Ad Hoc AFVs

[Brit]

Definitely another option for tank chassis without turrets after the TDM is the SP AT role. Just slap a TOW or Milan or whatever on there and BOOM, there you go. -

"A variant of Spartan was also proposed with the TOW Missile" or what could have been done "in the field". - https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/spartan-tow-missile-2/

(From: https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/briti...the-seventies/ )

[Brit]

Probably pics seen...

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/11/28/police-m113-gallery/

[bash]

But if the need is for a vehicle that can transport troops, under direct fire, off-road, then a tank chassis APC conversion is the better choice.
-

I completely agree with this under normal circumstances. In T2K I think the calculus is a bit different.

1. Tracked AFVs have pretty high maintenance needs. Even if you've got the supplies and technical ability to maintain them that's a lot of effort for slow fuel guzzling armor.
2. AFVs would have been the main targets during the main fighting of the war. By the time of the game they'll be pretty rare.
3. Even after the major fighting has died down, at the time of the game an AFV would be definitely be the targets worth spending an equally rare anti-armor weapon on.

The resources required to keep tracked AFVs running will put a strain on any group post-TDM. Their benefits will be greatly outweighed by their cost.

[Ursus Maior]

I concur, in a post-collapse and post-war setting, gun-trucks will be the mainstay of armored forces. Quite likely, mass-produced first generation APCs on truck-basis will be highly sought after, such as the BTR-40 and BTR-152. The latter having been produced in the USSR until 1962 and probably as long in China (as Type 56). The basis for late production BTR-152 was the ubiquitous ZIL-157 6x6 truck, historically produced until 1994. So spare parts and replacement will be easily available and common as much as these words still apply in T2K.

[Raellus]

I completely agree with this under normal circumstances. In T2K I think the calculus is a bit different.

1. Tracked AFVs have pretty high maintenance needs. Even if you've got the supplies and technical ability to maintain them that's a lot of effort for slow fuel guzzling armor.
2. AFVs would have been the main targets during the main fighting of the war. By the time of the game they'll be pretty rare.
3. Even after the major fighting has died down, at the time of the game an AFV would be definitely be the targets worth spending an equally rare anti-armor weapon on.

The resources required to keep tracked AFVs running will put a strain on any group post-TDM. Their benefits will be greatly outweighed by their cost.

Absolutely. I'm not arguing that ad-hoc tracked APCs would be common c.2000, only that there would likely be a fair number of them taking the field in the year or two following the strategic nuclear exchanges, when the ability to make new turrets and or repair old ones would have been effectively lost. At that point in the war, I don't think it's likely that serviceable chassis would simply be left to rust (or only cannibalized for spare parts).

Also, your points are true of all tracked AFVs. We know from the T2k vehicle guides that various tracked MBTs, IFVs, and other AFVs are still operational/operating in 2000, so chances are good there'd be a few ad-hoc tracked APCs out there as well.

-

[unipus]

Is there any version of the game that actually accounts for varying maintenance requirements (between specific vehicle types, or just generally tracks vs wheels, etc) I can't recall having seen it but it's sort of an important concern!

[pmulcahy11b]

Is there any version of the game that actually accounts for varying maintenance requirements (between specific vehicle types, or just generally tracks vs wheels, etc) I can't recall having seen it but it's sort of an important concern!

Vehicles have a Maintenance Time Required rating (the Maint figure on the charts), which is the amount of hours required per week that must be spent to keep the vehicle in running order.

Individual vehicles also have a Wear Value of 1-10, which both increases the number of hours of Maint required and increases Breakdown chances. Failure to do the proper amount of Maint (which includes PMCS, fixing problems, and replacing parts as needed) will increase the Wear Value, until the vehicle reaches a Wear Value of 10, after which so many things are broken that the vehicle would require a major overhaul just to get it moving again. Better to use the vehicle for spare parts, whether you use them or sell them.

[Homer]

Where would you rate the wear value of a recovered vehicle coming out of depot overhaul after repair

I'm thinking of the bit from "Team Yankee" when 2LT Avery is issued a recovered and repaired M1. New to them, except the burn marks and bloodstains...

