Mercenary and Military Unit Tactics

[Ranger]

I seem to recall a few of us had this discussion a couple of years ago or so under the topic of Marine TO&E. My position at the time was that there would probably be two different TO&Es, one "light" and one "mounted."

In Striker, didn't most vehicles mount an anti-missle laser defense system to take out incoming ATGMs? That would make the vehicles more secure for the infantry to ride in them.

I also seem to recall that, though the vast majority of worlds are not "Earth like," the bulk of the Imperium's population and economic power is centered on the relatively few HiPop worlds that are more Earth like. At least that was the way it was presented in MT.

 

[Ranger]

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.)

True, but I don't recall that being an option in Striker. I could be wrong though, and all of my stuff is across the Atlantic at the moment, so no chance to check if my memory is correct.

I still think a cheap disposable AT rocket grenade would be part of the equipment mix in the future. If a 30mm RAM grenade can be that effective, imagine what a 60mm RPG could do at TL 12.

 

[flykiller]

And if the APC is the thing that is shot up, they are walking out.

sounds like target-range syndrome - "look what the enemy can do to us." turn it around and think of what you'll do to them. yeah, a squad of infantrymen may get one or two hits on some APC's, but in that kind of contest most of the time the VRF and lasers and A guns will carry the day.

In some versions of Traveller Battledress can have every bit as much protection as a Grav APC and in some cases even better protection.

(laugh) for a powered vehicle to be unable to mount weapons and armor better than that carried by an infantryman makes no sense, whether rule or not.

I largely share your view of the typical operating environment of marines - close quarters, inhabited areas, restrained firepower, otherwise why not just call in the navy? - but they'll still need deployment, support, and recovery, especially for long-term long-range ops, and APC's are the best way to do that.

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by flykiller:


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.

IMTU the Marine Support Vehicle is a 50 dton small craft that provides room for troops to unarmor, relax, recharge their battledress, and generally serves as a home away from the ship. It also has a nuclear damper, battlefield meson screen (my own invention, out of FFS), long-range point defense X-ray lasers, and a first-aid station. It is not a fighting vehicle (that's the job of the Marine Combat Vehicles) and is only sent down from the ship if the mission is likely to take more than a day or two.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And if the APC is the thing that is shot up, they are walking out.

sounds like target-range syndrome - "look what the enemy can do to us." turn it around and think of what you'll do to them. yeah, a squad of infantrymen may get one or two hits on some APC's, but in that kind of contest most of the time the VRF and lasers and A guns will carry the day.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually planning for that contingency is important. If a Squad of Infantrymen is fighting a platoon, they are in trouble anyway. For a meeting engagement of equal sized units, you are, in most APC's in the real world and in Traveller, dealing with one main weapon. The squad of dismouonts gets to unload, if moving tactically, everything they have at the APC. Some of it may be ineffective, but there will be some anti-armor weapons in a Light Infantry squad, and the squad gets to use all of them. In the same timeframe the APC gets to engage Infantry targets, one at a time. The movies aren't even close, you can't sweep a field, even an open field, with a machinegun and kill everyone. (In fact automatic weapon fire is quite inaccurate and you are more likely to put their heads down than actually hit anyone.) Most automatic weapon use, with the exception of supressive fire, are designed for short concentrated bursts. Suppressive fire is designed not to kill or wound people but to put their heads down. (Which is important, but also limited in effect.) And autmoatic weapon fire is placed down a narrow cone along the route the enemy is likely to approach.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In some versions of Traveller Battledress can have every bit as much protection as a Grav APC and in some cases even better protection.

