Composite Marine support vehicle

[whartung]

With all the chatter about how many battalions a Leftenant can control on the Marine thread, a thought occured to me.

In some of the equipment lists they have grav tanks and other specialty vehicles.

But what about a composite vehicle that acts as a support platform as well as a troop transports.

I think one of the messages mentioned something like that (an armed shuttle), but it seemed to me that it was too big (carrying 24 troops).

I'm basically thinking more along the lines of either an orbit capable IFV, or if not, then a combat capable support ship for bringing the IFVs to surface.

Like an IFV, it should have, ideally, some kind of weaponary to suppress heavier fighting vehicles, but obviously the primary role is close in troop support.

The goal isn't to replace the MBT, but for smaller ships, or for ships like Cruisers that may have heavier marine complements, it gives the troops some heavier close in firepower, indiginous air support, etc. It also allows the troops to drop closer to combat, since the vehicles are combat capable.

I'm not thinking something like the drop ship ala Aliens. I think the roles can be combined in to a single vehicle.

It just seems that the standard ships boat or shuttle really isn't designed or appropriate for combat operations, and most modern troops on the ground (particularly marines) are going to be mechanized anyway, so why not combine the drop and combat operations in to a single composite vehicle?

 

[jec10]

Here is one of mine, for the Hiver Fed Ithklur Marines http://collinsj.tripod.com/thaki'i.pdf, it carries up to 24 troops though so might not be what you mean. Maybe you could explain a bit more why you think that is too much to carry? I'd suggest a squad carrier (8-12 troops) is not very cost effective because if it is for marines as you suggest then you are taking up valuable dT in your troop transport for each assault lander.

My TU Ithklur Marines have just two of these landers per platoon, six for a company, and nineteen for a battalion - compare for yourself the volume they occupy with a battalion of Astrins from GT-Ground Forces version of the Impy Marines...then figure out the cost implications, and the maintenance implications under CT/Striker rules (which figures maintenance requirements of a per unit basis, i.e. 5 MPs required per grav vehicle).

 

[sablewyvern]

I'm not sure I like the idea of sticking a platoon in only one or two vehicles, especially a super-sized Imperial Marine platoon. That's a lot of men packed into a single nice, juicy target.

Even a section-sized assault lander is probably too much for an orbital drop into a seriously hot LZ, where individual drop capsules would be the order of the day.

If you're looking for something more akin to an airmobile doctrine, where the transports are designed to only spend the briefest possible time (and, ideally, none) actually carrying troops while potentially exposed to fire, then larger transports may be feasible.

 

[mbrinkhues]

If you have access to "Renegade Legion" and it's vehicle briefing they have some nice heavy Grav-IFV using what is bascially the mid-sized Gauss-Weapon (100mm with 25,50,100,150 and 200mm in use), mid-sized laser and some missiles while carrying 8-10 dismounts.

There is talk about using them in a 2-1 formation with medium or light tanks (2 platoons of IFV to one of tanks). Now take a concept from real life and instead of basing the tank on another chassis you base him on the IFV-Chassis (Similar to the TAM/TH-301 being based on the MARDER IFV of the Bundeswehr)

 

[whartung]

If you're looking for something more akin to an airmobile doctrine, where the transports are designed to only spend the briefest possible time (and, ideally, none) actually carrying troops while potentially exposed to fire, then larger transports may be feasible.

Well, that's the thing. Do you think the concept of "air mobile" means ANYTHING at all in a world with Grav powered AFVs? A Grav powered armored IFV is implicitly Air Mobile, without the issue of having to keep the transports as much out of harms way.

Helicopters have the problem of being light and fragile, due primarily to the limitations of the platform (you can only life so much efficiently when spinning iron bits around in the sky).

But a Grav vehicle doesn't necessarily have those limitations. They have fairly high lift/mass ratios so they can afford to be up armored (and up gunned) while still maintaining carry capacity.

So, now the next question is whether or not such a vehicle can be made orbit capable, and then SHOULD it be made orbit capable.

The troops will be needing some kind of transport once they hit ground. Garrison and other rear guard troops won't, but the pointy end will. Once they engage in operations, obviously terrain will have some say as too what's practical, but even then the vehicle can work as an air support platform, or even an indirect fire platform to help it's squads (the Israeli Merkava has an inbuilt 60mm mortar, pretty handy for close in fire support).

Whether they should deploy from orbit or not becomes really more an issue with the Interface battle space, and how that works. If you have Interface superiority in the area, generic shuttle are efficient ways of brings troops down, but if it's hostile, then perhaps they're less of an option (not geared probably for the role, "juicy target" syndrome, etc.).

 

[sablewyvern]

I recognise that grav vehicles eliminate the line between air and ground power. My point was you're not going to deploy 20-40 Marines or more in a single vehicle where you have any reason to believe you may take multiple vehicle casualties.

