Mercenary and Military Unit Tactics

[mbrinkhues]

I guess there are some mis-conceptions:

a) People CAN survive a direct hit on a tank.

I know three people who did TWICE. They got a Panzer IV F2/G shot out under them during Kursk by a T34 and a late model Panther by a M26 Pershing. They survived and lived healthyly to high ages

b) An IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) is not an APC (Armored Personal Carrier)

As an unfortunate (and dead) german Corporal found out you can shoot through the side-armor of an M113 APC with armor piercing 7.62x51 NATO. The same rounds will simply bounce of the hide of a Marder or Warrior IFV. During the late Cold War some designs where in the late Prototype stage that had better armor than a Leopard I tank, even more so against HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank - The primary infantry carried Anti Tank round)

And with the various armors availabel in Traveller you can finally use ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) and Anti-Missile systems (Both availabel in TNE and GT)

You don't fight out of an APC, you don't even fight SUPPORTED by one but you can fight out of an IFV and you sure DO fight supported by one

c) Canons can fire HE (High Explosives)

That is something the GPMG can not do. With modern airburst ammo (Used in AA tanks, available/tested for Marder II IFV) they can be quite effective against soft targets. And depending on the game system the same gun can punch big holes in Battledress (TNE, GT)

d) IFV can carry bigger guns than humans

A 40mm High-Velocity grenade launcher like the GMG or the M19 is not man-portabel but easily mounted on/at an IFV as is a gun/mortar system(1) like the 2B9 Vasilek or the Brand-System. Add in guided and self-seeking ammo like MERLIN and STRYX (Available in TNE and GT) and Battledress is in a world of hurt. And mounting a missile system on an IFV isn't all that uncommon (BMP-2, Bradley, Marder,....)

Add in that vehicles have a lot better fire control and stabilisation so they hit better at longer ranges.

And even in MT they can bite back:

The 3cm Autocanon does Pen 13, 4Damage at 3km at TL-13 using HEAT, punching through anything but TL14 armor. The 6cm gun (there is no 5cm(2)) can punch through anything even at lower TL and isn't all that heavy

Mortar HEAT rounds are equally dangerous.

e) The Effectiveness of Vehicles is system-dependend

The Vehicles of TNE or GT can easily hold their own against battledress and the Battledress-Carried Weapons short of ATGM (Anti Tank Guided Missiles). And Missiles have their very own problems on a battlefield (Decoys, Ducking gunners, Smoke) They are Fusion-powered with full life support and (in MT/GT) grav compensation.

At the same time GT combat armor has around 1/6 of the armor of Battledress and the armor if TNE Battledress is rather weak.

As for vehicle speed: TNE/GT tanks have a marching speed of 500km/h while Gravbelts have about 1/2 of that.

Endurance is days-weeks for vehicles compared to hours for G-Belts (the same is true for TNE)


f) AA-Tanks don't fill the air with lead

They fire short, controlled, RADAR-guided bursts. Well, at least European systems do since they have RADAR Neither do you engage jet-fighters with guns, that's what your ROLAND/RAPIER/GECKO etc systems are for

At the same time those beasts can do a lot of damage to anything that flies. Even worse when you add lasers and other energy weapons as well as massiv stealth/cammo system and advanced optical trackers. The flyboy has less cover

g) Tanks can fight in a city

Properly supported tanks can, did and do fight in the city. They take losses but they can easily take out fortified positions and buildings

h) Maintenance and Support

Battledress and G-Belts need recharging every 4-12 hours in TNE/GT and are IMHO very maintenance intensive compared to a G-Tank (and tanks are maintenance hogs already) What you make up in cargo space you give away for maintenance units.


(1)Either firing directly or indirectly
(2)50mm Autocanons where planned/realised on the Marder II IFV of the early 1990s and 40mm is not that uncommon IRL

 

[mbrinkhues]

The "Missing Links" article is Challenge 64, page 22f.

They have a TL-12 Gauss-SAW (200 rounds, 5kg) as well as two mid-sized "Browning M2 HB" replacement Gauss-Guns


Challenge 67, Page 22f has an additional articel on pistols, submaschine guns and anti-tank rifles

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
I guess there are some mis-conceptions:

a) People CAN survive a direct hit on a tank.

I know three people who did TWICE. They got a Panzer IV F2/G shot out under them during Kursk by a T34 and a late model Panther by a M26 Pershing. They survived and lived healthyly to high ages

However that is early in the evolution of the tank and Anti-tank rounds. The spalling caused by a 105mm or a 120mm APDS round is insane. Both at the point of entry and the exit point. It is like setting off 2 large fragmentation grenades in an enclosed space, with nothing except the people to absorb the fragments. Current Generation HEAT rounds are similar though less likely to penetrate current tanks. IFV and APC crews don't stand a chance under similar fire.

b) An IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) is not an APC (Armored Personal Carrier)

As an unfortunate (and dead) german Corporal found out you can shoot through the side-armor of an M113 APC with armor piercing 7.62x51 NATO. The same rounds will simply bounce of the hide of a Marder or Warrior IFV. During the late Cold War some designs where in the late Prototype stage that had better armor than a Leopard I tank, even more so against HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank - The primary infantry carried Anti Tank round)

And with the various armors availabel in Traveller you can finally use ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) and Anti-Missile systems (Both availabel in TNE and GT)

The main difference between an IFV and an APC is age.