[Targan]

Vehicles have a Maintenance Time Required rating (the Maint figure on the charts), which is the amount of hours required per week that must be spent to keep the vehicle in running order.

Individual vehicles also have a Wear Value of 1-10, which both increases the number of hours of Maint required and increases Breakdown chances.

Indeed, it was a fundamental part of the 1st edition rules.

[pmulcahy11b]

Where would you rate the wear value of a recovered vehicle coming out of depot overhaul after repair

I'm thinking of the bit from "Team Yankee" when 2LT Avery is issued a recovered and repaired M1. New to them, except the burn marks and bloodstains...

Depot-level overhauls would give vehicles a Wear Value of 1. A vehicle coming out of 3rd echelon repair (which would be 2LT Avery's vehicle) would have a Wear Value of 2-4, depending how extensive the repairs were able to be carried out. (If there's burn marks and bloodstains, there would have been at least one penetrating hit on the vehicle, which would tend to raise the Wear Value.)

3rd-Echelon Maintenance is a Division-level asset, which means it is in the extreme rear of the Division's AOR, and well-protected.

[unipus]

Vehicles have a Maintenance Time Required rating (the Maint figure on the charts), which is the amount of hours required per week that must be spent to keep the vehicle in running order.

Individual vehicles also have a Wear Value of 1-10, which both increases the number of hours of Maint required and increases Breakdown chances. Failure to do the proper amount of Maint (which includes PMCS, fixing problems, and replacing parts as needed) will increase the Wear Value, until the vehicle reaches a Wear Value of 10, after which so many things are broken that the vehicle would require a major overhaul just to get it moving again. Better to use the vehicle for spare parts, whether you use them or sell them.

Hm, not sure how I forgot about that but of course you're right.

[Homer]

Depot-level overhauls would give vehicles a Wear Value of 1. A vehicle coming out of 3rd echelon repair (which would be 2LT Avery's vehicle) would have a Wear Value of 2-4, depending how extensive the repairs were able to be carried out. (If there's burn marks and bloodstains, there would have been at least one penetrating hit on the vehicle, which would tend to raise the Wear Value.)

3rd-Echelon Maintenance is a Division-level asset, which means it is in the extreme rear of the Division's AOR, and well-protected.

Thanks! I was thinking of hull/turret rebuilds and armor package maintenance similar to what was done at Mainz or Anniston. Definitely agree they'd be wear value 1 coming out of that. I don't imagine that pipeline lasted much beyond 1997, although some hulks may have been shipped back in time to be rebuilt and returned.

I wonder how often you'd get turret "a" mated to hull "b" as 3d shop tries to regenerate combat power. Corps and higher units may maintain semi permanent cannibalization yards of deadlined vehicles just to enable the stripping and salvage of spares to assemble new runners. If 21st TAACOM still has capacity post 97 they could very easily become the lead for a USAREUR regeneration and rebuild program using their surviving facilities to repair as much salvage as possible within their capabilities.

[Ursus Maior]

I think all strategic maintenance and regeneration facilities would have been to be rebuild after the nuclear exchange in 1997. But in limited capacities, this would be possible in continental Europe and/or the US.

[Homer]

I think all strategic maintenance and regeneration facilities would have been to be rebuild after the nuclear exchange in 1997. But in limited capacities, this would be possible in continental Europe and/or the US.

Agreed. Even though Anniston and Red River werent expressly targeted, EMP, civil disturbance, and shortages would probably cause them to grind to a halt. Id imagine European based facilities are either destroyed or suffer similar fates. Still, there would have to be some residual capability to keep the war going. Even small things like reconditioning power packs, remanufacturing components, and calibration would be needed to maintain the ability to fight the battles of 1998 and later.

[Brit]

The Smithsonsian Channel repeated again a programme on Gun Trucks last night. I think this is a small part of it: https://www.youtube.com/watchv=wkc_9JwczaM