Composite Marine support vehicle

[sablewyvern]

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.

Well, that's a more reasonable attitude, and one that I personally would expect to carry on over into all units in any military that values their men.

My comments, however, were specifically in relation to the philosophy of not leaving the battlefield without every soldier, dead or alive -- a philosophy which has been employed by the US military, and apparently by the French Foreign Legion.

 

[mbrinkhues]

It has been "We try not to leave anyone behind" more than "nobody is left behind" in reality. US forces did leave PoW and dead behind in WWII and Korea even when units where not totally defeated/captured. They controlled the situation during Vietnam, Grenada and Gulf II/III enough to be able to (normally) evacuate their personal though even there some airforce personal ended up PoW

 

[redwalker]

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

-Fox

Yes, I think they are looking for just that.

Of course, if you can afford it, you could put all the troops in grav-belts, and they could float down in highly dispersed formations, possibly firing to distract the ground artillery crews (because gravbelts are more stable firing platforms than parachutes).

 

[mbrinkhues]

Yes, I think they are looking for just that.

Of course, if you can afford it, you could put all the troops in grav-belts, and they could float down in highly dispersed formations, possibly firing to distract the ground artillery crews (because gravbelts are more stable firing platforms than parachutes).

Gunners, load Cluster, set fuze to 10.000m, open fire

or

Gunner, switch to AP, open fire


Depending on the game system used you would need an extremly wide dispersal pattern (making the troops extremly weak on the ground in the first phase of combat) to survive re-entry. Guns with a 10.000+ meters effective firing hight are TL6 (Think 10.5 and 12.8cm AA guns or their allied counterparts) and adding TL7 or TL8 ammo makes them even more effective.

And below 3000m the equivalent to a Gepard firing 35mm AP will likely become an extremly effective "skysweeper"

 

[BetterThanLife]

Depending on the ruleset, Grav-Belts actually can wind up significantly cheaper than APCs. They certainly take up less cubbage on a Starship. The Majority of Marines you are likely to run into are either at a Starport, (Starport Security) or on a Regular Line Naval Vessel.

70+% of Marine Operations are unlikely to be able to use military vehicles anyway. (Less than 30% of systems in the OTU contain a Planet that allows outdoor living. So most of your combat objectives, are indoors, add boarding actions, High Port Control, Asteroid Belt operations, and your vehicles and their crews sit out a majority of operations so are wasted cubbage. )

When designing Marine vehicles you need to take into account the following.
1. Grav Vehicle use in a Micro Gravity Environment.
2. Grav Vehicle use in an Artifical Gravity Environment. (How does that work, especially when the other side controls the Artificial Gravity?)
3. Amount of Cargo space on a typical Naval Line Vessel. (And how much of that cargo can you dedicate to Marine vehicles, as opposed to required expendables, like Life Support and Missiles.)
4. The advantage of Space Fighters in the 15 Ton range Vs. Grav Tanks. (15 Ton fighters with some armor, in most Traveller rulesets seriously outclass Grav Tanks in the same size range and are useful in Micro/Zero Gravity environments.)
5. Many Cruisers don't carry any fighters but do carry Marines.

Take the above into account and I see Marines as Vehicle light, in general.

Now specialized Marine Assault Carriers, might be a different matter. But where do you draw those Marines from to crew those vehicles. Are they two different branches?

 

[BetterThanLife]

Gunners, load Cluster, set fuze to 10.000m, open fire

or

Gunner, switch to AP, open fire


Depending on the game system used you would need an extremly wide dispersal pattern (making the troops extremly weak on the ground in the first phase of combat) to survive re-entry. Guns with a 10.000+ meters effective firing hight are TL6 (Think 10.5 and 12.8cm AA guns or their allied counterparts) and adding TL7 or TL8 ammo makes them even more effective.

And below 3000m the equivalent to a Gepard firing 35mm AP will likely become an extremly effective "skysweeper"

That is going to be mostly fragmentation damage. Current Body Armor is extremely effective against fragmentation, forget about Combat Armor or Battledress. You are going to need direct hits, on a high speed, high stealth crossing targets that shoot back, in a very hostile EW environment supported by Direct Naval Gunfire. Also Grav Belted troops are not going to be falling in nice straight lines or moving slowly. Flak is unlikely to be effective at all.

Further, before attempting that kind of landing there is going to be a serious AA Suppression.

Nobody has attempted that kind of landings since WWII. AAA wasn't all that effective during the major Airborne operations in WWII. (Played virtually no role in Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands, Crete, Sicily, Italy, Normandy, and Operation Market Garden. Any Air Assaults done since WWII have been pretty much total flak suppressed and very effective. (Korea, Afganistan (Multiple Operations by Soviet forces), Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm are examples.)

You can hold up flak as a reason not to use Airborne drops, but history does not agree with you.

 

[jec10]

I see we are back onto familiar themes. ;-)

In post #15 I've already listed what I see as the advantages of having a vehicle-based Marine force. Elsewhere we have discussed the costs and maintenance implications of grav belt/BD troops versus an APC according to the rules, but I'd be interested in any new analysis to show that such a solution would be significantly more cost/maintenance effective. At length we have discussed the vulnerabilities of even BD-equipped infantry to a host of weapons systems including VRF Gauss Guns, light rapid pulse lasers, and autocannons - all of which can be procured cheaply as compared with the costs of BD+grav belt (and none of which are effective against infantry in an armoured vehicle).