A 7.62mm Armor piercing round will penetrate the early M113. (But if you add a layer of .5" plywood to either the interior or exterior it won't.) And if you add it to the interior it not only will reduce penetration but there won't be any ricochets inside. (The pentagon rejected this upgrade, even though it does work. I believe the Israelis did this to their M113s which are still in service.) Heat rounds can be, in general, defeated, by adding some chicken wire to the exterior of the vehicle set off by about 6 inches. Much more effective than reactive armor. However the TowII-C is designed to defeat both of these and spaced applique armor by the simple expedient of having an additional charge set in front of the main charge. (On a probe on the front.) Other systems could easily make that adjustment, except that there is little to no real interest in Reactive armor anymore.

As armor improves so does anti-armor weapons. When first developed the M-1, Leopard II and Challenger were all impervious to all forms of anti-armor in existence, and in existence for the forseeable future. Yet the M1 has had the armor improved at least twice since inception. (I think they are actually up to the fourth armor improvement.) No matter how much the armor improves, someone will be finding ways to punch holes in it.

You don't fight out of an APC, you don't even fight SUPPORTED by one but you can fight out of an IFV and you sure DO fight supported by one

That is actually false. People have been fighting out of APC's since before they were actually invented. Armor plating on a 2.5 ton for example was a common field modification. People fought out of halftracks and Bren carriers in WWII. The difference between one of these and an APC is that an APC is generally fully enclosed. Standard doctrine for the employment of troops in an M113 called for the gunner to man the .50 cal and in the cargo hatch the squad's two M60 machineguns and M203 gunners also fired. This was formalized by the M113ACAV which had pintle mounts and gun shields for the M60 machineguns on either side of the carg hatch. When dismounted the APC provides firesupport from its heavy machinegun.

The defined difference between an IFV and an APC is that the troops and the armament of the vehicle could fire while buttoned up. The first vehicle of this type deployed, being the BMP. However since that time most IFV have forgone the firing ports for the transported squad as firing from those ports has always been ineffective and impossible to aim while on the move cross country and the firing ports were weak points in the armor. In either case the vehicle still uses its main gun (which is still basically a machinegun) in support of its squad.

c) Canons can fire HE (High Explosives)

That is something the GPMG can not do. With modern airburst ammo (Used in AA tanks, available/tested for Marder II IFV) they can be quite effective against soft targets. And depending on the game system the same gun can punch big holes in Battledress (TNE, GT)

So can a 12.7mm or a 14.5mm machinegun. And they make up for the smaller round by having a higher rate of fire.

d) IFV can carry bigger guns than humans

A 40mm High-Velocity grenade launcher like the GMG or the M19 is not man-portabel but easily mounted on/at an IFV as is a gun/mortar system(1) like the 2B9 Vasilek or the Brand-System. Add in guided and self-seeking ammo like MERLIN and STRYX (Available in TNE and GT) and Battledress is in a world of hurt. And mounting a missile system on an IFV isn't all that uncommon (BMP-2, Bradley, Marder,....)

But a dismounted squad can carry a dozen grenade launchers with similar performance to the Mk-19 when combined. (And engage multiple targets simultaneously.) (The OICW was the concept for making the squad have even more firepower than the Mark-19, but the tech isn't quite ready.) Before the first mortar was mounted on a vehicle it was man carried. Before the 30mm was mounted on a vehicle it was mounted on a carriage. In fact the Mk-19 was first deployed as a tripod mounted weapon and then as a weapon on a HMMWV.

Add in that vehicles have a lot better fire control and stabilisation so they hit better at longer ranges.

More of that depends on the gunner than the weapon and the system. And in Traveller Rifles do have firecontrol. In fact the current version of the M203 has computerized firecontrol.

And even in MT they can bite back:

The 3cm Autocanon does Pen 13, 4Damage at 3km at TL-13 using HEAT, punching through anything but TL14 armor. The 6cm gun (there is no 5cm(2)) can punch through anything even at lower TL and isn't all that heavy

Mortar HEAT rounds are equally dangerous.

e) The Effectiveness of Vehicles is system-dependend

Actually a G-Carrier in MT has less armor protection than Combat Armor. (10 vs. 18) Granted the book described Battledress is no better than Combat Armor in MT, which is the same as in CT. And the heavily armored vehicles in MT can't damage each other and the only real weapon to use against them is starship weapons. In fact small arms, in general couldn't penetrate any of the body armor.

