BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Actually since they are shoot through grenades, there is no reason that everyone can't go into combat with these loaded.
Mercenary and Military Unit Tactics
- Thread starter BetterThanLife
- Start date
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Many Class C starports will have a small military and/or scout section available, and most will have refined fuel available, or at least a fuel refinery. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually the rules on a Class C Starport say no refined fuel available. But the point I was making was that there are quite a few reasons that the fight might not take place on the ground, even when the ground is available.
Many Class C starports will have a small military and/or scout section available, and most will have refined fuel available, or at least a fuel refinery. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually the rules on a Class C Starport say no refined fuel available. But the point I was making was that there are quite a few reasons that the fight might not take place on the ground, even when the ground is available. </font>[/QUOTE]That's not the way it works in my universe.
I think it's pretty reasonable, but it's up to you. If you take it, then the fight might not take place there because both sides want to capture the fuel refinery.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Use commercial shuttles at the starport... </font>[/QUOTE]"I need to charter 4 of those, and 2 of those. We need to go here, about 2 klicks from the main rebel stronghold."
I can see that going over well.
Or "I need to charter these 4 shuttles, we are on our way to break the Longshoremen Union's strike. Thanks."
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Well you'd have no trouble chartering or flying commercial shuttles to land troops and materiel at the starport. Soldiers fly commercial passenger flights to warzones pretty regularly in the RealWorld, just not into combat. The difference in the game is that shuttle flights are routinely expected to handle hazardous cargo so there'd be no problem landing combat ready troops.
Renting vehicles to get them from the starport to the battle, that is going to be a tough sell at the AVIS counter
Get the full insurance package
Renting vehicles to get them from the starport to the battle, that is going to be a tough sell at the AVIS counter
Spiderfish
SOC-12
Use commercial shuttles at the starport... </font>[/QUOTE]"I need to charter 4 of those, and 2 of those. We need to go here, about 2 klicks from the main rebel stronghold."
I can see that going over well.
Or "I need to charter these 4 shuttles, we are on our way to break the Longshoremen Union's strike. Thanks." </font>[/QUOTE]I thought you were a military man? Surely you're not suggesting we should land vunerable civilian shuttles 2 klicks from a hostile enemy?
Or is this some ingenious plan of Hogmanay Melchett proportions?
Baaah!
Yes and no.
I've never been Armoured Infantry and am not too knowledgable on the theory or practise of fighting from an IFV. But recently I watched a documentary on UKTV History called "Fighting the War", or something like that, following HM Forces in the opening stages of the Iraq War in 2003.
In one "scene" from the documentary some soldiers come under fire and they decide to take cover inside their warriors. According to your wisdom they should have dispersed to minimize their casualties.
IIRC correctly under Striker rules I don't think you can kill the example TL15 Grav-APC with a RAM grenade. Bonded Superdense armour etc.
And you can put some weapons on said Grav-APCs which far outgun an FGMP-15. There is an TL15 Imperial Marine G-APC in the Striker book on vehicles, it had considerable firepower as I said was very well armoured.
The Striker IM G-APC had far more firepower than that though. Again I must use IIRC, but think tactical nuclear weapons. That APC may as well have been a tank.
If the main rebel stronghold is about 2 klicks from the starport, you've got a bit of a problem. You might want to land somewhere else in that case.
Using a military unit to break a strike is probably overkill, but in this case you might have your own shuttles.
---
Obviously my point was that hot landing zones aren't the rule. Equipping a (standing) unit as if it was is a fine way of flushing huge amounts of money down the tubes.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Use commercial shuttles at the starport... </font>[/QUOTE]"I need to charter 4 of those, and 2 of those. We need to go here, about 2 klicks from the main rebel stronghold."
I can see that going over well.
Or "I need to charter these 4 shuttles, we are on our way to break the Longshoremen Union's strike. Thanks." </font>[/QUOTE]I thought you were a military man? Surely you're not suggesting we should land vunerable civilian shuttles 2 klicks from a hostile enemy?
Or is this some ingenious plan of Hogmanay Melchett proportions?
Baaah! </font>[/QUOTE]Actually I would like to see the idiot that would allow that charter.
