Striker tank tactics

[Carlobrand]

Making sure I haven't misinterpreted a rule here:

A grav vehicle has a cruise speed of 1200 KPH. That's 10 klicks per Striker 30-second turn. To spot it from the ground is an 11+, so there's good chance of it flying through ground-based defenses without most of the defenders being able to react to it; high mode vehicles spot it fairly easily, but it spots them easily as well. Also a -10 DM to hit with direct fire unless you've got point defense fire control. When evading in flight, it's about a -11 to hit: 1/10 speed + G's. Size works against it: a scout-size model's probably a +2, a main battle tank or APC in the +3 to +4 range. Still, we're looking at an 11+ to spot it and a -7 to -9 to your to-hit roll.

Lasers get at best a +4 for autofire: a laser wll hit a scout at effective range on a 12 if fired by a regular.

Energy weapons get a better autofire DM but suffer power limits: a high-rate air-defense fusion gun may have a penetration as low as 50 and may not be able to penetrate the forward or rear armor of a reasonably armored target - and it may only see the forward and rear armor during that target's race through it's fire range.

Mass drivers can be effective, both high rate and heavy hit, though they'll take a good deal of power and a lot of mass in ammo to pull it off.

High Performance missiles can basically ignore the agility DM if their performance DM is high enough, and that's not terribly hard to do. However, operator guided, teleguided, and target designated missiles cannot be fired at evading craft or craft with a movement DM of 2 or higher unless the firing platform has target acquisition radar and, if there's effective jamming going on, that might not be available. That leaves homing missiles, which are subject to ECM and tech level differences: a TL14 homing missile facing TL15 extensive ECM isn't going to hit.

What I'm seeing is that the most effective tactic for penetrating defenses is to fly in high mode, fast and evading, accepting the occasional loss if you get too close to an enemy heavy PD laser or a radar strong enough to penetrate your jamming to launch a Target Designated missile on you - and of course kill the vehicle who gave his position away by painting you with a laser. Only place this might not ring true is near heavy defenses with access to a lot of ammo volume for MD guns, and even these might not be able to touch MBTs with heavy forward armor. And the only effective counters are either depth (put enough stuff between him and target that you get more chances for him to wander too close to something that can kill him) or speed (send up your own interceptors).

 

[Reban]

Your Grav Tank definitely shouldn't be operating alone. It will at least have a buddy and probably the other vehicles in its platoon/troop/squadron etc.

I'd assign some of that force to defense suppression using either the tactics you've outlined or a stealth and recon approach to take out whatever defenses are ahead of the main body. The aim here is to get as many tanks through to the objective so risking a sub unit by assigning it to the defense suppression task is preferable than sending a mass of tanks in and expecting them to look out for themselves.

You should also be operating as a combined arms group and be able to take advantage of lots of other assets. Drop artillery, ortillery and aerospace support to clear a corridor. Send scouts or commandos with FO skill ahead to infiltrate and direct tanks in on attacks on the enemy defenses to improve the odds. Use all your recon and intelligence resources to identify safe corridors of approach.

and high speed is always good when someone is shooting at you :rofl:

 

[Theophilus]

I'm unfamiliar with the striker rules, so please define High Mode.

1200 kph is 720 mph english conversion, so if were talking about a plane skimming low over the ground at this speed, I can see the 11+. it's hard to see and hit something that fast. Now if high mode means at altitude then it's a different story. If high mode means I'm higher up looking down, then again it's easier for me to see an hit the vehicle.

 

[Carlobrand]

Your Grav Tank definitely shouldn't be operating alone. It will at least have a buddy and probably the other vehicles in its platoon/troop/squadron etc.

I'd assign some of that force to defense suppression using either the tactics you've outlined or a stealth and recon approach to take out whatever defenses are ahead of the main body. The aim here is to get as many tanks through to the objective so risking a sub unit by assigning it to the defense suppression task is preferable than sending a mass of tanks in and expecting them to look out for themselves.