The Vehicles of TNE or GT can easily hold their own against battledress and the Battledress-Carried Weapons short of ATGM (Anti Tank Guided Missiles). And Missiles have their very own problems on a battlefield (Decoys, Ducking gunners, Smoke) They are Fusion-powered with full life support and (in MT/GT) grav compensation.

And there lies an additional problem which I will address at the end.

However remember we are not fighting one on one here. Your IFV is outnumbered 8-12 to one.

At the same time GT combat armor has around 1/6 of the armor of Battledress and the armor if TNE Battledress is rather weak.

As for vehicle speed: TNE/GT tanks have a marching speed of 500km/h while Gravbelts have about 1/2 of that.

Endurance is days-weeks for vehicles compared to hours for G-Belts (the same is true for TNE)

In MT and T20, and I assume using FF&S, you can design Gravbelts that are every bit as fast as any Grav vehicle.

All that is nice to be able to do. Go days to weeks on a tank of gas. The problem is that there are no reserve crews or small cabins in a typical Grav APC or Tank. So what good is that kind of endurance if the crew doesn't have any way to maintain that kind of pace. Note Grav belts are also system dependent in terms of endurance. Also note that in the Real world, which isn't system dependent, M-1 tanks get gas twice a day, every day, in combat or not, running flat out or not. It, so far, hasn't been any hinderance to operations.


f) AA-Tanks don't fill the air with lead

They fire short, controlled, RADAR-guided bursts. Well, at least European systems do since they have RADAR Neither do you engage jet-fighters with guns, that's what your ROLAND/RAPIER/GECKO etc systems are for. [/qb][/quote] The Phalanx and Goalkeeper (and Soviet/Russian equivalent) are radar guided and fully automated. (They were designed and put in use in direct response to the sinking of the Sheffield during the Falkland Islands war.) Ground mounted Radar as part of an air defense system is not necessarily a good thing. Even most fighters, today, don't turn their radars on until they are looking for a missile lock. (They take direction from a radar system that is a bit farther away.) Radar systems are emitters and let the enemy know where you are. HARM and ALARM missiles are specifically designed for dealing with such systems. You don't want emitters on the modern battlefield. Further SAMS are of limited effect against aircraft. (Airdefense has only been really effective in one war. That was in 1973.)

At the same time those beasts can do a lot of damage to anything that flies. Even worse when you add lasers and other energy weapons as well as massiv stealth/cammo system and advanced optical trackers. The flyboy has less cover

Baghdad air defense was one of the most sophisticated and modern of any air defense system in the world, both in 1991 and 2003. He knew the USAF was coming. He knew when it was coming. He planned ahead for the US Airforce to arrive and he had past experience of how the US Airforce operates. Totally useless. He couldn't even shoot down 40+ year old bombers. Air Defense suppression has been raised to a high art form. Those radar controlled ADA systems will be unlikely to even get a sniff of an Apache or a Lynx before the Hellfire slams into it. Air Defense Artillery has been obsolete for over 20 years. (Which is why the US has never developed a follow on for the Sgt York.)

As for firing short controlled bursts and not filling the air full of lead, the lowest rate of fire for an Armored ADA system is in the neighborhood of 2500 rounds per minute. And no vehicle ADA system carries more than 20 seconds of ammo. (The most common of these vehicles and the only one that has actually had any success against aircraft, the ZSU-23-4 at 4000 rounds per minute carried 15 seconds of ammo.)

g) Tanks can fight in a city

Properly supported tanks can, did and do fight in the city. They take losses but they can easily take out fortified positions and buildings

I never said tanks can't fight in a city. I said that IFV's are less useful in a city. I also stated that Grav vehicles are useless in an Arcology environment. Sure you can fight using tanks in a city. But that extra vulnerability is even worse in a fully enclosed environment. Especially if the enemy controls the gravity and you are running grav vehicles. Further the same extra firepower is a liability not an asset in an enclosed environment. Even if they can fit and maneuver inside in the first place.

h) Maintenance and Support

Battledress and G-Belts need recharging every 4-12 hours in TNE/GT and are IMHO very maintenance intensive compared to a G-Tank (and tanks are maintenance hogs already) What you make up in cargo space you give away for maintenance units.

In CT gravbelts need recharging once a month. In T20 you can design them for the endurance you need. But since you have to eventually rest, according to the rules as well, and you don't have cabins on your Grav APC's or rotated crews, you have to stop anyway. Besides like I said earlier M-1 tanks get fuel twice a day every day, it hasn't proven to be a problem with that tank so far.

Except that the majority of the maintenance is at the individual level for personal armor and systems, especially if you have more of them. Besides I am recommending replacing tanks with multi-role light fighters, not Grav belts. Tanks still have a role. I am recommending dumping the Grav APCs and replacing them with Grav belts. (And since they are cheaper than the Grav APC's maintenance, in Traveller, is also cheaper.

