Striker Book 3 Remote MRL

[snrdg082102]

Evening all,

A remote MRL can be fired from a distance using a communicator signal.

Would I have to purchase two communicators?

Can I use a field telephone?

 

[sabredog]

The rules say you need commo equipment for both the gunner and launcher so depending on the tech level you would use field telephones, radio, meson commo, laser, etc. Just duplicate whatever the operator has for the launcher and you should be good. Even the field telephone since you would still need some sort of receiving system on the launcher to fire it - it would simulate a wired remote system and not strictly be a "field telephone".

It's another gray-ish spot in the rules, maybe, but easily remedied.

 

[Carlobrand]

The rules say you need commo equipment for both the gunner and launcher so depending on the tech level you would use field telephones, radio, meson commo, laser, etc. Just duplicate whatever the operator has for the launcher and you should be good. Even the field telephone since you would still need some sort of receiving system on the launcher to fire it - it would simulate a wired remote system and not strictly be a "field telephone".

It's another gray-ish spot in the rules, maybe, but easily remedied.

Keeping in mind, of course, that some of the low-tech MRLs are mechanically aimed rather than electrically controlled. You wouldn't be able to just take anything in inventory, slap wires on it and say that it was remotely controlled - your remote MRL would be a separately contracted, purchased and issued weapons system in its own right. An irrelevant detail in wargame play, but relevant in role play if your PC mercs found themselves in the position of wanting to improvise for some odd tactical situation.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello sabredog,

The rules say you need commo equipment for both the gunner and launcher so depending on the tech level you would use field telephones, radio, meson commo, laser, etc. Just duplicate whatever the operator has for the launcher and you should be good. Even the field telephone since you would still need some sort of receiving system on the launcher to fire it - it would simulate a wired remote system and not strictly be a "field telephone".

It's another gray-ish spot in the rules, maybe, but easily remedied.

Thanks for the reply and in summary:

Communicator = 2 x weight/volume, and 2 x price = 1 system for gunner and 1 system on launcher.

Field telephone simulates a wire connection between gunner and launcher and would also be 2 x price and 2 x weight/volume.

Yep, another gray area.

Thanks again for the help.

 

[sabredog]

Keeping in mind, of course, that some of the low-tech MRLs are mechanically aimed rather than electrically controlled. You wouldn't be able to just take anything in inventory, slap wires on it and say that it was remotely controlled - your remote MRL would be a separately contracted, purchased and issued weapons system in its own right. An irrelevant detail in wargame play, but relevant in role play if your PC mercs found themselves in the position of wanting to improvise for some odd tactical situation.

The fire control system is separate from the firing system on the launcher. If you want to use a low-tech launcher with a high tech commo device (or the obverse) make the appropriate skill rolls...Electronics, or Mechanical, or similar.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy Carlobrand,

Keeping in mind, of course, that some of the low-tech MRLs are mechanically aimed rather than electrically controlled. You wouldn't be able to just take anything in inventory, slap wires on it and say that it was remotely controlled - your remote MRL would be a separately contracted, purchased and issued weapons system in its own right. An irrelevant detail in wargame play, but relevant in role play if your PC mercs found themselves in the position of wanting to improvise for some odd tactical situation.

Thanks for the reply Carlobrand

My take on the rules is that the remote MRL is designed at the factory to operate with the appropriate communicator. I added a twist by asking about using some sort of cable like the wire for a field telephone. The wire is not going to be affected by jamming like radio.

 

[Carlobrand]

The fire control system is separate from the firing system on the launcher. If you want to use a low-tech launcher with a high tech commo device (or the obverse) make the appropriate skill rolls...Electronics, or Mechanical, or similar.

Sort of. Mechanical aiming is a system of gears and such operated by wheels and cranks. That's the way the Nebelwerfer worked. Unless you can contrive a motor to take the place of the person turning the crank, there's no making the aiming a remote function. If you have to aim it by hand before walking off with your commo device to fire remotely, you lose some of your advantage - you can only shoot where you've aimed beforehand.

Here's a back image of a Nebelwerfer. If you look closely on the left, below the box the soldier is inspecting, you can see two control wheels controlling mechanical gears that handle the elevation and traverse.

http://www.custermen.com/ItalyWW2/Weapons.htm

On the positive side, I don't think anyone's used that since WW-II.

Here's a back image of a Katyusha launcher. I think it's controlled hydraulically, but contriving a way to do that remotely would take a well-equipped workshop since the controls themselves are levers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Katyusha_launcher_rear.jpg

Tangential to topic, here's an interesting Youtube link of a Nebelwerfer being fired. Note how the gunners are some distance away, using wires to set it off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34xz-WPVZqg

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Carlobrand,

Sort of. Mechanical aiming is a system of gears and such operated by wheels and cranks. That's the way the Nebelwerfer worked. Unless you can contrive a motor to take the place of the person turning the crank, there's no making the aiming a remote function. If you have to aim it by hand before walking off with your commo device to fire remotely, you lose some of your advantage - you can only shoot where you've aimed beforehand.

Here's a back image of a Nebelwerfer. If you look closely on the left, below the box the soldier is inspecting, you can see two control wheels controlling mechanical gears that handle the elevation and traverse.

http://www.custermen.com/ItalyWW2/Weapons.htm

On the positive side, I don't think anyone's used that since WW-II.

Here's a back image of a Katyusha launcher. I think it's controlled hydraulically, but contriving a way to do that remotely would take a well-equipped workshop since the controls themselves are levers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Katyusha_launcher_rear.jpg

Tangential to topic, here's an interesting Youtube link of a Nebelwerfer being fired. Note how the gunners are some distance away, using wires to set it off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34xz-WPVZqg

With this information the whole idea comes into focus and wouldn't, in my opinion, fall under the remote MRL rule in Striker Book 3.

 

[sabredog]

The rules make a distinction between the remote MRL and one fired by a gunner handling the weapon directly. Specifically, if you want a remote weapon you have to design the weapon with an indirect fire control and and commo device for activating the weapon - or if you prefer, firing it.

So the FC for a remote MRL has two parts: the fire control system (with the requisite cranks and wheels for elevation and windage) and the remote commo device (radio, telephone or hardwired remote control, etc...) for controlling and firing the weapon from a distance.

If you are building some portable Nebelwerfer or Katyusha MRL then you have a choice: either build the one that you have to have a gunner on site to adjust and fire the weapon, or the remote type that uses remote controls so the gunner can be somewhere else and adjust/ fire the thing. In the first case you need no commo devices....in the latter you need one for both the weapon and the gunner.

I really can't see the confusion here.