 

[R_Chance]

I recognise that grav vehicles eliminate the line between air and ground power. My point was you're not going to deploy 20-40 Marines or more in a single vehicle where you have any reason to believe you may take multiple vehicle casualties.

I can see your point, but I can also see doing it. Have your troops deploy from the Grav APC by gravbelt. It could enter the combat zone and dump it's troops, recovering them later or acting as a support vehicle. That cuts down on the losing 20 troops at a pop bit.

 

[Icosahedron]

Take a look at sea invasions. WW2 in particular. Marines are landed in craft containing dozens of troops, they are not landed two at a time in dinghys. It is neither practicable nor cost effective.

Besides, the idea that war casualties must be reduced to single figures in case the media see someone getting shot, and that you should risk a platoon to rescue a squad of casualties, is a very 'western, current' viewpoint that hardly reflects the history of warfare or even its worldwide condition today. In my view, it is barely feasible even when you have a huge TL advantage in a fringe conflict. If you are in any danger of a TL-matched, all-out war, it is a very dangerous habit to get into, IMHO. A less namby-pamby enemy will probably 'whup your ass'.

Yes, your crowded landers might take a few losses, but when you get a few down, you have an effective, cohesive force in the right place at the right time. The others? They bought you time, they did their duty.

It all depends on your military doctrine. YMMV.

My apologies to any servicemen/women who might take offence. None is intended. I'm very much an armchair general, and just projecting history forward.

 

[sablewyvern]

First up, "Leave no man behind, dead or alive" is a US phenomenon, rather than a generally Western one.

To the rest of your post, I agree in principle -- losing platoons or companies at a time might not be an issue when you're landing divisions of troops. However, when your Marine assault force is under battalion strength, losing a company to a half-dozen shots is another matter entirely.

 

[aramis]

By all accounts, Sable, it's more true of the FFL than the US military.

 

[sablewyvern]

FFL = French Foreign Legion, I assume?

I'll take your word for it. In any case, it certainly far from a ubiquitous Western attitude. I know its not an Australian philosophy, and I'm pretty sure it's not British either.

Personally, it wouldn't help my morale to know half a dozen of my mates might be be ordered to death or maiming in some pointless effort to retrieve my corpse from the battlefield.

 

[jec10]

First up, "Leave no man behind, dead or alive" is a US phenomenon, rather than a generally Western one.

To the rest of your post, I agree in principle -- losing platoons or companies at a time might not be an issue when you're landing divisions of troops. However, when your Marine assault force is under battalion strength, losing a company to a half-dozen shots is another matter entirely.

I'm wondering what kind of operation you're now postulating - attacking a planet with a company of Marines?! I had assumed the discussion was about plausible major combat actions in a conflict such as 5FW or Solomani Rim War.

If you are using a company of marines, I assume you envisage a police action against low-tech adversaries in which I don't think the points about vulnerability of half-platoon landers apply. It is a trivial task to make TL14-15 vehicles invulnerable to TL8- weapons (unless they are willing to use nukes, which raises all kinds of other issues).

 

[sablewyvern]

In a major planetary operation, I see Imperial Marines being employed mainly to form bridgeheads, act as a mobile strike force, and occasionally spearhead assaults, with army back-up. I don't see them deploying in this role in anything larger than understrength brigade-sized formations, typically three to four battalion-equivalents at the most. In any case, I specifically do not see them being deployed into a battle of attrition unless absolutely necessary -- that's what the much cheaper man-for-man army is for.

Even in more limited operations, if it's worth calling in the Marines, I think the possibility of effective, if limited, enemy responses need to be taken into consideration. The potential for a significant portion of a given strike force to be eliminated by one missile system you didn't spot needs to be considered.

Anyone who views the IM as more conventional main-force units may see things differently.

 

[whartung]

I think the considerations of force strength are very important, but to be fair, the smaller the force, the "stealthier" the deployment can be as well (since incremental losses have more of an effect on the unit the smaller the unit is).

But this comes back to the thinking about a Fighting Landing Craft (for lack of a better word). A Craft designed to carry troops from orbit in to combat, and stay with them, and whether that is a practical system. Or are the two scenarios so poles opposite that a dual role craft would compromise either mission signficantly enough to not make them worth while. Perhaps an orbit capable craft has too much "dead weight" in terms of engine, propulsion, perhaps even fuel to be an effecien IFV. Or perhaps they're simply too expensive per trooper to make them worthwhile.

But it just seems to me that the troops will most likely will have enough combat vehicles to carry all of the troops (APCs) that a composite might make sense. Then again, maybe troops don't need APCs at TL 15.

 

[jec10]

Then again, maybe troops don't need APCs at TL 15.