You should also be operating as a combined arms group and be able to take advantage of lots of other assets. Drop artillery, ortillery and aerospace support to clear a corridor. Send scouts or commandos with FO skill ahead to infiltrate and direct tanks in on attacks on the enemy defenses to improve the odds. Use all your recon and intelligence resources to identify safe corridors of approach.

and high speed is always good when someone is shooting at you :rofl:

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. No, it's not a lone tank - it's an example to study the behavior of the rules. Strength depends on mission, I imagine, could be a tank platoon going in and out on a raid, could be battalion-strength going in to stay. The thing is, the nature of the beastie makes a mess of traditional concepts of front lines and rear areas. The tanks behave like heavily armed and armored F117's, and the fighting looks to me a lot more like a traditional air force set of problems than an army one - with a lot of air-cav flavor to it. I'm trying to get a feel for what tactics armies would fall back on in a setting where traditional lines are as antiquated as castle walls.

Yes, the combined arms bit is true, as is the bit about dueling with the enemy front to give the intruders a better chance, but the problem I'm looking at is from the reverse angle. As near as I can tell, the intruder can intrude pretty much at will - especially if he has a bit of a tech level advantage - so long as he's willing to accept moderate losses. From the defensive point of view, that means the defensive line - isn't. It's just a detection line with some small ability to attrit the intruder. Div HQ needs to be able to run away on a moment's notice and still do it's job, or it needs to be able to call in enough defense to blunt the attack before they get to it - likely both at the same time. Supply trains need to be able to scamper, or need strong escort, or - again - someone needs to vector in a counterforce before the intruder finds them. Any sort of fixed installation needs to be very well defended or it's fruit for the picking - assuming it hasn't already fallen victim to ortillery.

It's not the problem of getting through. It's the problem of how do you fight a war when the enemy can pretty much get through when he wants and treat you like the allies treated the Nazis after D-day - reaching back behind your lines and blowing up anything and everything that you might consider important to your war effort. That compounded by the problem that enemy infantry could likewise punch through your lines in APCs and take up position in your rear or, worse, deliver those scouts or commandos to accurately guide that ortillery in on your rear assets. Two nations fighting looks a lot like two nations tearing each other up with air raids and counter-raids until one of them gets tired of it or no longer has the force to fight back. One world fighting off an invasion looks a lot like one world getting the royal patooie beaten out of it, with only the planetary defenses to persuade the investing fleet to please not get close enough to drop bombs on whatever factories, warehouses, supply bases, or other strategic resources might exist to keep the army supplied - and those planetary defenses becoming priority targets for the invading armor.

I'm trying first to make sure I'm seeing this right and haven't missed some key point that would alter the paradigm, and second to figure out how someone would defend under such a paradigm

I'm unfamiliar with the striker rules, so please define High Mode. ...

Striker is primarily about ground combat, so most rules are about ground combat and the interaction of air units with the ground. High mode is defined by the battlefield - 10 meters above the highest terrain feature on the battlefield. In other words, high enough to fly without worrying about running into something, while low enough that you can interact with the ground forces. You can of course fly higher if you choose, high enough to avoid all ground fire completely - except missiles. Under the air spotting rules, and assuming the other guy has someone in the air looking for such things, that'd mean you'd get spotted way out, pretty much at the limit of (augmented) human vision, which means they'd have more time to respond to you. And, missiles are still a pretty wickedly effective response even at TL15, especially with that drone bit about seeking out the weakest armor, so there's value both in limiting the opponent's response time and in not being up where the largest possible number of opposing missile systems can take a shot at you. I start from the assumption that an intruder is staying low enough to minimize the enemy's reaction time and the magnitude of response, while being high enough to keep speed up and spend as little time as possible in the firing range of any given enemy.

One of the incongruities I'm puzzling over is that the game has good point defense systems but they can only be used in that capacity while the vehicle with the point defense system is not moving. It's a nice balancing rule that compels armor to slowly leapfrog or play a more static game in order to defend from missiles, but a grav vehicle in the air is a reasonably stable platform, especially when you're talking about something driving several hundred tons mass through the air behind a cross sectional area smaller than that of an 8-ton DC3. One could argue that projectiles would struggle in such circumstances but a laser should do quite nicely. I've considered a house rule permitting lasers in a point defense role on a moving nonevading airborne vehicle, perhaps with a DM to reflect reduced accuracy due to possible turbulence effects.

