MT Only: Budget grav APC

[McPerth]

I've found old papers with this grav APC I designed for a mercenary unit many years ago.

Beware it's not an AFV, not even an IFV, just an APC. It was desinged to have a role similar to the WWII German SdKfz 251: to take the troops to battle zone and give, at most, light support, but not to directly confront enemy by itself:

Craft ID:	VVR305/1 grav APC , TL: 13, Cr: 45328

Hull:		4/9  Disp: 4, Config: 4 USL , Armor: 12F
		Unloaded: 4.88 ton, Loaded: 6.28 ton

Power:		1/2 Fuel cells: 1.08 Mw, Duration:  30/90

Locco:		1/2  Standard Grav Thrust: 9 tons NOE: 40 kph
		Cruise: 225 kph, Top 300 kph
		

Commo :   	Radio: Vdis, Maser: Distant

Sensors:	        AW Radar: distant. 2 headlights. Passive IR.Light amplifier		

Off:		4 x 6 cm MRL
		RAM auto grenade launcher

Deff:		2 x Prismatic aerosol 

Controls:	No computer. Panel: electronic x 15
		Environ: basicEnv,

Accom  :	        Crew: 2 (driver, gunner/commander). Seats: roomy: 2, cramped:12

Other  :	        Fuel:  2.3 kl; 
Cargo           4.25 kl. If over 900 kg are carried speed is reduced

EDIT: Price includes the 20% discout for standard vehicle

EDIT(2): As in all MT vehicles I design, I use the HR that loaded weight includes 0.1 ton per crewmember/passenger END EDITs

Hystory: This grav vehicle was designed for the use of police, with the auto-GL being used to shoot stun or lacrimogen gas grenades and without the MRLs.

Its low price for a grav APC made it an alternative for mercs for use against low TL or not too well equiped troops, even while its soft skin made it too vulnerable to be used for direct fire, and lack of sealing made it only useful in hospitable environments. The MRLs were added for more indirect support to troops and SAM use.

By forfeiting the passenger space, it can easily be converted to various missions.

 

[Major B]

That is a nice, tight design. No wasted space or expense and I can see it being used in exactly the role you describe IMTU.

In fact, I am stealing the idea for fleshing out a unit of police pressed into defending a starport against army troops attempting a coup.

I have two minor critiques for the design that I may incorporate IMTU:

1. I think that all flying vehicles should have a computer. My preference only but I think a model 0 would make it more safe.

2. A VRFGG would be preferred over the MRL (for the military version) because it provides some anti-missile defense and can suppress enemy troops while it scoots out of engagements. The drawback is the expense and space required for a ammo hopper. Then again, adding the computer may allow you to reduce the number of control panels so the space lost to the ammo hopper may be recoverable.

 

[McPerth]

That is a nice, tight design. No wasted space or expense and I can see it being used in exactly the role you describe IMTU.

In fact, I am stealing the idea for fleshing out a unit of police pressed into defending a starport against army troops attempting a coup.

I have two minor critiques for the design that I may incorporate IMTU:

1. I think that all flying vehicles should have a computer. My preference only but I think a model 0 would make it more safe.

2. A VRFGG would be preferred over the MRL (for the military version) because it provides some anti-missile defense and can suppress enemy troops while it scoots out of engagements. The drawback is the expense and space required for a ammo hopper. Then again, adding the computer may allow you to reduce the number of control panels so the space lost to the ammo hopper may be recoverable.

Good points, but they would be against the main reason d'être of this design: budget.

See that a computer costs (at mínimum) KCr 60 (and if you need 2 of them, as said in MT:RM, then it's KCr 120), and a VRFGG costs (according 101 vehicles) KCr 200.

Put this against the cost of the whole vehicle as it is (KCr 56.66 design cost, KCr 45.328 with standard design discount), you can see why this was not added (BTW, same reasoning about avionics). For the cost of a single VRFGG you can give grav transoport to a full platoon (40 men).

Also, about the VRFGG, it's a direct fire weapon, so forcing the APC to expose itself to use it, while both the RAM auto-GL and the MRLs are indirect fire weapons, allowing it to support the troops without exposing itself.

 

[Major B]

Good points, but they would be against the main reason d'être of this design: budget.

Oh, I understand completely. As I mentioned in my post, the drawbacks are expense and space required. Space lost can be mitigated somewhat but cost cannot.

But this discussion has me wondering about something related. I have read about the differences in flying aircraft where the pilot manually controls the plane and those where the computer translates pilot demands. The latter designs are more safe because the computer will not allow the pilot to do something catastrophic. The former, in the hands of a skilled pilot, can perform some amazing things bacause the pilots have the freedom to do things the computer in other models would not allow.

So I wonder what your APC might be able to do that one with a computer would be prevented from doing. That little detail would be something to weave into a story line.

 

[McPerth]

Cargo lorry variant

This is the cargo lorry variant of the same APC. It is unarmed and without passengers space, and uses the saved power to mount another ton of thrust:

Craft ID:	VVR305/2 grav APC , TL: 13, Cr: 43136

Hull:		4/9  Disp: 4, Config: 4 USL , Armor: 12F
		Unloaded: 4.616 ton, Loaded: 8 ton

Power:		1/2 Fuel cells: 1.08 Mw, Duration:  30/90

Locco:		1/2  Standard Grav Thrust: 10 tons NOE: 40 kph
		Cruise: 225 kph, Top 300 kph
		

Commo :   	Radio: Vdis, Maser: Distant

Sensors:	        AW Radar: distant. 2 headlights. Passive IR.Light amplifier		

Off:		none

Deff:		2 x Prismatic aerosol 

Controls:	No computer. Panel: electronic x 15
		Environ: basicEnv,

Accom  :	        Crew: 2 (driver, gunner/commander). Seats: roomy: 2, 

Other  :	        Fuel:  2.3 kl; 
Cargo           40 kl. If over 4.38 Tm are carried speed is reduced

If it carries more than 4.38 Tm, speed is reduced:

• Up to 4.8 Tm: top speed: 240 kph, cruise: 180 kph
• Up to 5 tons: top speed: 185, cruise: 135
• Up to 5.4 tons: top speed: 120, cruise: 90

 

[McPerth]

Close Suport variant

This is the variant for the Heavy Weapons platoon. It exchanges passengers and the MRLs for a 120 mm mortar.

Craft ID:    VVR305/3 grav APC , TL: 13, Cr: 49032

Hull:        4/9  Disp: 4, Config: 4 USL , Armor: 12F
        Unloaded: 4.88 ton, Loaded: 6.28 ton

Power:        1/2 Fuel cells: 1.08 Mw, Duration:  30/90

Locco:        1/2  Standard Grav Thrust: 9 tons NOE: 40 kph
        Cruise: 225 kph, Top 300 kph
       

Commo :       Radio: Vdis, Maser: Distant

Sensors:            AW Radar: distant. 2 headlights. Passive IR.Light amplifier       

Off:        12 cm mortar
        RAM auto grenade launcher

Deff:        2 x Prismatic aerosol

Controls:    No computer. Panel: electronic x 15
        Environ: basicEnv,

Accom  :            Crew: 6 (driver, commander, 4 men gun crew). Seats: roomy: 6

Other  :            Fuel:  2.3 kl;
Cargo           None. 65 ammo rounds (more by reducing speed)

Notes:

Due to the recoil of the mortar, it may not fire it while flying, only when standing landed.

While some people consider the mortars obsolete at this TL, they are cheap for the firepower they give, and there's no effective point defense against them, as there is against missiles.