(1)Either firing directly or indirectly
(2)50mm Autocanons where planned/realised on the Marder II IFV of the early 1990s and 40mm is not that uncommon IRL

Indirect fire and direct fire has never been the sole province of the IFV, in fact that concept predates the first armored vehicle by several hundred years. (And 3 tech levels.) A 50mm autocanon does what to a tank? Since 125mm Sabot bounce off an M1, my guess would be not a damn thing. A person getting hit by fire from a 50mm autocanon, a second person getting hit by a 25mm autocanon and a third person getting hit by a .50 cal machinegun, the difference is what? Nothing, they are all dead. As for cover, walk out on any street in any city and look around. There is nothing on that street, (Unless a tank happens to be headed down it at that exact moment) will stop a .50 cal. And a .50 cal will stop a Marder. (It may not penetrate the armor from the front but the .50 SLAP will penetrate from the side and the rear and will certainly knock off the tracks and damage road wheels.

OK Now to the part I said I would get back to. Most battledress is either fuel cell powered or battery powered. Most Grav vehicles in Traveller especially the armored vehicle types, are Fusion Powered. Earlier you mentioned Direct fire and indirect fire. Merchant sensors, in T20, (Which I believe has the worst sensors of any starship in any version of Traveller, can detect, track and lock on to fusion plants at ranges in excess of 30,000km. (Geostationary orbit is 35,786 kilometers.) That is close range for a starship pulse laser in T20. Hell at that altitude a guidance package strapped to an I-Beam is enough to kill armor. Your armor is toast. With military sensors in T20 and Merchant sensors in most other versions of Traveller you can virtually, track and pick off armored vehicles on earth from the vicinity of the moon. (Rule system dependent on exactly where in the vicinity.) Tracking Gravbelt, Equipped Infantry using nothing but passive sensors is a bit more difficult. If fired upon by Starship lasers which are targeted by the emmissions of your fusion plant, while in a tank, your first warning is when you get hit. (As Traveller doesn't have any FTL comms or sensors.)

In the real world, in the late 70s the US was developing a new weapon system, due to the overwhelming numerical superiority of Soviet Armor. This system was first used during Desert Storm and again during Iraqi Freedom. Clancy calls the system JSOWS in Bear and Dragon, aka the Smart Pig. It falls under the category of Brilliant Weapons. the way it works is that a 2000 lb cluster bomb, (though it can also be deployed by Cruise Missile, and Tactical rockets) explode high over the battlefield in the vicinity of an enemy armor formation and the submunitions their momentum carrying them over the target zone, deploy parachutes. In the nose of the submunition is a MAD (Basically a metal detector), a millimeter band microwave radar and/or a thermal imager (reports vary and all three were being considered originally.) When the submunition detects it is over an armored vehicle, it separates from the parachute, fires its rocket and attacks the armored vehicle from the top, and generally the weakest armor on the vehicle. Multiple hits are pretty much guaranteed. A pair of these cluster bombs is designed to take out between a Battalion and a Regiment. Multiple, guided, high velocity, anti-armor weapons that strike you from above. (And smoke doesn't help.) These things are designed to bust tanks, still feel safe in that Marder? And if it is the MAD or Thermo or combination of those sensors then the first indication you are actually under attack is either Mark I eyeball or impact.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
OK Now to the part I said I would get back to. Most battledress is either fuel cell powered or battery powered. Most Grav vehicles in Traveller especially the armored vehicle types, are Fusion Powered. Earlier you mentioned Direct fire and indirect fire. Merchant sensors, in T20, (Which I believe has the worst sensors of any starship in any version of Traveller, can detect, track and lock on to fusion plants at ranges in excess of 30,000km.

Neutrino sensors are not targeting sensors in most versions of Traveller. If dealing with a version of Traveller where neutrino sensors are an issue, it's just as practical to use chemical fuel for IFVs as for battle dress.

The other half of this is that, if starships can survive in orbit over the world, IFVs are useless anyway. A simple meson gun bay will make any tank vanish.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Anthony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
OK Now to the part I said I would get back to. Most battledress is either fuel cell powered or battery powered. Most Grav vehicles in Traveller especially the armored vehicle types, are Fusion Powered. Earlier you mentioned Direct fire and indirect fire. Merchant sensors, in T20, (Which I believe has the worst sensors of any starship in any version of Traveller, can detect, track and lock on to fusion plants at ranges in excess of 30,000km.

Neutrino sensors are not targeting sensors in most versions of Traveller. If dealing with a version of Traveller where neutrino sensors are an issue, it's just as practical to use chemical fuel for IFVs as for battle dress.

The other half of this is that, if starships can survive in orbit over the world, IFVs are useless anyway. A simple meson gun bay will make any tank vanish. </font>[/QUOTE]CT doesn't specify exactly what the sensors are. MT doesn't differentiate between Tracking sensors and other sensors. (Unless I am missing a rule somewhere.) It does differentiate between Passive and Active sensors though. (And allows firing using passive sensors only.) T20 doesn't differentiate between sensors in terms of what can be used to track and what can't. So that is, at most 2 out of 5 OTU and 3 out of 6 if you include GT and its nonstandard ruleset that might say you can't track with Neutrino sensors which isn't a majority.