That said, I do see a role for Marine jump troops in armoured drop capsules as 'door openers'. But let's be clear, they are rather different to the concept of Marines floating down (where does 'high speed' fit with canon grav belt descriptions?) on their grav belts from orbit somehow avoiding the waiting autoweapon fire, and then waiting for their one or more dedicated mechanics per eight-person squad to catch up and repair their kit.

The points re interior environments and micro gravity in the OTU are well made, but would seem to apply to BD+grav belts and vehicles equally (i.e. what use is a grav belt in micro gravity?), especially if the costs are about the same.

 

[BetterThanLife]

I see we are back onto familiar themes. ;-)

In post #15 I've already listed what I see as the advantages of having a vehicle-based Marine force. Elsewhere we have discussed the costs and maintenance implications of grav belt/BD troops versus an APC according to the rules, but I'd be interested in any new analysis to show that such a solution would be significantly more cost/maintenance effective. At length we have discussed the vulnerabilities of even BD-equipped infantry to a host of weapons systems including VRF Gauss Guns, light rapid pulse lasers, and autocannons - all of which can be procured cheaply as compared with the costs of BD+grav belt (and none of which are effective against infantry in an armoured vehicle).

That said, I do see a role for Marine jump troops in armoured drop capsules as 'door openers'. But let's be clear, they are rather different to the concept of Marines floating down (where does 'high speed' fit with canon grav belt descriptions?) on their grav belts from orbit somehow avoiding the waiting autoweapon fire, and then waiting for their one or more dedicated mechanics per eight-person squad to catch up and repair their kit.

The points re interior environments and micro gravity in the OTU are well made, but would seem to apply to BD+grav belts and vehicles equally (i.e. what use is a grav belt in micro gravity?), especially if the costs are about the same.

AA fire has never been very effective against dropping troops. In this case Direct Fire from Warships and fighter support would significantly degrade AA fire. Starship sensors are quite a bit more effective than on mount sensors and firing at descending troops unmasks your gun to direct, massive, light speed, counter-battery fire. Even turning on active sensors unmasks your gun to Counter Battery Fire. So you are firing on these descending troops without active sensors in a nasty EW environment under fire. Providing you survive long enough to fire on the troops. I'd put my money on the descending troops.

High speed with a canon grav-belt, of course depends on ruleset, but you are looking at max speed plus gravity acceleration until you are close to the ground. Significantly increasing your terminal velocity, providing you have an atmosphere that will impart a terminal velocity in the first place. Under normal rules, going from Terminal velocity to a vector change that no longer includes a downward component would generally take 2-4 combat rounds and terrain masking would help by that point.

As for MicroGravity environments. Leaving the Grav Belts behind doesn't change your combat power as significantly as leaving your vehicles behind. Your training is similar though at a slower pace. Your firepower is constant. To effectively use a vehicle you have to train with the vehicle, a high percentage of the time. The vehicle crew has to train as a vehicle crew an even higher percentage of the time. So you are using up training time that you are going to be using <30% of the time. And carrying vehicles and crews that are effectively dead weight 70+% of the time. Train as you fight. (Your troops are much more effective that way.)

I never said no vehicles. (In this or previous discussions.) I do advocate having fire support vehicles. I just think that a GRAV APC is a waste of time, money and cubbage. Go with Light Fighters instead of tanks as well. At TL14+, in most of the Traveller rulesets, when designed from scratch for Multi-role they are much more effective than any tank available. (Faster, more maneuverable, more firepower, better sensors, and equal or better armor, and that is in a ground combat environment where tanks can operate.)

Remember that Marines are, generally, not long term, sustained combat, forces. They don't need as many vehicles. In the open, where they are least likely to be but most vulnerable, Direct fire support is available from Naval assets and Light fighters in my model. While BD may not stand up to a VFR Gauss gun that VFR Gauss gun is not going to stand up to Starship Lasers. In most cases you get to trade one or two Marines for each vehicle that mounts the weapons. (The exchange rate is not favorable.)

 

[BetterThanLife]

(where does 'high speed' fit with canon grav belt descriptions?)

BTW since we are discussing non-standard vehicles, why limit ourselves to standard, low tech, grav belts?

 

[jec10]

But you assume defenders are going to be dumb enough to put their defences on static fixed mounts that are vulnerable to orbital detection and suppression. As we have discussed in the meson artillery thread, this is simply not the way any sane planetary defender will go because of the very vulnerabilities you highlight. While the writers of some Traveller rulesets seem to envisage static laser batteries, AA guns, etc this is unrealistic and poorly thought out given the threat environment in Traveller at mid-high tech levels. Defenders will be as mobile as possible so as not to present an easy target to those overhead. Sensors will be away from shooters for the same reason and networked via LOS commo such as laser/maser. Passive sensors will be preferred.

