Mercenary and Military Unit Tactics

[travlar]

Remote MRLs have to be placed, and I don't think they do inderect fire (being multiple rocket launchers). Also, I think I could make an APC that in invulnerable to your handheld weapons, and has plenty of point-defense.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Kaale Dasar:
Remote MRLs have to be placed, and I don't think they do inderect fire (being multiple rocket launchers. Also, I think I could make an APC that in invulnerable to your handheld weapons, and has plenty of point-defense.

Remote MRLs do indirect fire just fine. What they don't do well is direct fire, and grav vehicles really aren't very vulnerable to indirect fire (nor are battlesuits).

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Anthony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kaale Dasar:
Remote MRLs have to be placed, and I don't think they do inderect fire (being multiple rocket launchers. Also, I think I could make an APC that in invulnerable to your handheld weapons, and has plenty of point-defense.

Remote MRLs do indirect fire just fine. What they don't do well is direct fire, and grav vehicles really aren't very vulnerable to indirect fire (nor are battlesuits). </font>[/QUOTE]Since there are KEAP MRL rounds, that implies that they would work in a direct fire role in addition to the traditional Indirect fire role (Where KEAP rounds are useless.), however that would also limit their range to LOS. Further having HEAT rounds implies some form of terminal guidance. (Heat rounds do have a blast radius, but that is a secondary effect to the primary purpose of scoring a direct hit on an armored vehicle.)

Further HEAT rounds at higher tech levels have "Follow on sensors" to hit the same location twice, so while I have never seen rules describing how that works, they do have some guidance capability.

In the US Military there are HEAT artillery rounds, but they generally fall into three categories, direct fire rounds, CLGP (aka Copperhead) or smart submunitions. In most militaries they are designed strictly for the direct fire role.

Plenty of point defense is defined as what?

After all Smart Cluster munitions from an MRL barrage is a real bitch to use point defense against. You might as well use point defense against the rain. And while you certainly could build an APC that could stand up to most hand held weapons, depending on the rule set, but at what cost? In T20 a maxed out Grav Tank (or suit of BD for that matter) barring a critical hit, pretty much requires CAPITAL SHIP Fire to significantly damage it. However virtually all versions of Traveller have a way to damage a vehicle or person regardless of armor with a well placed shot.

Under the rule set I built the unit, MT, with the tanks, the unit I built costs less than 2 Astrin APCs without the Astrin being armed. Without the Tanks the entire unit costs half an Astrin APC (Again without a gun). An Astrin is vulnerable to RAM grenades in MT. Remember that doesn't include the cost of equipping your infantry, that is just an Astrin or two and those tanks will easily swat Astrins. (Without upgrading them to TL13.

)

 

[mbrinkhues]

Smart submunitions are armed at an area to start with so you need

a) Recon assets to find the tanks that can have/do have(at least in TNE/GT) massiv stealth, ECM and active camouflage

b) Fast acting rounds (those missile still spend time "in flight") that can be there before Gravtanks have left the target area with their 100+ kph NOE speed after detecting the rocket at the peak of it's ballistic arc, something that could be done by 1970s Russian Tech

c) Enough missiles to cover a large footprint AND get through any counter-míssile fire that might/will engage them before they release their Submunitions

d) Smart-enough submunition to get through the jamming/decoys and powerful enough ones to damage the vehicle

 

[mbrinkhues]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
Actually the Remote MRL is small and compact, provided you don't go overboard with number of tubes.

Remote controlled, means that a short burst transmission from one team member with line of sight. Suddenly the vehicles are experiencing Steel Rain. (This is available currently. Higher Tech would make the communication faster and more secure, the rounds would also probably be smart.)

It still means someone with LOS both to target and launcher (Satellites won't last in the HighTech war we talk about here) or a strong enough radio to get through. And forrests/ridges actually make a VERY good shield against radio, easily halving ranges (F.... SEM25/35). And even burst transmissions can be tracked.

High tech missiles, in Traveller are smart, fire and forget systems, actually the real high tech ones are Drones that are designed to stay on station for long periods of time, before getting attack orders, or finding their own targets.