But yes if a ship is in orbit being on the ground might be a bad idea. On the other hand a light fighter can do the same thing from the horizon. (And using missiles, over the horizon.)

 

[flykiller]

Your IFV is outnumbered 8-12 to one.

the IFV won't be alone.

A 50mm autocanon does what to a tank? Since 125mm Sabot bounce off an M1, my guess would be not a damn thing.

spoke with a sergeant, said he was in a bradley crew during desert storm. during the war they were told to avoid the T72's since the bradley couldn't take them and the T72's would simply destroy the bradleys. one day their unit came around a corner and found itself face to face with a number of T72's, and had no choice but to try and fight. he said the 25mm shredded the tanks (multiple hits), and that afterwards they went out looking for more T72's.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/m242.htm

 

[Prospero]

A 50mm autocanon does what to a tank? Since 125mm Sabot bounce off an M1, my guess would be not a damn thing.

The A-10 warhogs use a 30mm autocannon to kill tanks. Depleted uranium is a nasty thing...

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Your IFV is outnumbered 8-12 to one.

the IFV won't be alone. </font>[/QUOTE]Neither would the infantry.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />A 50mm autocanon does what to a tank? Since 125mm Sabot bounce off an M1, my guess would be not a damn thing.

spoke with a sergeant, said he was in a bradley crew during desert storm. during the war they were told to avoid the T72's since the bradley couldn't take them and the T72's would simply destroy the bradleys. one day their unit came around a corner and found itself face to face with a number of T72's, and had no choice but to try and fight. he said the 25mm shredded the tanks (multiple hits), and that afterwards they went out looking for more T72's.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/m242.htm </font>[/QUOTE]Actually I heard a similar story. Apparently the T72 has a weak spot in the turret ring. It is the only place that the 25mm will penetrate the frontal armor on a T72. It is both unexpected and unusual. On the other hand the Bradley is designed to take out a T72, just not up close and personal. Which is why it has a TOW II launcher.

A standard 50mm autocanon will not penetrate the armor of an M1. I doubt it would penetrate one even with ADFSDSDU.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> A 50mm autocanon does what to a tank? Since 125mm Sabot bounce off an M1, my guess would be not a damn thing.

The A-10 warhogs use a 30mm autocannon to kill tanks. Depleted uranium is a nasty thing...</font>[/QUOTE]The 30mm on an A10 is a different animal than a standard autocanon It works like a can opener and attacks the weakest armor on a tank, the top.

The current series of M1 tank uses depleted uranium in the laminate structure of the armor. (The forerunner of Superdense armor.) That same 30mm won't penetrate the vertical armor of an M1, though it can probably penetrate it from above and rear. (And certainly rip off the tracks.)

 

[atpollard]

If vehicles have better armor and bigger guns than an infantryman in Combat Armor and a Grav Belt, then the best combination would seem to be a swarm of small 3-man IFVs. Maximize the support weapons and armor per unit. A small 3 man vehicle with a rapid fire energy weapon could do a lot of damage to 3 infantrymen with Combat Armor.

At every TL, anything that an infantryman can carry to hurt a vehicle will have a bigger version that can be mounted to a vehicle and shoot back (or first).

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by atpollard:
If vehicles have better armor and bigger guns than an infantryman in Combat Armor and a Grav Belt, then the best combination would seem to be a swarm of small 3-man IFVs. Maximize the support weapons and armor per unit. A small 3 man vehicle with a rapid fire energy weapon could do a lot of damage to 3 infantrymen with Combat Armor.

At every TL, anything that an infantryman can carry to hurt a vehicle will have a bigger version that can be mounted to a vehicle and shoot back (or first).

Why not, very small, one man vehicles? With a dual drive system, so they aren't limited to where Grav vehicles function?

More importantly, a Tank may have more firepower than an infantryman. A Grav APC might also. But if the majority of locations for tickets are indoors, why would you invest in armor that you can't use all the time? (And you have to train with and without the armor.) Against an infantryman the extra firepower is unneeded. Against a wall or door, if you can manage to get the vehicle indoors, the extra firepower is not just unneeded but hazardous to the firing unit. Add the extra vulnerability that vehicles have from being in very restricted environments and you are putting money where you are likely to lose it. Also remember that if you wish to count the cost of the Grav IFV against the Armor and Grav belts of the Light Infantry, what are your infantrymen in the vehicle wearing for armor? Nothing?

Good luck with that.

 

[atpollard]

You do realize that even battle dress/combat armor is physically bulkier than no armor/cloth. To push your argument of 'vehicles can't go there' to the extreme, a single 0.5 meter wide corridor will allow cloth armored defenders to escape from your battledress & grav belted super infantry.

If the enemy is located somewhere that infantry cannot reach them, like a bunker, then the logical response is to destroy the bunker with the bad guys in it. The same would hold true of an IFV and domed cities.

