just say that we disagree. I will take a tank any day. However I am biased as I am a crust old DAT.

Now where is that can of fuel.......

I am not going to spend time editing that to reply.

Here is how you do it.

Ok, I am very guilty or compulsive about this.

How to...... Well, I use the "Quote" button of course just as normal. such as this.


and you get that.

Now the operative part that makes it a "Quote" is what is between the square brackets [ or ].

Now I will Quote again replacing [ with an elliptical bracket ( so you can see the code.
(QUOTE=ArmySGT.;35723) (/QUOTE)

So I can chop up a lengthy post into manageable pieces and reply to each part I simply put the (QUOTE=ArmySGT.;35723) and (/QUOTE)

ahead of each sentence or paragraph I wish to quote as a separate piece.

Note, that each quote must be proceeded by (QUOTE=ArmySGT.;35723) and then by (/QUOTE) to function as a "Quote".