(laugh) for a powered vehicle to be unable to mount weapons and armor better than that carried by an infantryman makes no sense, whether rule or not.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually it does make sense when you look at it. Especially the real effect of armor is to limit effective fire, not just fire. First an individual is a bit harder to hit than a vehicle. Now a small fast moving crossing target is a real bitch to engage. Current equivalent is to look at ADA systems. They flood an area with rounds hoping for a hit. Turrets and pintle mounts don't move that fast. You are engaging small fleeting targets moving at 100kph or more that are shooting back at you. And unlike a firing range, they are unlikely to be obliging to not take advantage of all the terrain. Unless you are on an airfield tarmack, there are places to find cover. Also remember that big vehicles can't find cover as easily.

I never said that the infantryman can carry the same weapon as a tank. We aren't talking about tanks. We are talking about APCs. Remember the job of the APC and the IFV is to carry Infantry. The majority of their volume is dedicated to carrying their troops not to carrying a BFG and ammo for it. Yes the 25mm on a Bradley, or an LAV is something a soldier can't expect to carry, but it isn't, for practical purposes, anything much more than a big machinegun. And for most purposes 3 machineguns provide just about as much firepower. There are differences. The 25mm is designed to supress infantry, defeat light armored and unarmored vehciles. The Machinegun is designed to supress infantry and defeat unarmored vehicles. (For armored vehicles the Infantry has other weapons.) The 25mm will supress in one direction at a time, multiple machineguns can supress multiple directions at once. The 25mm will destroy unarmored vehicles as will a machinegun. The 25mm will defeat the armor of another IFV, one at a time. The light anti-armor weapons of an infantry squad will do the same. (And use the machineguns to pin down the infantry in that IFV to keep them in the kill zone of the anti-armor weapons.) In some situations one method is superior to the other, but which one depends on the exact situation.

I largely share your view of the typical operating environment of marines - close quarters, inhabited areas, restrained firepower, otherwise why not just call in the navy? - but they'll still need deployment, support, and recovery, especially for long-term long-range ops, and APC's are the best way to do that.

Long term, long range ops (With or without gravity) are actually more efficiently handled by small craft. You think that an APC is heavily armed? How about putting a platoon of APC's against an assault boat. You get the same effect as the APC's against a infantry fireteam, not against an entire squad. And starship weapons, in virtually all versions of Traveller, are extremely effective against all armored vehicles. Remember that assault boats sensors, and weapons have a much greater range than anything mounted on a tank, much less an APC as well. They can be used for boarding actions against starships, high ports, bases etc. they can operate in any environment that the APC can operate plus some. They are, generally quite a bit faster than APC's as well. When you aren't using them as assault boats they have other uses. APC's are single use craft. That use is limited to specific situations. While waiting for those specific situations they are just taking up space.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
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.

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. </font>[/QUOTE]My thoughts are yes, the majority of military units will consider fighting indoors in Pressurized environments to be their primary occupation.

It makes sense when you look at the probable battlefields. Especially when many of the "habitable" worlds are likely to be marginal. Unlike Firefly/Serenity, in the OTU there is little to no teraforming going on. Further just because a person can breathe in a Thin or Dense atmosphere, doesn't mean they would want to, and on those worlds you are also likely to find many examples of Arcology living. (Especially at the low (thin) and high (Dense) ends of the spectrum, and especially after TL8 where Arcologies become rather practical.

Further once you get away from the main world you run into approximately 90% of those locations having no breathable atmosphere and in some cases even less gravity. (Yet plenty of industry and other reasons to fight over them.)

Higher population worlds may also tend toward Towers or Hives (David Weber's Honorverse or WH40K respectively.) even on a habitable planet.

In all of those cases your Grav APC becomes useless. And none of that takes into account the weather. (High winds and Grav vehicles don't get along.)

Couple that with the fact that Grav APC's only offer, in those locations that you can use them, at best, marginal performance improvement over armored troops with Gravbelts and Mech Infantry runs into quite a bit of, is it a practical use of limited Cubbage?

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by atpollard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ranger:
The disposable and reusable ATGL/RL goes away once the RAM Grenade appears as I recall. But I don't think that the Striker solution is what most armies would chose. The only way I can see that really happening though is if you have some portion of the force carrying the grenades loaded as their "Battle Carry."