Domed cities require reasonable vehicular access to function. How do you replace a 3mx3mx6m air handling unit in an apartment building? How do you deliver a king size bed or entertainment center to a private residence?

Tanks knock down walls to get at bad guys inside buildings. Most modern buildings employ a structural grid of columns spaced about 7-9 meters apart (the most efficient bay size for steel structures). A 2 x 2 x 4 meter grav vehicle with a rapid fire pulse laser should also be able to breech walls to follow bad guys. The Mini-IFV should easily be able to breech the light partitions and pass without destroying the support columns.

How about if my Mini-IFV includes a 0.3 m diameter drone to enter through a window and scout the buildings - then the Rapid Fire Pulse Laser shoots through the intervening partitions to kill the bad guys. Another option is to install sensors that can 'see' through light partitions.

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
Why not, very small, one man vehicles? With a dual drive system, so they aren't limited to where Grav vehicles function?

I actually thought of one man vehicles but too many weapons in CT required a 'crew' and most cannon vehicles have at least a driver and a gunner. My thought was a driver, a gunner, and a (combat armor) infantryman to dismount and clean up - a 90% IFV combat and 10% infantry combat doctrine.

I like the dual drive – wheels and grav. The JTAS had a ‘wheel & grav’ APC (by John Ford, I think) that used the grav to lighten the vehicle and double it’s ground speed.

The real problem with both the IFV concept AND the Grav Belt Infantry concept, is that most mercenaries are equipped closer to a WW2 soldier with an upgrade to a better rifle and could not afford either the IFV or the Grav belt. (but that is another topic – and an old one).

 

[BetterThanLife]

If this one man vehicle is in the neighborhood of .2 tons it will fit in most places a person will. What makes you think that Battledress is any smaller than .2 tons? (Well TNE and GT it would apparently be even smaller.)

Battledress is a one person vehicle. (Whether you call it that or not.) It is powered, and provides locomotion. Granted only T20 officially classifies it as such, but both MT and T4 had canon sources with Battledress variants with built in Grav Drive.

Including a Grav drive you can easily build one at 1/10th the cost of a Grav APC. (Especially if you take into account the cost of the armor that the Infantry inside the IFV is wearing.)

 

[Anthony]

If by 0.2 tons you mean 0.2 dtons, it's impossibly large for battledress. A typical human body is somewhat under 0.1 cubic meters or 0.007 dtons, and any substantial increase in volume will reduce mobility just like wrapping a person in layer upon layer of clothing. The practical upper limit on battlesuit volume is probably on the order of twice the volume of the wearer, though you can add a bit of extra volume as a 'hump' or backpack.

The T20 design system is lousy. Using it to prove anything about realism is a waste of time.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Anthony:
If by 0.2 tons you mean 0.2 dtons, it's impossibly large for battledress. A typical human body is somewhat under 0.1 cubic meters or 0.007 dtons, and any substantial increase in volume will reduce mobility just like wrapping a person in layer upon layer of clothing. The practical upper limit on battlesuit volume is probably on the order of twice the volume of the wearer, though you can add a bit of extra volume as a 'hump' or backpack.

The T20 design system is lousy. Using it to prove anything about realism is a waste of time.

So use MT and build the suit. I personally like the T20 system. I also think it nicely captures the CT rules while updating them and making them more consistent, and it doesn't get too bogged down on minutiae. (Which means the system is playable.)

That doesn't invalidate the fact that no matter what you call it, battledress is still a vehicle.

 

[mbrinkhues]

BTL:

(Not doing another quote, message is complex enough already)

If you can design a better Gravbelt/Battledress, I can just as easily design a better IFV or tank. You compare appels (Self designed systems) with peaches (Stock vehicles)

An M203 and an Mk19 are quite different beasts. The M203 (or my old HK69 GraPi) fires a 40x46mm out to 400m at the most, the Mk19 (or the HK GMG/GMW) fire a 40x55 out to 2000m. The HK69 comes in around 2kg, the GMG 60+kg (both loaded and ready to fire)

That indirect fire is not new is quite clear to me. The same with "man portabel" mortars. But I am also aware that "man portabel" is applied to anything that can be lugged around in multiple loads of 20+ kg each (even a 60mm mortar weights 21kg today). Not to mention that someone has to lug around the ammo. I have seen the same mortar (120mm Brandt) deployed from a towed and a tracked chassis. Even so the guys in the tracks where Reservists and the guys with the towed units where active soldiers, deployment and movement was much faster for the M113 based variant (1)

On AA-tanks: The US is about the ONLY nation not to build a new / upgrade a current (Sgt. York never worked) AA-tank. And a mobile AA-tank is not equal to a SA-2 site, those beasts actually can fire on the move and they CAN attack Apaches. Been there, seen AH64 meet Gepards during an exercise. Poor Indians. Not to mention that most modern systems have optical seekers too. Same with mobile SAM systems that most nations have and modernise/introduce new regularly

50mm does not do much to a tanks frontal armor. It might hurt the back or sides. It will surely hurt vehicles, buildings and battledress. Not to mention a high rate of fire

