Out of Mothballs: Obsolescent Weaponry on the T2k Battlefield

[Raellus]

Back On Topic

Also keep in mind that there are museums and collectors who have a ton of parts, manuals, etc. for older equipment and could help keep it going - including Jacques Littlefield in California who literally rebuilt tanks and armored vehicles that were wrecks then they arrived into operational status - and he had live barrels on many of his vehicles. He literally restored a Panther that had been sitting underwater since WWII - given that he could easily keep an old Sherman going from a collector or Arnold's tank for that matter.

It's one thing to keep a single Panther or a couple of Shermans running in peacetime; it's quite another to keep larger stocks of older AFVs in fighting shape under post-apocalyptic combat conditions.

Reposted from #14 upthread:

To clarify the OP, I was addressing the deployment of relatively large stocks of mothballed weaponry, not so much one-offs like museum collections. The main issue that I see with the latter is a lack of spare parts and expertise re operation, maintenance, and upkeep. If anyone would like to discuss museum exhibits returning to combat, here are a couple of threads that address that topic specifically:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....ht=littlefield

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....ht=littlefield

-

[Olefin]

It's one thing to keep a single Panther or a couple of Shermans running in peacetime; it's quite another to keep larger stocks of older AFVs in fighting shape under post-apocalyptic combat conditions.

Reposted from #14 upthread:

To clarify the OP, I was addressing the deployment of relatively large stocks of mothballed weaponry, not so much one-offs like museum collections. The main issue that I see with the latter is a lack of spare parts and expertise re operation, maintenance, and upkeep. If anyone would like to discuss museum exhibits returning to combat, here are a couple of threads that address that topic specifically:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....ht=littlefield

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....ht=littlefield

-

Actually I will just add that if anyone could get multiple vehicles up and running and support a decent force of armor - and keep in mind by July 2000 that basically means 3-5 vehicles for a whole division - it would be Littlefield - damn did he have a lot of equipment and spare parts - and his collection of armor was bigger than a lot of countries have

[Olefin]

Was reading about Cuban tanks and found out that Cuba still had 40 IS-2M tanks in useable storage at the time of the Twilight War. Definitely an interesting tank to run into.

[Raellus]

Was reading about Cuban tanks and found out that Cuba still had 40 IS-2M tanks in useable storage at the time of the Twilight War. Definitely an interesting tank to run into.

Good find. An unexpected encounter for a CONUS campaign, for sure!

Of course, I can't find it right now, but I recall reading that the USSR kept a sizeable stock of IS-3 tanks for use in the static border defense role. I imagine these would be dusted off and sent to the front lines once Soviet tank factories were put out of commission.

According to Wikipedia, "In 2014, an IS-3 was captured by the Armed Forces of Ukraine near the city of Donetsk from pro-Russian rebels. Footage of the tank being reactivated by the rebels circulated online, showing the tank being successfully started and driven off its plinth at a memorial in the city of Kostiantynivka, Donetsk Oblast."

-

[Ursus Maior]

Was reading about Cuban tanks and found out that Cuba still had 40 IS-2M tanks in useable storage at the time of the Twilight War. Definitely an interesting tank to run into.

Are you sure those were still usable IISS' The Military Balance 1997 (p. 215) lists them as static defence [notice the European spelling] artillery together with T-34s and SU-100s. Though there were also T-34s fielded as MBTs as per the report (together with T-54, T-55 and T-62), no IS-2 are mentioned under the MBT section. That doesn't mean they couldn't have been restored to working conditions, though. It just means, they weren't in a working condition.

As per IISS' The Military Balance of 1989 (p. 190), these IS-2 hadn't been in working condition for quite some time: In this issue, "some 15 JS-2" had already been used as static defence artillery by that time. It might be worth noting that in the 1989-1990 timeframe, no T-34s were listed under the "MBT" section and some 150 T-54/-55 were listed as in store or static coast defence, whereas the 1997 issue clearly puts the T-34 under the MBT category and no T-54/-55 are listed as "in store or static coast defence".

So, either Cuba actually reactivated an unknown number of T-34s and up to 150 T-54/-55 from static duty following the collapse of the Soviet Union or IISS figures turned out to be inaccurate after the end of Cuba's patron state. Either way, the IS-2s probably weren't active for quite some time, once the Twilight War started. A intermittent reactivation during the 1990s can also be excluded, I checked the 1994-1995 (combined) issue of IISS' The Military Balance and found the same 15 IS-2 being on static duty as before and after.

I'd say, heavy tanks were pretty much dead during the 1990s, except for the occasional museum pieces, including some IS-3. The only exception being IS-2 and IS-3 that were used by South Ossetian forces and Georgian forces respectively during the low-intesity conflicts of the decade. Of course, who knows really what equipment mobilization only divisions of the Soviet Army would have fielded and how long it would have taken the Soviets to bring that type of equipment back into action. This is pretty much fantasy novel artistic license reigning here as almost nothing is known about Soviet deep mobilization plans including spare parts in depots or the tools to produce them. It could be these divisions would have been available with a somewhat unified TOE after a year or so or one would see Studebakers, BTR-40s and T-34s in homeopathic dosages next to Mosin Nagants, PPSh-41 and VAZ-2101 Zhigulis for transport.