Drohne missiles are costing what? The base ammo from the core MT and T20 rules books are classic missiles. TNE has a TL14+ IMPERIAL drohne missile and two loitering missiles - one a big space to ground beast similar to ALARM, one a small, slow missile. Both can be killed quite easily

These exist today. You point the round in the right general direction, give it the parameters of the desired target and turn it loose. Harpoon and Tomahawk Sea Launched Cruise Missiles have had this capability for the past 15-25 years, I believe the TLAM also has this capability, though it uses it combined with smart sub-munitions.

Harpoons and Tomahawks are HUGE and costly. Even TLAM is huge compared to the MARS/MLRS missiles or the even smaller LARS system

As for guidance, it is tough to jam a multi-spectrum passive imaging seeker, backed up by a low probability of intercept active EM system. And that is only a TL8 system.

IF you can cram something that small in a missile for a resonabel price. We are talking the replacement of classic dumb-fire missiles with minimal guidance here

40mm HEAT RAM grenades in Traveller, have guided follow on targeting. If a RAM Grenade has follow on capability, and it takes one combat round to reload then fire the follow on grenade. This implies more sophisticated passive guidance on a simple 40mm grenade. How much better would a 120mm Rocket be? Combine a MRL system with brilliant sub-munitions (Again this is current tech.) and you better have a whole lot more than a simple rapid fire weapon. This isn't steel rain anymore, this is exploding rain.

I'd like a pagequote on the target-seeking RAM grenads/follow on, can't find it in the rules. And some price estimates on the MLRS+smart round stuff. The 120mm submunitions in service today are rather stupid (MLRS use bigger missiles) with only a few submunitions per carrier

 

[mbrinkhues]

Oh and do not forget the biggest problem with BD/CA:

According to MT/TNE and depending on how one reads the GT rules the stuff is NOT availabel to most merc units legally pre 1120s(Black War in dead Impy OTU), only big ones in good standing (MT) or ones with very good connections (TNE). And Illegal suits and mercs won't work outside the Rebellion era.

And during the Rebellion era "recon by nuke" is a common tactic.

 

[Anthony]

In GT the top of the line stuff isn't available to mercs, but that may just reflect the Imperium not wanting to share, not any inherent objection to mercenaries with PA. In general, it's silly to say "you can't have PA, but tanks are okay"

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
And during the Rebellion era "recon by nuke" is a common tactic.

There you have it, vehicles are better than grav belts. I can install a nuclear screen on a vehicle, but not on a suit of battledress.

On the subject of blanketing an area with submunitions to destroy an apc, I bet that submunitions will ruin the day of a squad in battle dress just as well.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Originally posted by Anthony:
In GT the top of the line stuff isn't available to mercs, but that may just reflect the Imperium not wanting to share, not any inherent objection to mercenaries with PA. In general, it's silly to say "you can't have PA, but tanks are okay"

Actually it makes sense given the lightweight/small BD units in GT. Those beasts can enter any house etc. and make top-rate Terror tools, easy to get there, easy to get out. They can basically hide in a normal car (The Redding might even DRIVE a normal car) and a small (Thing VW VAN or SUV) vehicle allows easy in/out. Imagin <Insert Terrorist Group here> with that, the Police has no chance.

A tank is somewhat bigger and less easy to get into position on a crowded market etc. And it won't escape by running through the Sewers towards the next sector while a sole string instrument plays as sad melody

 

[mbrinkhues]

Originally posted by atpollard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
And during the Rebellion era "recon by nuke" is a common tactic.

There you have it, vehicles are better than grav belts. I can install a nuclear screen on a vehicle, but not on a suit of battledress.

On the subject of blanketing an area with submunitions to destroy an apc, I bet that submunitions will ruin the day of a squad in battle dress just as well. </font>[/QUOTE]Having once played "PMD" to clear a field of scattered "dummy" mines (the used a flare instead of the letal charge) that could not be cleared by vehicle due to a Greenie infestation, they WILL ruin the day of normal infantry.

 

[Anthony]

As a point of information: I was actually the designer for the battledress in GT:Ground Forces (I have no connection to the suit in GT:Star Mercs).