Sad that I can get a rifle with a Grenade launcher today, but cannot find one at TL 10. </font>[/QUOTE]In CT it falls under grenade launcher. It describes the M79. (Which, for when it was published, was the current thinking on Grenade Launchers.) Instead of going withthe M203 style they went with the old rifle grenades, which had been around since the 1940s. IMTU that thinking has been replaced with the over-under concept currently in favor for the forseeable future. (In the OCIW concept, which was canceled because the tech isn't quite there to make it practical and economical, the Grenade Launcher actually became the over barrel.)

 

[atpollard]

On Grav Belt or APC:
Costs look about the same for the Belt vs Vehicle. With Battledress, the PGMP and FGMP convert infantrymen into IFVs. Without the PGMP and FGMP, it appears that the vehicle mounted weapon has the potential to add significant firepower.
APC vs INDOORS:
A MBT or G-Carrier may be too big for urban combat (which is what we are actually talking about). Multiple 4 man craft might work better than 1 large transport - a jeep could probably fit in any room/space big enough to transport a piano through. Since few people would want to live in an office building with narrow halls, we should probably think along the lines of a jeep in a shopping mall.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by atpollard:
On Grav Belt or APC:
Costs look about the same for the Belt vs Vehicle. With Battledress, the PGMP and FGMP convert infantrymen into IFVs. Without the PGMP and FGMP, it appears that the vehicle mounted weapon has the potential to add significant firepower.
APC vs INDOORS:
A MBT or G-Carrier may be too big for urban combat (which is what we are actually talking about). Multiple 4 man craft might work better than 1 large transport - a jeep could probably fit in any room/space big enough to transport a piano through. Since few people would want to live in an office building with narrow halls, we should probably think along the lines of a jeep in a shopping mall.

But why would you bother with a jeep in a shopping mall? Especially if your BD is about as fast as a jeep, when using legs and has no issues with stairs. Grav belts would allow assent or decent in many cases using elevator shafts, air ducts etc, plus decent speed down these large halls. (Depends on what version of BD you are building of course.) While CT doesn't really provide rules for design of BD, MT and T20 do. (I would think that FFS I and II would as well.)

 

[BetterThanLife]

I am kind of curious about other's idea of Artificial Gravity Fields and Grav vehicles interacting. I personally don't allow it. But if you want to stop this kind of nonsense in your Shopping mall hallways, just install some gravity generators and adjust the gravity. Suddenly the Vehicle (Or the idiot using a Grav belt, careens out of control into something hard, generally the ceiling or floor, though some interesting things can be done with the walls and this concept as well causing you to bounce off the walls.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by far-trader:
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.

Except of course for those nasty SAMs and/or enemy aircraft.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
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.

Except of course for those nasty SAMs and/or enemy aircraft. </font>[/QUOTE]Of course

And while Infantry and Armored each thought the other had rocks for brains they agreed at least they had brains unlike the Pilot. Didn't he know pilot's lives in combat were measured in minutes?

All were equally high morale wise as to their chosen military career, all for different reasons. And I'm sure they all had a take on why they'd never be in the Navy too. And would have for Space in the future

Not sure I really had a point to add to the discussion, it just seemed a lot of points being made as universal without looking at the other sides.

 

[Anthony]

Actually, it's pretty clear which forces have it the safest. Forces not serving in a combat zone do have casualties, but usually lower than those in a combat zone

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
I am starting a thread about military tactics. There have been several discussions about Lift Infantry vs. Light or Grav Belt Infantry. Especially in the OTU. So I figure I should point out a few things and see where we can go from there.

I personally think that Lift Infantry, especially given limited transport space aboard starships becomes obsolete when the grav belt infantry becomes feasible.

With the title Mercenary & Military tactics this becomes problematical.