[Olefin]

Are you sure those were still usable IISS' The Military Balance 1997 (p. 215) lists them as static defence [notice the European spelling] artillery together with T-34s and SU-100s. Though there were also T-34s fielded as MBTs as per the report (together with T-54, T-55 and T-62), no IS-2 are mentioned under the MBT section. That doesn't mean they couldn't have been restored to working conditions, though. It just means, they weren't in a working condition.

As per IISS' The Military Balance of 1989 (p. 190), these IS-2 hadn't been in working condition for quite some time: In this issue, "some 15 JS-2" had already been used as static defence artillery by that time. It might be worth noting that in the 1989-1990 timeframe, no T-34s were listed under the "MBT" section and some 150 T-54/-55 were listed as in store or static coast defence, whereas the 1997 issue clearly puts the T-34 under the MBT category and no T-54/-55 are listed as "in store or static coast defence".

So, either Cuba actually reactivated an unknown number of T-34s and up to 150 T-54/-55 from static duty following the collapse of the Soviet Union or IISS figures turned out to be inaccurate after the end of Cuba's patron state. Either way, the IS-2s probably weren't active for quite some time, once the Twilight War started. A intermittent reactivation during the 1990s can also be excluded, I checked the 1994-1995 (combined) issue of IISS' The Military Balance and found the same 15 IS-2 being on static duty as before and after.

I'd say, heavy tanks were pretty much dead during the 1990s, except for the occasional museum pieces, including some IS-3. The only exception being IS-2 and IS-3 that were used by South Ossetian forces and Georgian forces respectively during the low-intesity conflicts of the decade. Of course, who knows really what equipment mobilization only divisions of the Soviet Army would have fielded and how long it would have taken the Soviets to bring that type of equipment back into action. This is pretty much fantasy novel artistic license reigning here as almost nothing is known about Soviet deep mobilization plans including spare parts in depots or the tools to produce them. It could be these divisions would have been available with a somewhat unified TOE after a year or so or one would see Studebakers, BTR-40s and T-34s in homeopathic dosages next to Mosin Nagants, PPSh-41 and VAZ-2101 Zhigulis for transport.

The Soviets were using them as bunkers and for coastal defense but also still had ones that were mobile as well into the late 80's and early 90's. It may be a question more of V1 versus V2.2. The V1 world where the Cold War never ended is one where the Soviets and Cubans never went thru the draw downs that would have occurred in V2.2. In a V1 scenario I could easily see the Cubans still having the T34 and IS-2M's ready to go as needed instead of being used for static defense by the time of the war.

By the way I always like Cuba as a place Mexico could have gotten armor for their army from - i.e. Cuba needs oil, Mexico needs armor (keep in mind they were still operating Stuart tanks in the 90's) - T34-85's and IS-2M's would be a pretty good buy for them (considering that a lot of Central American and South American countries at the time were operating old WWII and early Cold War armor) in exchange for oil for Cuba

[lordroel]

Was reading about Cuban tanks and found out that Cuba still had 40 IS-2M tanks in useable storage at the time of the Twilight War. Definitely an interesting tank to run into.

Well if it can shoot it can kill.

[Ursus Maior]

The Soviets were using them as bunkers and for coastal defense but also still had ones that were mobile as well into the late 80s and early 90s. It may be a question more of V1 versus V2.2. The V1 world where the Cold War never ended is one where the Soviets and Cubans never went thru the draw downs that would have occurred in V2.2. In a V1 scenario I could easily see the Cubans still having the T34 and IS-2Ms ready to go as needed instead of being used for static defense by the time of the war.

Well, as I have written above, the Cubans hadn't kept the IS-2Ms in a running condition by 1989 already, and likely earlier. The Soviets did neither, at least not in Cuba - where there was only one brigade stationed at the end of the Cold War - or in European Russia. Running IS-2 only reappeared in break-off areas of break-off states after the collapse of the USSR. These beasts were really rare and old by the 1980s. Also, they hadn't been produced in numbers comparable to the T-34/85 medium tanks and were too slow for Soviet doctrine after the 1960s.

Could a post Twilight War Cuba, Mexico or Soviet remnant state field a couple of them Yes, sure, why not. But it's not going to be a sizeable and likely only a company in total, divided into platoons or even single tanks over a wider area. But hey, it's a mobile 122 mm gun, so it will likely make an impression by 2000.