The battlesuits in Ground Forces were designed under the explicit assumption that they would be used for MOUT and boarding operations. That meant that the ability to operate inside of buildings, without destroying the building, was fairly critical. In open field combat, they will lose badly to tanks designed under the same rules.

I am also responsible for the Astrin design. I do not consider it a combat vehicle, it's mostly intended as an armored truck-analog, and includes command and medical variants. If you want to get into fights in other terrain, a light tank can kill a whole lot of battlesuit infantry.

 

[BetterThanLife]

The issue you run into in Traveller is that Tac Missiles are very ill defined and have very few definite rules. They are described as costing within a range and have a range of mass, with no definite rules to go with them in CT, MT or T20. Plenty of fluff though. Perhaps TNE or T4 have more detail. Missiles in LBB4 range from 10kg to 100kg and from Cr200 to Cr1000 with no defined differences with the exception that at TL 11 Drone missiles are replacing Artillery.

Harpoons, SLACM's and TLAMs are large but they are also using late TL7-early TL8 components.

Seeker heads in Ram Grenades and MRLs is on page 44 of LBB4.

As for size, the AGM-65 is TL7 technology, uses TV/IR target ID guidance and is 30,5cm in diameter and roughly 300kg.

More importantly, virtually all Standard Traveller vehicles, and all PGMP/FGMP systems are emitters, even without turning on the point defense systems. Jamming doesn't help if the seeker is passively tracking your signature. (The US had a TL7 ARM that was only 200kg and was only 203mm in diameter.) (A Hellfire is about 178mm, and Dragon ATGM are in the 152mm range.)

The M30 rocket, (MLRS system) is guided and has smart submunitions. (To the best of my knowledge this isn't deployed yet but should be about ready.) Call it TL8 equipment. The US, in conjunction with H&K is working on getting the cost and weight down on an infantry system featuring 20-25mm smart grenades.

With the exception of the M30 and the OICW, these example systems are now and most of them are old tech and reaching the end of their life cycle.

We are talking 4-7+ tech levels beyond this. It isn't even as likely to be as profitable a conversation as one with Leonardo da Vinci (TL2) about the Bell model 47 or Igor Sikorski's early helicopters (TL6), and Leonardo is largely credited with the helicopter concept.

As for stealthy, a Squad using battery operated grav belts, Combat Armor or Battledress (Battery) with cameoline and operating under EMCON conditions, without P/FGMP are the stealthiest thing on the Traveller battlefield. And you don't need satcom for over the horizon communications. You can use a laser and one (or two) relay drone(s) or vehicle(s) at the horizon(s). It would be out of range and LOS of the enemy and if you send messages back but it doesn't send messages forward, suing directional systems it is virtually impossible to either detect or jam.

I also think you will easily be dealing with rockets in the Mach2-Mach3 speed range. (Call it 6-9km per second.) TOT barrage before the vehicle crew really has time to react, or potentially realize it is under attack. Considering that, at these ranges that MRL barrage arrives two combat rounds later, the speed is about right.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Since we already have point defence systems (Phalanx, Goalkeeper) that can defend against supersonic sea skimmers I'd say MT electronics are easily up to it. Crew is "out of the loop" just like they are today.

 

[BetterThanLife]

However, Infantry in APC's are just as vulnerable as those infantry not in the APCs, if not more so. Infantry not in APC are, normally a lower priority target, are more difficult to detect in the first place and are spread out so are not going to take as many losses. Further Combat Armor and Battle Dress in CT/MT and Battledress in T20 are, for practical purposes, as well protected as the APC. (What it takes to get a pen result against them also gets a pen result against the APC.) If you factor in the fact that infantry in Combat Armor and Battledress gets to take better advantage of available cover, they are actually less vulnerable than that APC.

Now factor in the cost difference. In CT/MT for the price of a high end APC I can outfit a Platoon rather well. And that doesn't include the cost of equipping the infantry in the APC. If you call the weapons and personal armor a wash, You get a squad and a VFR Gauss Gun equipped speeder for less than the price of a G-Carrier. (Which isn't armored as well as Combat armor in CT or MT and the weapon in MT will not penetrate Combat armor.) Using decent APC's a Company of Grav belted troops can be fielded for the same price as a Platoon of Lift Infantry. (And using standard vehicles <=Tl13, they won't stand up to the RAM grenades of the Grav belted infantry.) Znd The cheaper guys work equally well indoors.