The Iraq System actually was OLDER than the B52 and unlike the BUFF was not modernised. The Iraq might have known what the US will do but they had no source of advanced weapons. Thinks will look different if the BUFF will ever have to go up against an SA-300 (SA-12 Giant) Expect a lot of scrap metal dropping from the sky. And those beasts are mobile. Look at NATO vs. Serbia for the amount of fear modern mobile SAM put into flyboys, they stayed above 5000m to avoid those(2)

Spalling is something at least partially countered in modern tanks due to hull construction, kevlar liners etc. And tank design coupled with armored bodysuits (Combat Environment Suit i.e) can do a lot

ERA vs. Tandem Warheads is a race that is still going on. The Russians developed better ERA and added active ATGM defence systems (ARENA/SHTORA)

And as for the Starship: I can mount some nice Ground-Orbit missiles on the tank, shooting back at the starship. And I can use Neutrino sensors just as well, actually better since the ship has less to hide

(1) German "Type 1" Jäger Batallions used 4x4 Trucks and towed mortars, "Type 2" used M113 Personal Transport Vehicles (M113 are NOT tanks by german standards) and the 120mm variant of the M106
(2) The Serbs had rather modern short range systems but lacked modern long range/high altitude units

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
BTL:

(Not doing another quote, message is complex enough already)

Works for me.

If you can design a better Gravbelt/Battledress, I can just as easily design a better IFV or tank. You compare appels (Self designed systems) with peaches (Stock vehicles)

Actually in most systems the Astrin and the Empress are the limit in what you can cram into an APC at a reasonable size. And are not "Stock Vehicles" but T4 and MT both have improved versions of Battledress which would serve just as well as building them. Reasonably comparing Apples to Apples you would be comparing G-Carriers and Grav-Belted infantry in either BD or Combat Armor. The cost is about equal (without including what the troops inside the G-Carrier are wearing.) and they are both from the basic book.

An M203 and an Mk19 are quite different beasts. The M203 (or my old HK69 GraPi) fires a 40x46mm out to 400m at the most, the Mk19 (or the HK GMG/GMW) fire a 40x55 out to 2000m. The HK69 comes in around 2kg, the GMG 60+kg (both loaded and ready to fire)

However, the practical differences are 1. the range and 2. how many targets can be engaged at once. The Traveller equivalent of these weapons have equal range for the vehicle mounted system and the Infantry system. You can also, in general get infantry a whole lot closer to the target than you can an APC. Further while that is maximum range, practical range in a built area is about equal. The maximum ranges only really count in nice open fields, and in the Desert. In Traveller most of your combat will not be occurring in nice open deserts or fields.

That indirect fire is not new is quite clear to me. The same with "man portabel" mortars. But I am also aware that "man portabel" is applied to anything that can be lugged around in multiple loads of 20+ kg each (even a 60mm mortar weights 21kg today). Not to mention that someone has to lug around the ammo. I have seen the same mortar (120mm Brandt) deployed from a towed and a tracked chassis. Even so the guys in the tracks where Reservists and the guys with the towed units where active soldiers, deployment and movement was much faster for the M113 based variant (1)

However in all fairness Mortars have really been obsolete since 1947 when the British developed and deployed the first Counterbattery Radar. The mortar has been reduced to a terrorist weapon fired from within civilian population centers. Counterbattery rounds can be on their way before your mortar rounds land. Though they can be used in a situation where you have Air Supremacy and the other guy can't turn on his radars. However they are cheap, easy to use and easy to carry so they will still be around for a while.

On AA-tanks: The US is about the ONLY nation not to build a new / upgrade a current (Sgt. York never worked) AA-tank. And a mobile AA-tank is not equal to a SA-2 site, those beasts actually can fire on the move and they CAN attack Apaches. Been there, seen AH64 meet Gepards during an exercise. Poor Indians. Not to mention that most modern systems have optical seekers too. Same with mobile SAM systems that most nations have and modernise/introduce new regularly

I am not saying that the ADA vehicle can't shoot anything down. I am saying that they are not and have not proven themselves effective on the modern battlefield. They are ineffective against fast movers. They pretty much have to catch a Helicopter by surprise. When they have been used in combat, they haven't given a good accounting of themselves. (And the Iraqis had scores of modernized ZSUs during Desert Storm and happened to find some more between the two conflicts.) You can put it down to bad training if you like, or improper use of terrain, or whatever, but AAA hasn't really been very effective since WWII and in the modern era AAA has been shown to do more collateral damage to the area it is protecting than to enemy aircraft. The US ditched the SGT York, which shared components with the Gepard, because it wasn't a practical weapon system that didn't hold up well in testing, especially for its cost. Whether the Gepard would work under modern combat conditions has never been tested. Personally I think it will have many of the issues that the Sgt York had and certainly wouldn't be easy to keep in ammo. (It carries about 20 seconds of ammo as I recall.)