Yes and no.
I've never been Armoured Infantry and am not too knowledgable on the theory or practise of fighting from an IFV. But recently I watched a documentary on UKTV History called "Fighting the War", or something like that, following HM Forces in the opening stages of the Iraq War in 2003.
In one "scene" from the documentary some soldiers come under fire and they decide to take cover inside their warriors. According to your wisdom they should have dispersed to minimize their casualties. </font>[/QUOTE]That depends on what is being fired at it. But yes, in general if you are under fire, you don't want to be in the vehicle. One hit from an RPG or equivalent, and everyone inside is toast.
Much depends on which rule set you are using. One of the problems with Traveller is that, depending on the version, weapons and armor don't keep pace. (One is generally significantly, ahead of the other in Traveller.) For example in MT only a RAM grenade or an P/FGMP can penetrate and damage a person wearing combat armor. In CT a TL5 rifle can take a man in Battledress down with one bullet. In T20 Battledress can be equal to that same Grav APC in armor protection and two TL15 tanks have a very difficult time damaging each other. So it is all relative. But if we ignore the various rule foibles and replace it with what should be there in all versions, there should be an infantry weapon that can take out, not just an APC but a full tank. While an APC might have a nice weapon, it is unlikely to be much more than equivalent to a couple of support weapons.
The Striker IM G-APC had far more firepower than that though. Again I must use IIRC, but think tactical nuclear weapons. That APC may as well have been a tank. </font>[/QUOTE]First Nukes are overrated. (They tend to cause a little bit of collateral damage.) There is nothing stopping an infantry unit from having similar weapons. Second they are illegal for normal use. (Sure the Marines might use them, but other troops are unlikely to.) But if you want nukes, Nuclear MRLs, Mortars and Tac Missiles are all man portable. As are nuclear demolition charges. While RAM Grenades might not penetrate that particular APC, in that particular ruleset, there are other man portable weapons that aren't nuclear that can. (TAC Missiles come to mind.) Specific weapons depend on specific version of Traveller you are using.
Now you have an additional issue. Grav vehicles don't work in a high wind (all versions of Traveller), outside a gravity well (all but CT, which is inconclusive), or in an artifical gravity environment (conclusion of mine which makes sense, though AFAIK there is no rule for it.). Further while vehicles might provide some uses in a city, they have serious problems indoors. And all that firepower you wish to unleash is counter productive indoors. Since more than 70% of all potential battlefields in Traveller are indoors, that poses an additional problem. Buildings coming down while you are inside is a problem.
Add the fact that you have to train with the vehicles to properly use them and carry them to the combat zone, for missions where they might be useful in at most 25% of the missions, and what is the advantage? Yes, bring tanks, or light fighters, for those missions. But you don't need the APC's.
That's an excellent idea. In fact, if the stand finds themselves in an infantry fight, the "grenadier" can just shoot off his grenade at infantry instead of re-loading. Grenades don't cost all that much. From now on that will be my SOP for Striker, AHL and Snapshot...because it's a nice little insurance policy against battledress, too.
Spiderfish
SOC-12
I'd disagree, it is possible they will all survive.
BTW they took cover because the enemy were using mortars, therefore the safest place was inside the armoured vehicle. I think the enemy were Fedayeen, this was early in the War.
Better to be bunched up in an armoured vehicle than dispersed without cover.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
This is all starting to sound a lot like the conversation I overheard between an Infantry soldier and an Armored soldier. Neither one would surrender their belief that they had the safer environment in battle.
The Infantry soldier was convinced he was a low priority target compared to the tank and so wouldn't draw serious fire, and what fire he did draw would be small arms and spread among his whole unit (read "other guy gets it" syndrome). And besides small arms fire can sometimes wound instead of kill.
The Armored soldier figured he was immune to small arms fire and therefore all enemy combatants below other tanks. And of course his tank was vastly superior to the enemy tanks and could easily take them out before they took him out (again more "other guy gets it" syndrome). He wouldn't even have to worry about wounds from small arms fire.
Of course they were both wrong. The safest place to be is in an aircraft far above all that mess on the ground. No one can touch you and you just drop your bombs and head back to base for a beer after a few minutes of flying.