[ChalkLine]

Something to remember with Soviet legacy vehicles is that the sights, periscopes and so on tended to be smaller in the armour penetration than earlier versions. This means you can generally cannibalise a periscope off a T-72 and jam it into a T-10 with a simple adaptor plate.

What I'm getting at is that GMs shouldn't assume that the old vehicles have old radios, periscopes and attendant night vision systems, gunnery sights, subsidiary weapons, smoke launchers and all that junk. That all might be pretty modern because it makes more sense to drop that into a hull you're getting ready to refurbish than try and sources parts for old stuff.

Also the older stuff tended to be fairly thick in the armour department, thick enough to take substantial ERA packages.

As to engines, keeping an old clapped-out clunker from the 1950s makes little sense if you have spares from more modern vehicles in store. Not only are they more powerful but they are also lighter. Swapping an engine isn't as difficult as many people might think.

When I put these vehicles into play I like to make whole new vehicles out of them rather than use some old nostalgia vehicle. Not only is it a fun exercise and really they only turn up rarely but also it keeps the players guessing. Especially when the T-43/85 has a radar sight

[Raellus]

Terr$ngbil m/42D SKP

Being as Sweden is a featured setting of v4, you might want to check out the Terr$ngbil m/42D SKP (aka the KP-bil).

Technically, this AFV wasn't mothballed yet in the 1990s (IRL), but this ugly beast was originally fielded in 1943 (!), so I think it qualifies. It's essentially an armored truck based-APC. Later versions fielded in the 1990s had MG mounts, armored tops, smoke grenade launchers, and firing ports for passengers.

https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/sweden/Terrangbil_m-42D_SKP.php

-

[Olefin]

Being as Sweden is a featured setting of v4, you might want to check out the Terr$ngbil m/42D SKP (aka the KP-bil).

Technically, this AFV wasn't mothballed yet in the 1990s (IRL), but this ugly beast was originally fielded in 1943 (!), so I think it qualifies. It's essentially an armored truck based-APC. Later versions fielded in the 1990s had MG mounts, armored tops, smoke grenade launchers, and firing ports for passengers.

https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/sweden/Terrangbil_m-42D_SKP.php

-

Ok this officially qualifies as a very cool find

[Ursus Maior]

On that note, the Dominican Republic had Landsverk L-60 "light" tanks in service until 2002. The model was contemporary to other light tanks of early World War Two, like the German Panzerkampfwagen II, Panzerkampfwagen 35(t), US M2, Polish 7TP or Soviet T-26.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsverk_L-60

[pmulcahy11b]

On that note, the Dominican Republic had Landsverk L-60 "light" tanks in service until 2002. The model was contemporary to other light tanks of early World War Two, like the German Panzerkampfwagen II, Panzerkampfwagen 35(t), US M2, Polish 7TP or Soviet T-26.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsverk_L-60

I was watching a documentary on the Military Channel yesterday; the US Marines knocked out two of these with Super Bazookas during the Dominican Intervention in 1965.

[Olefin]

I was watching a documentary on the Military Channel; the US Marines knocked out two of these with Super Bazookas during the Dominican Intervention in 1965.

and one of them tried to take on a USMC tank - which didnt work out for them at all - also the only tank kills the Ontos had I think happened in the Dominican

"The most-thinly documented incident is a reported exchange of fire between a massively outgunned L-60 and a Marine Patton tank. The eight-ton L-60, armed with a 37-millimeter gun, could hardly have dented the armor of the 50-ton Patton. The same cannot be said for the Patton's 90-millimeter cannon, which "disintegrated" the smaller vehicle.

Another L-60 was knocked out by a Marine M-50 Ontos anti-tank vehicle. These unique vehicles bristled with six heavy 106-millimeter recoilless rifles -each had to be individually reloaded after taking a shot.

The Ontos was definitely a "shoot-and-scoot" vehicle - it was so thinly armored that an L-60 might actually have damaged one. An Ontos is also credited with blowing the turret off a rebel AMX-13.

This was the first combat employment for both the Ontos and M-48 - they went on to see extensive use in Vietnam - and the only time the Ontos was used in the role it was designed for, fighting enemy tanks" - https://warisboring.com/in-1965-u-s-...nt-skirmishes/

[Ursus Maior]

I was watching a documentary on the Military Channel yesterday; the US Marines knocked out two of these with Super Bazookas during the Dominican Intervention in 1965.

Indeed they did. What fascinates me most, is that the Dominicans actually bought tanks - that didn't usually happen in the Caribbean very often - and then chose to kept them almost 40 years after the intervention.

Pre-war tank models were worlds apart from what was fielded at the end of WW2. The Dominicans also fielded about a company of Pansarbil m/39 "Lynx" armored cars and French AMX-13 light tanks each, the latter of which were rather state of the art by 1965.

On a side note, I think there were actually three L60 destroyed by US Marines and members of the 82nd Airborne Division. One by a M40 recoilless rifle, one by a M50 Ontos and one by a M48 Patton.