A Planetary Army or the Imperial Army will alwyas be able to budget MORE than a mercenary unit, so if they have them, and have the transports, "they will come on," as Henry V-ala Shakespeare said.

Standing OTU merc outfits, IMTU seldom exceed regimental size, even those owned under the dual clause of *Huscarls*, which limits a Noble's personal standing armies IMTU.

Note the difference between Personal Army/ Huscarl & a Planetary Army (5FW boxed set-there are 25x 20K TL-15 divisions on Rhylanor alone!).

Now to the topic of Lift/ Grav IFV troops vs Grav Belted drop troops/ Battledress with grav unit , etc..

+Cost per vehicle (Grav IFV) outweighs towards the Grav Belt, which is cheaper, and a 1-man device. FACT.

+ Cost in training a Grav IFV operator (a free homeworld skill 0 with TL-9 or A+ in most TU's), vs an individual specialized skill like Pilot (Grav Belt)...arguably shifts the other way, IMO. Same as T20's Battledress feat for use of that mobile armored suit (yay RAH!)

Why?

If you come from a world where you must obey Grav traffic laws, learning to drive in formation and support one another is easier already.

Its a bit more difficult when you yourself as both vehicle and trooper must do everything the vehicle does with 2-3 operators within it (scan/ check altitude/ check freindlies to left and right/ maintain comms/ and perform combat operations--all by yourself.

IMTU, troops of this caliber and equippage are elite at best, and extremely proficient/ veteran-class at worst. The TRAINING demands it. You might be able to stare down a low-mid tech level tank, but if they shoot you witha 7cm+ shell, and the suit survives, you the meat inside will absorb the killing concussive force. With mobility, you lessen risk of this, and can attack with man-portable weapons lower tech level vehicles from vulnerable top deck armor.


Now, the mercenary outfit that can AFFORD this equipment will have to consider costs a planetary government never blinks at.

It (the merc unit):
+ exists to do a job
+ exists to make money
+ Provides both an outlet for out-of-work professional soldiers (no war lasts forever) & a market for planets ending wars to shed themselves of excess arms (See Instellarms,LIC the premier Arms broker of the Imperium!)

A unit could certainly, plausibly have this equipment, the rules allow for it aye.

But how many individual professionals skilled in its use can they afford to maintain?

The Merc unit looks at Military operations from the cost-effective end primarily. The fewest men, the cheapest weapons, and the best leadership possible--a controversial appoach regular Armies take opposite of them (More & more men, the best weapons, leaders we trained ourselves, cost is up to our government).

The Merc outfit's tatics will resemble a regular Army's at the small unit level. But usually being thier own show, and the client/ patron somewhere lese, have to rely on being the best at thier job, and the equipment they choose reliable, rugged, easy to maintain, and field proven.

They do not have lives to waste when "on-the-job"/ticket. Its best to pack ammunition common to the world they're ticket is on, as a cost effective measure in case of capturing enemy stores for example.

The world's environment and tech level will preclude some units--naturally a merc unit from a prestellar world with a breathable atmosphere won't do well on a world without one. In fact, they'd be fools to accept the ticket, IF it was offered to them in the FIRST place (which IMTU, does not happen).

So, air-breathing vehicle capable units will fairly be relegated to habitable worlds with assets/ cities, populations the client wishes to control when things go astray of the client's wishes.

On low gravity non assisted air-breathing worlds (Atmo Types 0-3/ A, B, C), you'll need a unit skilled in that environment. More later--I'm off to work.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
Now to take this into Traveller consider the following. While tech levels vary, and rule sets vary, several things remain constant.

1. Roughly 60%-70% of all main worlds within a sector lack a breathable atmosphere.

In rough estimates, you are correct BTL.

2. An additional 10% of main worlds are likely to have other reasons that the population does not live in traditional outdoor buildings and cities. Lack of land, (90%+ Hydrographics for example), lack of sufficient gravity, too much gravity, weather, etc.