The Infantry soldier was convinced he was a low priority target compared to the tank and so wouldn't draw serious fire, and what fire he did draw would be small arms and spread among his whole unit (read "other guy gets it" syndrome). And besides small arms fire can sometimes wound instead of kill.
The Armored soldier figured he was immune to small arms fire and therefore all enemy combatants below other tanks. And of course his tank was vastly superior to the enemy tanks and could easily take them out before they took him out (again more "other guy gets it" syndrome). He wouldn't even have to worry about wounds from small arms fire.
Of course they were both wrong. The safest place to be is in an aircraft far above all that mess on the ground. No one can touch you and you just drop your bombs and head back to base for a beer after a few minutes of flying.
(jumping into the alligator pit) seems to me APC's have three functions - providing more mobility, protection, and heavy weapons than a squad would otherwise have.
1) while it can't provide mobility within a station or city, an APC can clearly provide better mobility between such battlefields, or around them if an infantry unit is required to redeploy from one side of a city to another.
2) protection will depend on ruleset, but surely an APC will provide better armor than battledress. also, an APC will give wounded infantry and those with damaged weapons and shot-up malfunctioning armor (aside: does anyone account for this?) a place to go and a ride out. after a serious high-tech engagement I imagine this would include just about everybody.
3) skilled and lucky infantry with RAM and RPG's may encounter situations where they can use these weapons effectively - maybe - but such man-portable weapons just aren't equivilant to a 20mm chain gun or a VRF or an A gun. no way.
where APC's can fulfil one or more of these three functions, they'll be there.
1) while it can't provide mobility within a station or city, an APC can clearly provide better mobility between such battlefields, or around them if an infantry unit is required to redeploy from one side of a city to another.
2) protection will depend on ruleset, but surely an APC will provide better armor than battledress. also, an APC will give wounded infantry and those with damaged weapons and shot-up malfunctioning armor (aside: does anyone account for this?) a place to go and a ride out. after a serious high-tech engagement I imagine this would include just about everybody.
3) skilled and lucky infantry with RAM and RPG's may encounter situations where they can use these weapons effectively - maybe - but such man-portable weapons just aren't equivilant to a 20mm chain gun or a VRF or an A gun. no way.
where APC's can fulfil one or more of these three functions, they'll be there.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
That's an excellent idea. In fact, if the stand finds themselves in an infantry fight, the "grenadier" can just shoot off his grenade at infantry instead of re-loading. Grenades don't cost all that much. From now on that will be my SOP for Striker, AHL and Snapshot...because it's a nice little insurance policy against battledress, too. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually they are RAM Shoot Through Grenades. Which means that you can either fire the grenade or use the rifle normally. (Without removing the grenade.) The nearest equivalent would be to have a loaded M203 on every assault rifle. You use the grenade if you must and use the rifle the rest of the time.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
I'd disagree, it is possible they will all survive.
BTW they took cover because the enemy were using mortars, therefore the safest place was inside the armoured vehicle. I think the enemy were Fedayeen, this was early in the War.
Better to be bunched up in an armoured vehicle than dispersed without cover. </font>[/QUOTE]If the APC takes an Anti-Tank round, nobody inside is likely to survive. At the very least everyone inside is likely to be seriously wounded.
After being inside a Tank that got penetrated by an Anti-Tank round, after the fact not during, and witnessing the damage that was caused by an APDS round, nobody inside walked away. The same goes for HEAT rounds (ATGM and RPG for example.) If the vehicle is hit by an anti-tank round, especially if it is an APC, there is a very low survival rate. Your squad just became combat ineffective.
It is amazing how much cover is in, even an open field. Basically there is always some cover for Infantry. Though some places are better than others, and being caught in the middle of an airfield tarmac is one of the few places where there is actually no cover. You might have a VFR Gauss gun but you can't kill everyone at once. Even if you get half an 8 man squad before you take an AT round, the remaining fireteam can continue the mission. (And is just as mobile as it was before taking casualties.) If the APC gets disabled and someone inside survives they are now walking. Unless they are at their objective they are unlikely to ever reach it.