Equally, I'd be interested in the Traveller ruleset you use for your direct orbital fire support - maybe its TNE (which I have never played) because I'm not aware of it working in the way you describe in any other ruleset.

I'm not so interested in the vulnerability of the troops as they descend, which others may want to argue the toss on, but am far more interested in how they plan to survive in battle while on the assault. How do they plan to take ground/objectives? The points I raise in #15 and #27 are really questioning the ability of the troops to survive very long in an engagement where they have to cross open ground swept by fire to succeed. In my experience playing Traveller wargames this is a tough challenge - although I can see how the addition of close support from starfighters might help (provided they are heavily armoured - which of course most starfighters are not). If the starfighters don't arrive, or are chopped down because their armour is only 40 then your grunts are in a lot of trouble.

 

[BetterThanLife]

But you assume defenders are going to be dumb enough to put their defences on static fixed mounts that are vulnerable to orbital detection and suppression. As we have discussed in the meson artillery thread, this is simply not the way any sane planetary defender will go because of the very vulnerabilities you highlight. While the writers of some Traveller rulesets seem to envisage static laser batteries, AA guns, etc this is unrealistic and poorly thought out given the threat environment in Traveller at mid-high tech levels. Defenders will be as mobile as possible so as not to present an easy target to those overhead. Sensors will be away from shooters for the same reason and networked via LOS commo such as laser/maser. Passive sensors will be preferred.

I never assumed any static placements. However comparing vehicles that operate on a planet with a light speed sensor and light speed weapons they might as well be static. Anything moving with a power source is an emitter. Anything Firing is definitely an emitter. All of these put a ground based defender at a disadvantage to Starship forces that have Space Superiority.

Equally, I'd be interested in the Traveller ruleset you use for your direct orbital fire support - maybe its TNE (which I have never played) because I'm not aware of it working in the way you describe in any other ruleset.

MT and T20 have it in the Base rules. CT has it in Striker.

I'm not so interested in the vulnerability of the troops as they descend, which others may want to argue the toss on, but am far more interested in how they plan to survive in battle while on the assault. How do they plan to take ground/objectives? The points I raise in #15 and #27 are really questioning the ability of the troops to survive very long in an engagement where they have to cross open ground swept by fire to succeed. In my experience playing Traveller wargames this is a tough challenge - although I can see how the addition of close support from starfighters might help (provided they are heavily armoured - which of course most starfighters are not). If the starfighters don't arrive, or are chopped down because their armour is only 40 then your grunts are in a lot of trouble.

Most Grav APC have 40 or less for armor as well. Again much depends on your Traveller Ruleset. You are custom building vehicles, why not custom build your fighters?

Marines crossing open ground, depending on how far they are inserted from their target, can do so under cover of Naval Guns and with fighter support. When you are dealing with those, a few Ground Pounders are not even really worth notice.

BTW in T20 Battledress can have equal armor to an equal TL MBT. In T20 they not only survive, but are, like CT or MT Fighters, very difficult for equals to destroy each other.

 

[mbrinkhues]

That is going to be mostly fragmentation damage. Current Body Armor is extremely effective against fragmentation, forget about Combat Armor or Battledress. You are going to need direct hits, on a high speed, high stealth crossing targets that shoot back, in a very hostile EW environment supported by Direct Naval Gunfire. Also Grav Belted troops are not going to be falling in nice straight lines or moving slowly. Flak is unlikely to be effective at all.

Further, before attempting that kind of landing there is going to be a serious AA Suppression.

Nobody has attempted that kind of landings since WWII. AAA wasn't all that effective during the major Airborne operations in WWII. (Played virtually no role in Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands, Crete, Sicily, Italy, Normandy, and Operation Market Garden. Any Air Assaults done since WWII have been pretty much total flak suppressed and very effective. (Korea, Afganistan (Multiple Operations by Soviet forces), Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm are examples.)

You can hold up flak as a reason not to use Airborne drops, but history does not agree with you.

Actually history has little to no examples to use. Either the ground forces had no AAA (Afghanistan) or where at the wrong end of a asymetrical warfare situation (Desert Storm, Panama). And before that the drop zones where choosen to be AAA free, heavily suppressed before and the drop done at night. Last time I looked GEPARD's where not in service with the German WWII army (even Coelian didn't make it). We never had "Paratroopers against Gepard" or "Airborne against Tsunguska" situations IRL. So nobody can say what would work or not. OTOH most armies consider AA tanks a valid thread against Apaches, Hinds, Hokums and Tigers.

As for the rest, that depends on the game system you use. GDW's TNE has BD-Troops far more vulnerabel and Combat Armor is a joke (AV2 vs. AV1 Kevlar).

 

[BetterThanLife]

Actually history has little to no examples to use. Either the ground forces had no AAA (Afghanistan) or where at the wrong end of a asymetrical warfare situation (Desert Storm, Panama). And before that the drop zones where choosen to be AAA free, heavily suppressed before and the drop done at night. Last time I looked GEPARD's where not in service with the German WWII army (even Coelian didn't make it). We never had "Paratroopers against Gepard" or "Airborne against Tsunguska" situations IRL. So nobody can say what would work or not. OTOH most armies consider AA tanks a valid thread against Apaches, Hinds, Hokums and Tigers.