A.) In the Water Hydrosphere worlds 9-A, correct again sir. Submersible or TL-12 triphibian (Air-sea-land-orbital) grav vehicles become your best viable option there, using the MT-era TL charts here that I am..

B.) As long as the world holds an atmosphere that a carbon distillate air-breathing engine can function on however, gravity becomes moot. Shot and shell may travel farther & needs to be adjusted for, but a 25-60ton AFV/ IFV (mass tonnes) vehicle will still cling to the surface.

C.) On Your Trace atmospheres (1-3) worlds, you pretty much have to commit your traditional mechanized/ motorized force elsewhere, as the thin air and weather require rebreathers (TL5) for the troops alone, let alone possible hostile environment protective gear/ outfits.

METTCC concept here: Men-Equipment-Time-Terrain-Cost-Collateral damage.

3. Many systems have outposts, bases, cities, industrial concerns, etc. that are not on the main world.

Not everyone details out their systems with LBB6, or MT's WBH, or whichever system ruleset they may use, but your point is correct, if the GM applies his noggin and available books of resource to his/her fav variant of the TU for fleshing our a star system.

4. All Class A Starports, Most Class B Starports and some Class C Starports have some kind of Orbital Facilities, AKA Highport.

Agreed: Here there are factors which go back to CT days for canon, and proceed to the present day T20/ GT era:

Pop 5+, TL8+, and C-class port + have orbital stations. Thus Population 4, TL7 or less worlds (even if a Starport A, B, or C resides on it) have no Highport. The exception to the rule is the asteroid belt system ( Y000WXY-Z ), which is already "orbital".

The basis for this was used by the author of JTAS #19's article "Orbital Habitats", which for canonista's was set in the TU data wase at 1110 Third Imperial Year.

5. Due to these circumstances, while there are places where traditional Mech Units may function, they are the exception not the rule.

Am I missing anything here?

The 20-30% breathable worlds where mechs can be traditionally used of course

Amphibious mechanized vehicles go back to TL6 (WW2 era, US tracked landing craft used by the Marines) fill the Hydrosphere 9 gap nicely for cheap way-to-go (Spoiler: I finally watched Flags of our Fathers last night). Okay--that covers only islands.

Underwater cities begin at TL8, so anyone at TL7 is living on the surface somewhere (Giant Oil derrick-towns, or floating cities, ala kevin costner's bomb *Waterworld*? Higher tech & Population, means undersea dwellings, and above TL-D, weather control!

Granted the use of LBB6, and MT's WBH set forth a standard and refined standard for fleshing out other moons, and planets of a system does not diminish the number of UWP listed systems of the Traveller Imperium.

if anything it ADDS worlds to the already KNOWN systems, i.e. the "Mainworld". This therefore skews some of your numbers BTL.

I can concur however, it adds to the worlds less habitable, as science is showing us that only two orbits past a Primary star we may find worlds with breathable atmospheres in the 'middle'-Outer zone (WBH & TNE HB carry rules for this), just as they conclude that worlds of the inner zone will be devoid of water altogether (Scorching desert worlds, atmosphere undetermined based on size).

I have in "fleshing out" a system IMTU often found a cooler more temperate larger garden world to the inimical/ inumerable rockball X100WXY-Z worlds the Imperium seems to have--and in so doing, utilized them as in-system colonies of the mainworld for farming or Mining communities for resources the listed UWP-mainworld did not possess.

And a dandy place for a colonial rebellion and a Merc ticket to put down or the Millions-billions of mother mainworld will starve!

often as not the colony's starport class is -1 of mainworld's, and unless a military base, a Naval base, Scout base, or research base is present (Atmosphere must = Mainworld's after all for Base type "M"/ Pop 3+ for Scout/ Navy installation, as well as Base present at Mainworld) suffer a -1TL differential from the main/parent world.

Say (main)world B100898-8 De Va 412 M2 V (orbit habitable Zone 0) has a colony world in cooler Middle/outer orbit 2: C554665-7 Co Fa Mn 412.