50mm does not do much to a tanks frontal armor. It might hurt the back or sides. It will surely hurt vehicles, buildings and battledress. Not to mention a high rate of fire

But so will a 25mm which has a higher rate of fire. In fact so will a 12.7mm. There is no practical difference for that use between the weapons. (With the exception that a 12.7mm will likely only be able to de-track a tank.) And you can carry significantly more 25mm or 12.7mm ammo in the same amount of space.

The Iraq System actually was OLDER than the B52 and unlike the BUFF was not modernised. The Iraq might have known what the US will do but they had no source of advanced weapons. Thinks will look different if the BUFF will ever have to go up against an SA-300 (SA-12 Giant) Expect a lot of scrap metal dropping from the sky.

Actually the Iraqis had SA-12s. Got some more between the two conflicts as I recall as well. (The UN inspection team reported a large supply of SA-12 engines which the Iraqis were using to build ballistic missiles.) I have seen the specs on the SA-12 it doesn't impress me in an Air Defense role. In fact the Iraqis, for Desert Storm had some current (at the time) Hawk systems which were used during Desert Storm. So saying they had no modern systems isn't even close. For Desert Storm they had the latest generation of Soviet equipment and managed to pretty much rearm in the 9 years in between.

And those beasts are mobile. Look at NATO vs. Serbia for the amount of fear modern mobile SAM put into flyboys, they stayed above 5000m to avoid those(2)

If you are staying above 5000M you are avoiding shoulder fired SAMs, SA-7, SA-14, Stingers and equivalent. If you have to avoid the bigger stuff you stay on the deck.

Spalling is something at least partially countered in modern tanks due to hull construction, kevlar liners etc. And tank design coupled with armored bodysuits (Combat Environment Suit i.e) can do a lot

Yes it helps, but the loss of turrets and vehicles brewing up on a regular basis under tank fire means that it isn't all that effective. (T-72 and T80 taking M-1 fire, Hellfires and other ordinance.) Challengers, Leopard IIs and M1s might be different, but since M-1s and Challengers that have seen combat don't generally get penetrated in the first place it is difficult to tell how effective that would be. (During Desert Storm the US lost 3 M-1 tanks to enemy action. None due to anti-tank fire.)

ERA vs. Tandem Warheads is a race that is still going on. The Russians developed better ERA and added active ATGM defence systems (ARENA/SHTORA)

And is likely to keep going on. Which was my point. Armor doesn't retain an advantage over the long haul. Anti-Armor weapons vs armor go through cycles where one will do better than the other. And they are generally closely matched. Traveller doesn't maintain this within the rules.

And as for the Starship: I can mount some nice Ground-Orbit missiles on the tank, shooting back at the starship. And I can use Neutrino sensors just as well, actually better since the ship has less to hide

Under what ruleset? Vehicles have never mounted hardpoints to carry starship weapons in any version of Traveller I have seen. (It is one of the definition differences between a small craft and a vehicle.) Further Vehicles don't carry the sensors with the range to detect Starships in Far Orbit and beyond. (The sensor suites have more volume than a Tank.)

(1) German "Type 1" Jäger Batallions used 4x4 Trucks and towed mortars, "Type 2" used M113 Personal Transport Vehicles (M113 are NOT tanks by german standards) and the 120mm variant of the M106

M113 have never been considered a tank by anyone's standard.

Now bolt the mortar to the bed of the truck and try it again. Actually what takes the longest in setting up a Mortar under combat conditions is getting hte precise position of the system and the current wind conditions than the actual laying of the tube. You can't fire a mortar accurately unless you know where it is and where it is in relationship to the target. Unlike a Copperhead mortars are not guided.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
Actually in most systems the Astrin and the Empress are the limit in what you can cram into an APC at a reasonable size.

For any system, that tends to be true -- if you have extra space, you're going to fill it with something.

The GT Astrin is really more designed for light infantry, not people in full battle dress. It costs about as much as three suits of assault battle dress and holds 11 people.

 

[Golan2072]

What about warbots? I'm not talking about High Autonomous semi-AIs here, but about man-sized (or smaller), grav-powered (or tracked if you want it cheaper) well-armored weapon-platforms with a TL12 brain that is enough to comprehend simple orders from nearby Mercs. This could actually be a very good HMG (or equivalent) platform, possibly with two or more HMGs and a RAM auto-launcher. This gives serious fire-support without encumbering the Mercs themselves.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
What about warbots? I'm not talking about High Autonomous semi-AIs here, but about man-sized (or smaller), grav-powered (or tracked if you want it cheaper) well-armored weapon-platforms with a TL12 brain that is enough to comprehend simple orders from nearby Mercs. This could actually be a very good HMG (or equivalent) platform, possibly with two or more HMGs and a RAM auto-launcher. This gives serious fire-support without encumbering the Mercs themselves.

Actually Legs, or Dual Legs/Grav would be best. (Stairs and ladders.) It is an option that most Imperium citizens would steer away from but it is an option.