As for the rest, that depends on the game system you use. GDW's TNE has BD-Troops far more vulnerabel and Combat Armor is a joke (AV2 vs. AV1 Kevlar).

And you are still going to get the same thing. AA will be heavily suppressed, and drop zones will be chosen to limit the amount of coverage the enemy has. Remember that Gepard vs. HARM or ALARM, the Gepard doesn't stand much of a chance. The relatively unsophisticated Radar on the Gepard loses to EA-6B, EF-111, and the Tornado equivalent, every time. Use of Artillery/Missile delivered Barrage jammers means the Gepard is trying to acquire small difficult to see targets over open sights, usually at night.

The Gepard is a good vehicle, no doubt about it. But it isn't designed to stand up to the assets that a Batalion+ Drop (Or even a smaller drop on a key target) can and will employ.

Sure shoot down a Helicopter that you have ambushed. Shoot down a slow, low flying ground attack aircraft that doesn't know you are there, not a problem. Catching an aircraft in that condition, is a different story.

Remember that the Gepard has a max slant range of 4km and requires line of sight. The AGM-114 (Hellfire missile) has an effective range of 8KM and does not require line of sight. If the Helicopter knows there is a Gepard and the general location, the Gepard's chances are significantly reduced. The Gepard's radar travels quite a bit farther than the range of the guns and is detectable by the Radar Warning receivers on every current military aircraft, to include helicopters, long before they come into range.

If the Gepard is that good, why are they getting retro-fitted with Stingers? AFAIK a Ground based, radar equipped AAA vehicle has yet to account for a single Apache in combat. (Though Apaches have destroyed numerous vehicles of this type.)

This isn't going to change as tech level increases. Both sides will improve and the Status Quo will be maintained. (Always has in the past, which implies it will continue to do so in the future.)

 

[mbrinkhues]

BTL:

You continue living in your dream world of perfect harms and all-successful air forces. I continue living in my dream world of effective AAA and burning airplanes. And we both stop derailing threats due to conflicting ideas about what the flyboys can and can not do.

EOD for me.

 

[BetterThanLife]

BTL:

You continue living in your dream world of perfect harms and all-successful air forces. I continue living in my dream world of effective AAA and burning airplanes. And we both stop derailing threats due to conflicting ideas about what the flyboys can and can not do.

EOD for me.

Whatever.

In any case, Vehicles tend to be more vulnerable than grunts on the ground. In the real world (any world) terrain is not flat as a table. There are plenty of small rises of terrain, rocks, etc. to take cover behind, (this assumes there is no vegetation). Grunts don't walk in nice straight lines standing up in the open in nice groups. All of them don't stand at once either. Unless they are in a situation where they are attempting to assault down (instead of alongside) a runway you don't get nice clean shots at groups of them. Being smaller it is easier for Marines without vehicles to avoid fire.

APC, in the real world, that come under fire, providing the vehicle isn't destroyed outright, cause the carried troops to dismount. Yes, the vehicle then provides a base of fire while the dismounts maneuver, but the concept of staying mounted when you come under fire is inviting the enemy to kill you in job lots. Dismounted troops without a vehicle do the same thing. They form a base of fire with part of the unit and maneuver with the rest of the unit.

Now granted Traveller, generally, has some weapons missing from the mix. For example there is no equivalent to a TL12+ Infantry Suppressive Fire weapon. There are no man portable Anti-Armor weapons once you get past TL9 or so. (In fact most vehicle weapons, in most versions of Traveller, can't penetrate a high tech tank.) Armor progresses but Anti-Armor doesn't improve as TL increases.

The advantage that a vehicle supplies is rapid movement when not under fire, and possibly more firepower at the point of contact. The Disadvantage that a vehicle supplies is easier detection, greater vulnerability to an ambush that is designed to take on a vehicle and a required dedicated crew. With Grav-Belt equipped infantry, provided you are using a military high tech Grav-Belt (build it yourself using the vehicle construction rules) instead of a civilian low tech grav-belt, vehicle mounted infantry is not even necessarily faster.

In some cases the vehicles make sense, in others they don't. In the situation of a typical Marine unit, that has limited cubbage, and will spend 70+% of its time in situations where vehicles can't be used, the concept of APC's make much less sense.

Canon Naval ships with deckplans and Marine components, don't carry mechanized forces. For example the AHL doesn't list any marine vehicles for its Marine component (A reinforced company.) and doesn't have enough cargo capacity to carry enough vehicles to be mechanized in any event. The Kinunir, which has a really weird troop organization for a platoon, has plenty of cargo space but only is listed as carrying one APC and isn't listed as having a crew for that vehicle within the Marine organization. Now specialized Marine Carriers might carry Marine Armored vehicles (though there is no indication either way, the Marines are listed in Canon as having Astrins) but that isn't the typical Marine that you run into in the OTU.

 

[jec10]

Whatever.