Colony revolts, refuses to ship foodstuffs, closes down the colony's downport.

breathable atmosphere, low gravity, downport must be retaken, food shipments must resume or mainworld's 100's of millions will starve..the mainworld's breadbasket world is holding out for--better wages, lower law/more freedoms, whatever.

As its not between the stars, but within the star system, its a local matter most presume. IMTU, as long as the revolting colonists aren't shooting any Imperial Navy or Imperial Passenger liner vessels, its on the mainworld govt's shoulders to fix.

 

[Liam Devlin]

BTL:

My thoughts are yes, the majority of military units will consider fighting indoors in Pressurized environments to be their primary occupation.

Planetary army/military units yes.

It makes sense when you look at the probable battlefields. Especially when many of the "habitable" worlds are likely to be marginal. Unlike Firefly/Serenity, in the OTU there is little to no teraforming going on. Further just because a person can breathe in a Thin or Dense atmosphere, doesn't mean they would want to, and on those worlds you are also likely to find many examples of Arcology living. (Especially at the low (thin) and high (Dense) ends of the spectrum, and especially after TL8 where Arcologies become rather practical.

Again, Underwater (Arcology) cities feasible at TL8+ Agreed. Jacques Cousteau's *Sea-Lab* was TL-7, but if made larger, and covering more area, TL8's advancements proves it a reality.

Further once you get away from the main world you run into approximately 90% of those locations having no breathable atmosphere and in some cases even less gravity. (Yet plenty of industry and other reasons to fight over them.)

Not to mention the occasional garden agro-colony 1-2 orbits out!

Higher population worlds may also tend toward Towers or Hives (David Weber's Honorverse or WH40K respectively.) even on a habitable planet.

Agreed.

In all of those cases your Grav APC becomes useless. And none of that takes into account the weather. (High winds and Grav vehicles don't get along.)

Yet an armed Grav APC can hold an arcology hostage, as can a Hostile starship from orbit. BUNCHING up the population makes it easier for LESS troops to be used to hold power over them is where i think you're missing something here.

Couple that with the fact that Grav APC's only offer, in those locations that you can use them, at best, marginal performance improvement over armored troops with Gravbelts and Mech Infantry runs into quite a bit of, is it a practical use of limited Cubage?

Depends on how you view an Arcology.

Are they like HUGE enclosed hemispheres, ala Logan's Run, or more like Cowboy Bebop where Grav vehicles can fly about under the "rooftop"?

In such latter cases, he who controls the access Grav vehicle airlocks to the outside controls who controls the dome-city by way of vehicle firepower.

Now to the AZUN-style Arcologies as seen in JTAS, a city-sized super condominium holding millions of sophonts on very little ground (a super High Tech High rise).

Control where the food and water gets in, and they're at your mercy. Damage it, threaten it, & capture it, and that City state/ building is yours.

if you had Grav vehicles or grav belted troopers, which would run out of ammo first if the Mob swarmed you determined to get to the food and water you cut off?

try those apples on for size!

 

[BetterThanLife]

Welcome to the Party Liam,

Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
BTL: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> My thoughts are yes, the majority of military units will consider fighting indoors in Pressurized environments to be their primary occupation.

Planetary army/military units yes.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually I think Planetary Armies are where you will actually find Mech units. After all they will optimize for their planet. (For various reasons, the biggest one being it is what they have developed because of their environment.)

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It makes sense when you look at the probable battlefields. Especially when many of the "habitable" worlds are likely to be marginal. Unlike Firefly/Serenity, in the OTU there is little to no teraforming going on. Further just because a person can breathe in a Thin or Dense atmosphere, doesn't mean they would want to, and on those worlds you are also likely to find many examples of Arcology living. (Especially at the low (thin) and high (Dense) ends of the spectrum, and especially after TL8 where Arcologies become rather practical.