Now if the "electronic assistance" in BD includes Maser coms, PRIS Binos, a small neutrino sensor, directional audio sensors, inertial locator, and fire conrol gear in a HUD, it might just be worth the silly price in CT/MT after all.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
Since we already have point defence systems (Phalanx, Goalkeeper) that can defend against supersonic sea skimmers I'd say MT electronics are easily up to it. Crew is "out of the loop" just like they are today.

And those still only engage one target at a time. You are still going to get caught in the barrage.

 

[mbrinkhues]

As you are so fond of saying: That is old tech. 3-5 TL more development...

 

[jec10]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
However, Infantry in APC's are just as vulnerable as those infantry not in the APCs, if not more so. Infantry not in APC are, normally a lower priority target, are more difficult to detect in the first place and are spread out so are not going to take as many losses. Further Combat Armor and Battle Dress in CT/MT and Battledress in T20 are, for practical purposes, as well protected as the APC. (What it takes to get a pen result against them also gets a pen result against the APC.) If you factor in the fact that infantry in Combat Armor and Battledress gets to take better advantage of available cover, they are actually less vulnerable than that APC.

Now factor in the cost difference. In CT/MT for the price of a high end APC I can outfit a Platoon rather well. And that doesn't include the cost of equipping the infantry in the APC. If you call the weapons and personal armor a wash, You get a squad and a VFR Gauss Gun equipped speeder for less than the price of a G-Carrier. (Which isn't armored as well as Combat armor in CT or MT and the weapon in MT will not penetrate Combat armor.) Using decent APC's a Company of Grav belted troops can be fielded for the same price as a Platoon of Lift Infantry. (And using standard vehicles <=Tl13, they won't stand up to the RAM grenades of the Grav belted infantry.) Znd The cheaper guys work equally well indoors.

Now if the "electronic assistance" in BD includes Maser coms, PRIS Binos, a small neutrino sensor, directional audio sensors, inertial locator, and fire conrol gear in a HUD, it might just be worth the silly price in CT/MT after all.

Hmm. Not sure where you get all this from in CT. Maybe it is so in MT, but the combat system of choice for more than interpersonal battles in CT is Striker and in Striker terms 90% of what you are saying is tripe. APCs and G-carriers are FAR better protected than Combat Armour or Battle Dress. For instance, the very best BD has armour rated 18 whilst the standard G-carrier is 54 on the front. When the very best RAM grenade penetrates 38 that means your precious BD grunts are getting chewed up by RAM Auto GLs while these rounds simply bounce off APCs. The same is true of autocannon or VRF Gauss Guns - they will rip through the BD troopers but bounce off standard APCs like the G-carrier. For Cr200,000 I can fit point defence fire control on an autofire weapon on the cheapest APC and shoot down incoming tac missiles.

At least in CT/Striker it is abundantly clear that your infantry can be far better protected in an APC (even a standard APC like a G-carrier) than in BD alone.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
As you are so fond of saying: That is old tech. 3-5 TL more development...

Phalanx/Goalkeeper is late TL7-TL8. (Though the weapons themselves are older than than, I think the Vulcan is still TL7.)

As for multiple targets, in CT, MT and T20, high tech autofire still only engages one target per combat round, everyone else hit is catching strays. MT does allow "Rapid Fire" which allows engagement of a limited number of multiple targets but the cost is emptying your magazine and a reduced chance to hit.

 

[atpollard]

The Vulcan was test fired in 1949 (TL 6), but it was based on a Gatling gun (1862) powered by an electric motor (1870s for commercial use) and could have been built at early TL 4.

[Until jet aircraft, no one needed the high rate of fire and had the surplus electricity to run it.]

 

[atpollard]

At least in CT, a G-carrier with 6 gunners in shirt sleeves operating 6 RAM Auto GLs should hold its own against battledress armed troops. The weapons are area of effect, will penetrate BD, and will not penetrate the G-carrier. The empty seats can be loaded up with lots of ammo to reload.

I pity any civilians caught in the combat zone.