In any case, Vehicles tend to be more vulnerable than grunts on the ground. In the real world (any world) terrain is not flat as a table. There are plenty of small rises of terrain, rocks, etc. to take cover behind, (this assumes there is no vegetation). Grunts don't walk in nice straight lines standing up in the open in nice groups. All of them don't stand at once either. Unless they are in a situation where they are attempting to assault down (instead of alongside) a runway you don't get nice clean shots at groups of them. Being smaller it is easier for Marines without vehicles to avoid fire.

APC, in the real world, that come under fire, providing the vehicle isn't destroyed outright, cause the carried troops to dismount. Yes, the vehicle then provides a base of fire while the dismounts maneuver, but the concept of staying mounted when you come under fire is inviting the enemy to kill you "in job lots. Dismounted troops without a vehicle do the same thing. They form a base of fire with part of the unit and maneuver with the rest of the unit.

Now granted Traveller, generally, has some weapons missing from the mix. For example there is no equivalent to a TL12+ Infantry Suppressive Fire weapon. There are no man portable Anti-Armor weapons once you get past TL9 or so. (In fact most vehicle weapons, in most versions of Traveller, can't penetrate a high tech tank.) Armor progresses but Anti-Armor doesn't improve as TL increases.

The advantage that a vehicle supplies is rapid movement when not under fire, and possibly more firepower at the point of contact. The Disadvantage that a vehicle supplies is easier detection, greater vulnerability to an ambush that is designed to take on a vehicle and a required dedicated crew. With Grav-Belt equipped infantry, provided you are using a military high tech Grav-Belt (build it yourself using the vehicle construction rules) instead of a civilian low tech grav-belt, vehicle mounted infantry is not even necessarily faster.

In some cases the vehicles make sense, in others they don't. In the situation of a typical Marine unit, that has limited cubbage, and will spend 70+% of its time in situations where vehicles can't be used, the concept of APC's make much less sense.

Canon Naval ships with deckplans and Marine components, don't carry mechanized forces. For example the AHL doesn't list any marine vehicles for its Marine component (A reinforced company.) and doesn't have enough cargo capacity to carry enough vehicles to be mechanized in any event. The Kinunir, which has a really weird troop organization for a platoon, has plenty of cargo space but only is listed as carrying one APC and isn't listed as having a crew for that vehicle within the Marine organization. Now specialized Marine Carriers might carry Marine Armored vehicles (though there is no indication either way, the Marines are listed in Canon as having Astrins) but that isn't the typical Marine that you run into in the OTU.

Jeepers, where to begin with this post. Working backwards...

Where are the Imperial Marines listed in canon as having Astrins? Quite the opposite, they are listed consistently through different Traveller editions as using a TL15 Marine Grav APC which is detailed in JTAS 12, in CT/Striker Book 3 at page 29, in MT 101V at page 19 (and note the Astrin is separately at page 17), and TNE Striker II, and TNE RCVG at page 16.

Note that far from your earlier assertion, a Marine Grav APC well-armoured against all but the most heavy weaponry is a canon vehicle not a "non-standard design".

Re-read Kinunir - the Marine detachment is very well detailed and explained - a mech inf unit, a pro forces unit, and a leg unit. I find that perfectly reasonable.

You consistently ignore any link to logistics and maintence for your BD/grav belt troops. Ignoring such facets makes this a non-credible and non-falsifiable concept. How can we tell whether they will need dramatically less cubbage without considering their requirements for support? How many spacefighters do they require to get the kind of reliable fire support a vehicle unit would have integrally?

Lets see the grav belt you would design - what rules and what maintenance requirements?

What do the troops carry with them? How do they communicate with their orbital fire support securely? Where do they get their power packs, air and any ammunition required from? What carries their company and battalion aid stations? Their electronic and mechanical repair facilities?

Sure the grav belt infantry can spread out as they float along, but not beyond command and control radius/sight otherwise you have a rabble, not a military unit capable of executing orders.

The fundamental truth is that in the OTU your assertion that vehicles are more vulnerable than BD infantry is palpably incorrect. How can armour 18 (CT/MT) be conceived as offering the same protection as 50 or 60? The vehicle has ECM/EMM, point defence fire control, heavy sensors, heavy communicators, etc - all of which are denied to the infantry in the OTU. If the infantry run into even a G-carrier with a VRF GG they are in huge trouble. Their (assumed) FGMP-14s will bounce and the VRFGG will be able to pick off key elements like commanders, communicators, until the infantry morale cracks. In a similar circumstance, the Imperial Marine Grav APC will be able to take care of the G-carrier with little risk.

 

[Major B]

This discussion is reinforcing for me the historical importance of combined arms. I think the salient point here is that determining which force is better is an exercise in futility. What we need to determine is what force balance is best to address any of the many situations a combat formation will have to face.

In a game of rock-paper-scissors, your force has to bring all three. Historical examples abound.

The pikemen can stop the cavalry, but the archers can break up the pikemen, and the cavalry can rapidly close and annhilate the archers. The trick is to bring all three and use them to mutual advantage as the situation (terrain and enemy disposition) dictate.

A more recent example can be drawn from the 1973 battles between the IDF and Egyptians and the painful lesson the IDF learned about relying too much on their armor and air forces.