Now Mortar fire would depend on the mortars. Light mortars, sure, but light mortars in any version of Traveller are unlikely to damage Combat armor or better equipped infantry.
One other point, if the mortars were ICM-DP, or worse ICM-DP smart munitions they would have all been dead. (Anti-Armor munitions as opposed to simple fragmentation.)
Actually they are RAM Shoot Through Grenades. Which means that you can either fire the grenade or use the rifle normally. (Without removing the grenade.) The nearest equivalent would be to have a loaded M203 on every assault rifle. You use the grenade if you must and use the rifle the rest of the time.
Ah yes, it is coming back to me now. That is the weapon illustraited in one of the DGP Mags. Gauss rifle up top and a GL built in under the barrel (with a three round magazine IIRC). You still have the issue of "Battle Carry" for the grenade launcher. I would think most troops would carry HE for use against other infantry, but at least one guy should be carrying AP in the chamber to take on a vehicle threat.
Ah yes, it is coming back to me now. That is the weapon illustraited in one of the DGP Mags. Gauss rifle up top and a GL built in under the barrel (with a three round magazine IIRC). You still have the issue of "Battle Carry" for the grenade launcher. I would think most troops would carry HE for use against other infantry, but at least one guy should be carrying AP in the chamber to take on a vehicle threat.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Ruleset dependent, Grav Vehicles do not provide a significant mobility increase over Grav Belt Infantry. Depending on the ruleset they are quite likely to be equal speed in the open with the Grav Belt troops being more mobile in close terrain or serious weather. (Especially T20 Battledress where the powered legs can give you a significant mobility advantage, indoors or out, where Grav vehicles can't go and switch to Grav for high speed and/or longer distances.)
And if the APC is the thing that is shot up, they are walking out. In some versions of Traveller Battledress can have every bit as much protection as a Grav APC and in some cases even better protection. Combine that with protection because of dispersal and your Light Infantry is even better protected. Carrying wounded can be accomplished in several manners. Stretcher, simple carry, and retrival are all possible. None of which require an APC.
The difference between an A Gun on an APC and three guys out of 12 with P/FGMP is minimal in most rule sets. If there was a man portable machinegun in the rules at higher tech levels (and there should be one) the same applies. As far as a trooper is concerned there is little difference between getting hit with a 20mm, a VFR Gauss gun and Tribarrel. And remember they have to actually each be hit. The APC becomes the main target, after any tanks, and will collect all the AT weapons the Squad/platoon has. There is no difference between getting hit by a Tac missile on a vehicle mount and one that is shoulder fired. There is a difference as to where each can be deployed though. Rember that Infantry goes through anti-armor drills, it isn't a question of being lucky, it is a question of training. Remember that a Lift Infantry, or Mech Infantry, squad that loses its APC loses more than half its combat capability and most of its mobility. A Light infantry squad that loses the Tac Missile Gunner can, likely find someone else to fire the weapon. Doesn't lose any mobility and in all fairness, generally loses little firepower when it comes under fire.
And on 70%+ of the worlds in the OTU where they stay on the ship and your infantry is reduced to small arms, and LPCs, what good are they doing besides taking up cubbage?
Remember the vast majority of the OTU is not The Arabian Penninsula, the Northern Plains of Germany, the Russian Steppes, Ukranian wheatfields or Kansas. The Majority of the OTU is Mars or the dark side of the moon. Little water, no breathable atmosphere and everything of importance is indoors or underground. If all you are going to do is shatter arcologies, why bother sending troops in the first place, just destroy it from orbit.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
HEDP would probably be more typical. (The AT grenades are similar to 40mm HEDP grenades that are used in an M203.) They lack the burst radius of the frag grenade but still have a decent burst radius and are useful against both target types. (Just like Tanks generally travel with HEAT loaded because it can be used against both soft targets and armored targets.)
Hmmm... So you're actually saying that most OTU troops would be more akin to Marines (i.e. soldiers trained to fight inside pressurized tight quarters) than to "traditional" ground-troops?
About the proportion of habitable worlds in the OTU, this is a subject for a different thread; I've started such a thread here.
Similar threads
OTU Only:
Fleshing out the Extolay system (SM1711)