A-ha! We've had this debate a few times before. My position is that they need something to protect them from autocannon/VRFGG/light rapid pulse weapon fire which in Striker/MT happily goes through even the best battle dress at combat ranges. This is where the armoured vehicle comes in as a cost efficient way to protect a group of soldiers as they cross the fire swept zone. If you put more armour on the vehicle it might even protect them from more serious weapons, and if you go the direction of the MT 101Vehicles Lancer or similar designs then they might be protected against even the nastiest Z-gun or ship turret laser. The armoured vehicle might also mount a rapid fire support weapon to make up for the absence of manportable rapid fire weapons that can go through armour in the OTU. At the extreme, and again following the Lancer example, the armoured vehicle might mount a tank gun that could engage heavily armoured targets. It might also have point defence systems to provide an umbrella of protection for the marines from indirect fire and tac missiles. ECM, EMM, jammers, decoys, etc help prevent detection. Larger and longer ranged communicators than can be carried by persons help keep in touch with HQ. Explosives and engineering equipment can be carried, as can medical items, provisions, and ammunition.

 

[Foxroe]

Aren't you just looking for a GCarrier (armored, mounted support weapon, grav/orbit capable, carries a dozen troops + 2 tons cargo)?

-Fox

 

[mbrinkhues]

FFL = French Foreign Legion, I assume?

I'll take your word for it. In any case, it certainly far from a ubiquitous Western attitude. I know its not an Australian philosophy, and I'm pretty sure it's not British either.

Personally, it wouldn't help my morale to know half a dozen of my mates might be be ordered to death or maiming in some pointless effort to retrieve my corpse from the battlefield.

Actually it's an attitude more often found it small, tightly knit force that stress "esprit de corps". The more common "line" units normally don't show that behaviour, no matter what nation

 

[sablewyvern]

Actually it's an attitude more often found it small, tightly knit force that stress "esprit de corps". The more common "line" units normally don't show that behaviour, no matter what nation

There seems to be an implication in this comment that this attitude is beneficial to effective operations. I would think that the highly trained type of unit you're talking about here would in fact be less likely to put a mission objective at risk to go chasing after corpses or locating a missing invidual that was not mission-critical.

Where they are capable of doing so without putting mission objectives at significant risk is an entirely different situation, of course.

 

[mbrinkhues]

The problem here is "what rules are you using" since even the GDW rules-sets produce very different vehicles. Using TNE makes APC and/or IFV a matter of life or death for the troops since in that system man-portabel weapons can punch through BD and AFV's have easily 10x the armor of a BD. OTOH TNE also makes a fusion-powered lander (with fuel refining capacities) a must since the Heplar thrusters used run through H2 like Moe through Duffs.

IMTU there would be the following:

Grav APC/IFV and tanks carrying at most 3+11 (like the M113). They can self-deploy from orbit either quickly using a ablative shield and hot reentry or more slowly using thrusters and controlled decend. These methods are either slow or stress the craft a lot and require special preparations and tools. So they are mostly used in an assault role where putting a lot of targets into the air is good against air-defence(1) The Grav-Vehicles can make orbit on their own (and sometimes more quickly in TNE than in older sets) and use that during withdrawl and for other emergencies. Being Airtight is a function of military crafts anyway in TNE as is life support

For most landing operations the vehicles are packed into platoon or company-sized landers that bring down 4-20 vehicles at a time. The smaller landers are armed and armored for assault landings while the larger ones are heavy cargo vehicles with minimal armor. The landers are needed anyway to bring down the support and logistics element as well as the supplies (And TNE is supply heavy) and/or evacuate the wounded.


(1) I don't think that landers in Traveller are the equivalent of Higgins boats going up against the Normandy Beaches and classic artillery. They are airborne targets and they go up against missile systems and high-tech radar. So sometimes "Zerg the defences" is the best approach

 

[mbrinkhues]

There seems to be an implication in this comment that this attitude is beneficial to effective operations. I would think that the highly trained type of unit you're talking about here would in fact be less likely to put a mission objective at risk to go chasing after corpses or locating a missing invidual that was not mission-critical.

Where they are capable of doing so without putting mission objectives at significant risk is an entirely different situation, of course.

IMHO the concept is not so much "We get you out before/during the mission" as it is "We come to your rescue as soon as possible". And in a lot of units this only extends to living persons.

OTOH depending on the mission and unit it may be necessary to carry the corps (leave no trace) and there might be no "non critical" persons. Cross training is used even in line units (i.e a BW platoon had all members trained as Maschine gunners, RPG-gunners and Grenade-Launcher gunners) but there is a difference between that and the dedicated specialist. The specialist trains more often, more in-depth etc.

And the philosophy is good for moral and makes people willing to accept some risks that they otherwise won't / Make them "keep the mouth shut" after being taken PoW since they believe in a resonable chance of rescue.