As Jec10 pointed out, the force described in The Kinunir is a well-balanced one that also takes into account the added problem of strategic mobility. When you can't bring all the troops and stuff you want to bring, how do you design a force that can shoot, move, and communicate and keep all of its equipment in operation and deal will as many tactical threats as possible, all within your transport constraints?

Grav APCs give you a lot of capability but in some situations they are vulnerable and they require more space and more tail to maintain them. Drop troops are strategically mobile but also have vulnerabilities that air support and ortillery only partially ameliorate. What is the right balance? I think the Kinunir force got it about right, given the onboard space available.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Jeepers, where to begin with this post. Working backwards...

Where are the Imperial Marines listed in canon as having Astrins? Quite the opposite, they are listed consistently through different Traveller editions as using a TL15 Marine Grav APC which is detailed in JTAS 12, in CT/Striker Book 3 at page 29, in MT 101V at page 19 (and note the Astrin is separately at page 17), and TNE Striker II, and TNE RCVG at page 16.

In Rebellion Source book the Astrin is listed as the "Standard Imperial APC," paired with the Trepida/Intrepid. In Traveller's Aide 6, it is listed as "the basic design remains unchanged and remains in service with the Imperial Armed
forces and numerous planetary defense forces throughout the Imperium." The Empress is TL15 and TL15 is not always available for the Marines. (For example in 993.)

Note that far from your earlier assertion, a Marine Grav APC well-armoured against all but the most heavy weaponry is a canon vehicle not a "non-standard design".

Depends on the ruleset, TL and which Marine Grav APC. Most of the Marine Grav APC run on Fusion reactors. Neutrino sensors allow the biggest guns to target those.

Re-read Kinunir - the Marine detachment is very well detailed and explained - a mech inf unit, a pro forces unit, and a leg unit. I find that perfectly reasonable.

I did look. It is a joke. A Platoon with 4 officers, 1 x E8, 2 x E7 and 5 x E6. Too many chiefs, not enough indians. 3 Squads, but no coherent organization as a platoon. The Mech Squad has a Team which includes a Vehicle commander and a Driver, but lacks a gunner. The entire platoon organization is not the same as any other Marine organization in any other Canon source.

For example the 4518 Lift Infantry regiment has two types of Infantry Platoons. Each has one officer and they have either 39 or 33 enlisted.

You consistently ignore any link to logistics and maintence for your BD/grav belt troops. Ignoring such facets makes this a non-credible and non-falsifiable concept. How can we tell whether they will need dramatically less cubbage without considering their requirements for support? How many spacefighters do they require to get the kind of reliable fire support a vehicle unit would have integrally?

Lets see the grav belt you would design - what rules and what maintenance requirements?

Funny how most Traveller rulesets ignore maintenance. There are no maintenance rules in CT, MT or T20. A quick look at Striker and I saw vehicle maintenance but not crew served weapons, individual weapons or body armor. What rule set provides such rules? As for fighters, obviously situation dependent, but no more than 4 per company. (Same as normally used for determining how many tanks to employ.) The Grav-Belts I designed were done under T20 rules and were part of the Battledress. (They have been posted on here in a couple of threads.)

Communication gear is part of Battledress. (Funny how the rules tend to ignore the specifics of it as well.) In my set they have orbital range, and a defined set of sensors. Power (Batteries) for 48 hours or so, when using the Grav Drive and significantly longer without. Under T20 rules you will, like most High Tech MBT's and APC, need crits to penetrate the armor.

BTW there is significant Canon reference that says Marines wear Battle Dress, not combat armor, but Battledress.

What do the troops carry with them? How do they communicate with their orbital fire support securely? Where do they get their power packs, air and any ammunition required from? What carries their company and battalion aid stations? Their electronic and mechanical repair facilities?

Companies don't have aid stations, though they do have medics. Batalion Aid Stations are run by the Navy, same as the Marines today. I put them aboard Assault Shuttles. Major repairs are handled at Brigade level or higher, minor repairs are handled out of organic assets. Resupply is as easily handled by Assault Shuttles as by specialized APC, provided you are involved in a prolonged conflict, otherwise you just use what you are carrying. (And Assault Shuttles can easily be heavier armored than APC, and much better armed than most tanks.)

Sure the grav belt infantry can spread out as they float along, but not beyond command and control radius/sight otherwise you have a rabble, not a military unit capable of executing orders.

When you have even simple communication gear, beyond command and control radius is within 5KM of a point for a Platoon, which IMHO is excessive. However it is easy to spread them out so a VFR Gauss Gun can only engage one trooper at a time.

The fundamental truth is that in the OTU your assertion that vehicles are more vulnerable than BD infantry is palpably incorrect. How can armour 18 (CT/MT) be conceived as offering the same protection as 50 or 60? The vehicle has ECM/EMM, point defence fire control, heavy sensors, heavy communicators, etc - all of which are denied to the infantry in the OTU.

They aren't denied to the infantry, though they are lacking in the rules.

If the infantry run into even a G-carrier with a VRF GG they are in huge trouble. Their (assumed) FGMP-14s will bounce and the VRFGG will be able to pick off key elements like commanders, communicators, until the infantry morale cracks. In a similar circumstance, the Imperial Marine Grav APC will be able to take care of the G-carrier with little risk.