Again, Underwater (Arcology) cities feasible at TL8+ Agreed. Jacques Cousteau's *Sea-Lab* was TL-7, but if made larger, and covering more area, TL8's advancements proves it a reality.</font>[/QUOTE]I was using Arcology as a fully contained, enclosed city, which may or may not be in a hostile environment, and yes Underwater is definitely a subset of that.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Further once you get away from the main world you run into approximately 90% of those locations having no breathable atmosphere and in some cases even less gravity. (Yet plenty of industry and other reasons to fight over them.)

Not to mention the occasional garden agro-colony 1-2 orbits out! </font>[/QUOTE]And how many of those have you managed to generate using the standard LBB6 or canon derivative?

It doesn't happen.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Higher population worlds may also tend toward Towers or Hives (David Weber's Honorverse or WH40K respectively.) even on a habitable planet.

Agreed.

In all of those cases your Grav APC becomes useless. And none of that takes into account the weather. (High winds and Grav vehicles don't get along.)

Yet an armed Grav APC can hold an arcology hostage, as can a Hostile starship from orbit. BUNCHING up the population makes it easier for LESS troops to be used to hold power over them is where i think you're missing something here.

</font>[/QUOTE]No APC's does not equate to no tanks, no artillery and/or no CAS. But if you are content to simply lob rounds at a structure, and force them into submission that way, why bother with an armored vehicle at all. There is no reason to even land troops. Drop some I-beams from orbit on it. I actually think you are missing the point on this one.

After all in that scenario you don't really need troops. And if that is your objective, why bother with the ground forces in the first place. Just because they live in a fully enclosed environment doesn't mean that your military objective is to smash it flat.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Couple that with the fact that Grav APC's only offer, in those locations that you can use them, at best, marginal performance improvement over armored troops with Gravbelts and Mech Infantry runs into quite a bit of, is it a practical use of limited Cubage?

Depends on how you view an Arcology.

Are they like HUGE enclosed hemispheres, ala Logan's Run, or more like Cowboy Bebop where Grav vehicles can fly about under the "rooftop"? </font>[/QUOTE]Now I have never seen an example of one where grav vehicles would be practical. Even if they were practical, along main routes, they still aren't going anywhere off those routes. But again, if you can run vehicles in there, for limited use, use Tanks to supplement your Infantry.

In such latter cases, he who controls the access Grav vehicle airlocks to the outside controls who controls the dome-city by way of vehicle firepower.

And control of a city requires more than firepower. (Much more than firepower.) A vastly, numerically, inferior force
moving through a city and subject to mass attack at close quarters from all angles, will be overwhelmed. This isn't the battle of Thermopylae where inferior numbers but superior training and equipment held the right ground, to eventually be overwhelmed. It is more like the roles are reversed. 300 against 200,000 where the 200,000 holds the right ground.

Now to the AZUN-style Arcologies as seen in JTAS, a city-sized super condominium holding millions of sophonts on very little ground (a super High Tech High rise).

Which is how most Arcologies are shown.

Control where the food and water gets in, and they're at your mercy. Damage it, threaten it, & capture it, and that City state/ building is yours.

But doesn't this depend on your objective? Besides it didn't work so well for the Germans in 1940. England, in a similar situation, didn't surrender. Arcologies can be largely self sustaining. Laying siege to a self sustaining entity is a waste of time. And again that assumes that your objective is the destruction or total subjugation of the population. If your objective is a key industrial facility within the Arcology?

if you had Grav vehicles or grav belted troopers, which would run out of ammo first if the Mob swarmed you determined to get to the food and water you cut off?

try those apples on for size! [/qb]

In the long run, it is the same. (Especially if they can drop sections of the roof on your vehicles.) Besides, again, this implies that no APC equates to no Armor, no Artillery and no CAS, which specifically is not what I am suggesting. I am not suggesting that the combined arms approach is a bad one, just that APC are obsolete once you are dealing with decent personal armor and Infantry soldiers that can keep up the pace of the battle without putting them in Trucks or IFV.