The standard G-Carrier has an Armor rating of 10 in MT. Both FGMP and RAM grenades penetrate that in a hurry. Further how do you identify Commander's to pick them off? In MT RAM Grenades have a Penetration of 36, and have Follow on sensors (though the rules don't cover how that works, it is stated that that is to penetrate heavier armor.). Catching 15 Ram grenades per combat round should mess up an APC's Day, forget about a simple G-Carrier.

My Fireteams are organized as (Mission dependent) 2 Riflemen (Gauss Rifle + Ram Grenades) 1 Fusion Gunner, and a Machine Gunner with an LRF Gauss Gun (Challange Issue 64 (MT rules but adopted for my preferred version of Traveller, T20)). Two fire teams per squad, 3 of these squads per Platoon and a Weapons Squad. The Weapons Squad carries Mission specific heavy weapons, FGMP, or LRF being typical and generally wear a slightly larger version of the Marine Battledress with a light MRL. Ammo is designed to last, mission dependent, 2-3 firefights. The Battledress will run 48 hours between charges for both life support and power. (Rules say you can't stay in there that long anyway, same for an APC.) Life Support, in the rules, includes food, however my BD includes provisions for cargo, which include extra ammo, food, water, a spare set of batteries, and an perhaps an extra powerpack for an FGMP. Platoon HQ is Platoon Leader, Platoon Sergeant and Medic. Minimum of one member of each fireteam is a Combat Lifesaver. (First Aid)

In open ground, they are not going to have equal firepower to a Lift Infantry unit. However in open ground the Lift Infantry's vehicles are likely to be very vulnerable to the Marine's support. Naval Gunfire, or Light Fighters rip right through APC's faster than a VRF Gauss Gun can shoot up a Dispersed Infantry Platoon, especially since a Lift Infantry Platoon consists of 3-4 vehicles. Now in an enclosed environment, where the Lift Infantry's vehicles either can't operate or operate only in very limited ways, the Light Infantry has a major advantage. (The legs in my Marine Armor move the Marine at 15-20kph)

 

[aramis]

The only rulesets I've seen that dealt with unit maintenance requirements weren't traveller... FASA's Battletech Merc's Handbook, and a few minis games.

 

[jec10]

In Rebellion Source book the Astrin is listed as the "Standard Imperial APC," paired with the Trepida/Intrepid. In Traveller's Aide 6, it is listed as "the basic design remains unchanged and remains in service with the Imperial Armed
forces and numerous planetary defense forces throughout the Imperium." The Empress is TL15 and TL15 is not always available for the Marines. (For example in 993.)

Sigh. We've already been through this on another thread. I've given you five separate canon sources specifically identifying the APC the Imperial Marines use, and it is not the Astrin. Whether Astrin is a @standard@ APC also in service with Imperial forces or not doesn't alter all these specific and detailed descriptions of the APC the Marines use.

Depends on the ruleset, TL and which Marine Grav APC. Most of the Marine Grav APC run on Fusion reactors. Neutrino sensors allow the biggest guns to target those.

And your super-BD runs on? Moreover, how does neutrino do IFF out of line of sight? Moreover, read MT rules again, targeting at Regional range is either Impossible or Formidable task. Good luck with that orbital direct fire.

I did look. It is a joke. A Platoon with 4 officers, 1 x E8, 2 x E7 and 5 x E6. Too many chiefs, not enough indians. 3 Squads, but no coherent organization as a platoon. The Mech Squad has a Team which includes a Vehicle commander and a Driver, but lacks a gunner. The entire platoon organization is not the same as any other Marine organization in any other Canon source.

You're being a bit harsh, we all know Kinunir was the first adventure and has a few curious and inconsistent elements cf later canon. Picking holes in the detail doesn't alter the fact of the basic setup - mech, pro forces inf.

For example the 4518 Lift Infantry regiment has two types of Infantry Platoons. Each has one officer and they have either 39 or 33 enlisted.

Huh? 4518th is not a Marine organisation nor an Imperial Army unit and has few organisational parallels with canon Marines - see JTAS 12 or Striker II for Marine organisations.

Funny how most Traveller rulesets ignore maintenance. There are no maintenance rules in CT, MT or T20. A quick look at Striker and I saw vehicle maintenance but not crew served weapons, individual weapons or body armor. What rule set provides such rules? As for fighters, obviously situation dependent, but no more than 4 per company. (Same as normally used for determining how many tanks to employ.) The Grav-Belts I designed were done under T20 rules and were part of the Battledress. (They have been posted on here in a couple of threads.)

Come on, give us a link...not that I know much about T20 designs, sorry.
It must have been a very quick glance at CT/Striker Book 2 page 35 because I see quite clearly maintenance requirements for Battle Dress and grav belts, communicators and sensors. As I've demonstrated on the other thread (Stealthy BD) under these rules your troops will require a maintenance technician with toolkit per eight-man squad to keep things running. Or try TNE/Striker II page 54, which has similar detail of support personnel requirements for military units.

Communication gear is part of Battledress. (Funny how the rules tend to ignore the specifics of it as well.) In my set they have orbital range, and a defined set of sensors. Power (Batteries) for 48 hours or so, when using the Grav Drive and significantly longer without. Under T20 rules you will, like most High Tech MBT's and APC, need crits to penetrate the armor.

Sounds interesting, can't comment on T20 beyond saying that is not the case in CT/MT/TNE where BD is significantly less useful as protection. Without seeing the design its hard to judgeit - for instance orbital range commo with what? A radio? Great until the enemy jams it. Dunno how bulky orbital range laser/maser is in T20, but useless if the ships go over the horizon anyway or when the troops are in those closed in areas you're so keen on. And I think I'm on safe ground saying that under any ruleset only a vehicle can carry and power the meson communicator that the canon Imperial Marine APC has, which is unjammable and can communicate with ships out of LOS. So what is the reliable and secure way your Marines get their orders and call in that fire support you depend on? What kind of sensors, a radar/ladar? Crumbs, how do you power all this stuff?

BTW there is significant Canon reference that says Marines wear Battle Dress, not combat armor, but Battledress.

Your point being (I can give you five that say it), aren't we talking about your non-standard Marines anyway?

Companies don't have aid stations, though they do have medics. Batalion Aid Stations are run by the Navy, same as the Marines today. I put them aboard Assault Shuttles. Major repairs are handled at Brigade level or higher, minor repairs are handled out of organic assets. Resupply is as easily handled by Assault Shuttles as by specialized APC, provided you are involved in a prolonged conflict, otherwise you just use what you are carrying. (And Assault Shuttles can easily be heavier armored than APC, and much better armed than most tanks.)

Errm, your own thoughts of course with no reference to the medical rules in CT/Striker or TNE/Striker II. If following the rules, you'll need company aid stations I'm afraid. On repairs, see the rules again, I'm not convinced by handwavium like "minor repairs are handled out of organic assets" - such as?
I'd be interested in your assault shuttle design, and what happened to all that cubbage you were keen to save? Use what you're carrying - not very reassuring at all.

When you have even simple communication gear, beyond command and control radius is within 5KM of a point for a Platoon, which IMHO is excessive. However it is easy to spread them out so a VFR Gauss Gun can only engage one trooper at a time.

Here we part company and will not rejoin. I do not agree. Squads simply do not spread out in the way you imply because NCOs want to see the troops they command to lead them properly. I am far more convinced by the 12sq metres allocated per man in Striker.
Regarding targeting, if a real world point defence weapon like the gatling guns used to protect bases in Iraq can engage numerous incoming rounds in a short space of time, what makes you think more technologically sophisticated fire control won't be able to engage various floating troopers?

They aren't denied to the infantry, though they are lacking in the rules.
The standard G-Carrier has an Armor rating of 10 in MT. Both FGMP and RAM grenades penetrate that in a hurry. Further how do you identify Commander's to pick them off? In MT RAM Grenades have a Penetration of 36, and have Follow on sensors (though the rules don't cover how that works, it is stated that that is to penetrate heavier armor.). Catching 15 Ram grenades per combat round should mess up an APC's Day, forget about a simple G-Carrier.

The *military* G-carrier in 101 Vehicles (page 8) certainly does not have armour of 10, why are you bringing in civilian vehicles? And elsewhere canon design references to G-carriers (CT/Striker, TNE handbooks) show armour able to deflect RAM grenades (and recall that point defence fire control means the grenades can be engaged and shot down).

My Fireteams are organized as (Mission dependent) 2 Riflemen (Gauss Rifle + Ram Grenades) 1 Fusion Gunner, and a Machine Gunner with an LRF Gauss Gun (Challange Issue 64 (MT rules but adopted for my preferred version of Traveller, T20)). Two fire teams per squad, 3 of these squads per Platoon and a Weapons Squad. The Weapons Squad carries Mission specific heavy weapons, FGMP, or LRF being typical and generally wear a slightly larger version of the Marine Battledress with a light MRL. Ammo is designed to last, mission dependent, 2-3 firefights. The Battledress will run 48 hours between charges for both life support and power. (Rules say you can't stay in there that long anyway, same for an APC.) Life Support, in the rules, includes food, however my BD includes provisions for cargo, which include extra ammo, food, water, a spare set of batteries, and an perhaps an extra powerpack for an FGMP. Platoon HQ is Platoon Leader, Platoon Sergeant and Medic. Minimum of one member of each fireteam is a Combat Lifesaver. (First Aid)

In open ground, they are not going to have equal firepower to a Lift Infantry unit. However in open ground the Lift Infantry's vehicles are likely to be very vulnerable to the Marine's support. Naval Gunfire, or Light Fighters rip right through APC's faster than a VRF Gauss Gun can shoot up a Dispersed Infantry Platoon, especially since a Lift Infantry Platoon consists of 3-4 vehicles. Now in an enclosed environment, where the Lift Infantry's vehicles either can't operate or operate only in very limited ways, the Light Infantry has a major advantage. (The legs in my Marine Armor move the Marine at 15-20kph)

No argument about enclosed spaces. I agree completely.