Especially if you have to transport said APC across interstellar distances under the Traveller rules to fight on a world where they are likely to only have limited use.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Liam,

To address your other two posts.

1. Grav belt training. Since Air/raft (Grav vehicle) -1 functions as Gravbelt skill in CT/MT and it isn't a different skill in T20, training is not as important. (Just like Vaccsuit skill is also useable for Battledress, though not use of P/FGMP in conjunction with BD.) the skill set exists and can be trained easily enough. Most people that come through the system, especially if they select for it knowing it is important will select for it when provided the choice.

2. Just because a Gravbelt is a one person craft doesn't mean it doesn't have, especially since it is a TL12+ device, an adaptive autopilot and smart sensor suite to not overwhelm the trooper. Fighters are one man craft, and look what a typical F-15 or F-18 does.

3. Just because he can fly doesn't mean that our trooper will always be flying. Think short rushes, not full time flight, when in a situation where contact is likely or even just possible. One fireteam moves, 3-5 second flight, the second, or second and third fireteam covers. Similar to Heinlein's Starship Troopers (Not the movie.) except instead of firing at the top of the arc you fire while on the ground. (More stable firing platform you are less of a target and have time to aim.

)

3. Planetary armies that have the environment to use Lift Infantry forces will likely have them. No argument there. Mercenary units, and those Units that have forces intended for a wide variety of planets are less likely to use the lift infantry model. Especially Merc units where they would be transporting things they don't need on most worlds, and expecting to use those vehicles severely limits what jobs you can take.

4. Weather Control, in the hands of the target, means that you will not be able to use Grav Vehicles. (I forgot about practical weather control.) Small craft and light forces are the order of the day. (Unless you wish to put Ground vehicles against their Grav forces.) Talk about a weapon system, I guess I should have remembered this as I was talking about Patton putting a chaplain in for a metal because of the "Prayer for Fair Weather."

5. Secondary planets that are habitable. In all fairness, I find those extremely rare. Especially since the main world is in the habitable zone by default. I am not saying they are statistically impossible but as potential tickets, they are statistically insignificant. So you are increasing the number of possible places for a Merc unit to fight, but you are not significantly increasing the number of Mech force friendly worlds. So overall by including extended system generation, while the number of worlds and potential places for tickets goes up, the percentage of places where mech forces can be employed goes significantly down.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
(There is no Gauss SAW, though there should be.)

I've made one for both CT and Striker (and Andrew Boulton has posted T4 stats for a similar weapons in the same thread); it is available here. </font>[/QUOTE]I have done stats for a TL12+ T20 Squad Automatic Weapon But canon sources lack this basic infantry weapon. </font>[/QUOTE]Depends on how one sees Challenge. They had two "Missing Links" articels, one for lasers and one for slugthrowers. The Slugthrower article has the Gauss SAW in two versions.

And TNE had a SAW, not sure wether Gauss or ETC as well as a tripod-mounted Gauss-MG.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
(There is no Gauss SAW, though there should be.)

I've made one for both CT and Striker (and Andrew Boulton has posted T4 stats for a similar weapons in the same thread); it is available here. </font>[/QUOTE]I have done stats for a TL12+ T20 Squad Automatic Weapon But canon sources lack this basic infantry weapon. </font>[/QUOTE]Depends on how one sees Challenge. They had two "Missing Links" articels, one for lasers and one for slugthrowers. The Slugthrower article has the Gauss SAW in two versions.

And TNE had a SAW, not sure wether Gauss or ETC as well as a tripod-mounted Gauss-MG. </font>[/QUOTE]The Traveller material in Challenge was canon. (Mostly MT as I recall.) Do you happen to know which issues? TNE does indeed have a Gauss SAW. (I forgot about that, probably because I never played it because I didn't like the setting.

)