 

[mike wightman]

PD can be used by moving grav vehicles:

Because of the high accuracy required, ground vehicles mounting point defenses may not move if they are performing overwatch or dedicated support missions; grav vehicles are under no restrictions.

Note that ground vehicles can use the 'target' option/order while moving.

Grav gunships are spotted on 3+ if you use airborne spotters or radar.

At TL15 you can build a battery of rapid pulse fusion guns with a +8 DM to hit

 

[Reban]

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. No, it's not a lone tank - it's an example to study the behavior of the rules. Strength depends on mission, I imagine, could be a tank platoon going in and out on a raid, could be battalion-strength going in to stay. The thing is, the nature of the beastie makes a mess of traditional concepts of front lines and rear areas. The tanks behave like heavily armed and armored F117's, and the fighting looks to me a lot more like a traditional air force set of problems than an army one - with a lot of air-cav flavor to it. I'm trying to get a feel for what tactics armies would fall back on in a setting where traditional lines are as antiquated as castle walls.

Yes, the combined arms bit is true, as is the bit about dueling with the enemy front to give the intruders a better chance, but the problem I'm looking at is from the reverse angle. As near as I can tell, the intruder can intrude pretty much at will - especially if he has a bit of a tech level advantage - so long as he's willing to accept moderate losses. From the defensive point of view, that means the defensive line - isn't. It's just a detection line with some small ability to attrit the intruder. Div HQ needs to be able to run away on a moment's notice and still do it's job, or it needs to be able to call in enough defense to blunt the attack before they get to it - likely both at the same time. Supply trains need to be able to scamper, or need strong escort, or - again - someone needs to vector in a counterforce before the intruder finds them. Any sort of fixed installation needs to be very well defended or it's fruit for the picking - assuming it hasn't already fallen victim to ortillery.

It's not the problem of getting through. It's the problem of how do you fight a war when the enemy can pretty much get through when he wants and treat you like the allies treated the Nazis after D-day - reaching back behind your lines and blowing up anything and everything that you might consider important to your war effort. That compounded by the problem that enemy infantry could likewise punch through your lines in APCs and take up position in your rear or, worse, deliver those scouts or commandos to accurately guide that ortillery in on your rear assets. Two nations fighting looks a lot like two nations tearing each other up with air raids and counter-raids until one of them gets tired of it or no longer has the force to fight back. One world fighting off an invasion looks a lot like one world getting the royal patooie beaten out of it, with only the planetary defenses to persuade the investing fleet to please not get close enough to drop bombs on whatever factories, warehouses, supply bases, or other strategic resources might exist to keep the army supplied - and those planetary defenses becoming priority targets for the invading armor.

I'm trying first to make sure I'm seeing this right and haven't missed some key point that would alter the paradigm, and second to figure out how someone would defend under such a paradigm

Ah I see. i didn't pick up on the fact you were looking at defenses rather than the tank. I agree that this type of grav warfare starts to look much more like air combat with the idea of front lines and rear areas becoming defunct (I'd opinion that we are almost there in the present day). Scale of the battle space is also something to consider when your main offensive units clip along at 1200Kph your area of operations is going to comprise whole continents.

One other suggestion for getting a feel for what tactics might be like is to look at some of the classical horse cavalry raids of history such as those in the American Civil War. Massed self sufficient fast moving deep penetration raids with the aim of destroying enemy resources, sowing terror and as a consequence tying down troops on defensive duties.

Having acknowledged the differences I'm going to quote a well known tank hunting axiom:

"The best way to kill a tank, is with another tank"

Where ever possible I think you should be countering Grav Tanks with other Grav Tanks, or at least vehicles with similar speed and armament profiles which will include airplanes and helicopters.

You've rightly pointed out that static lines of defense may be a waste of time so make your best defense highly mobile and offensive. I'd say even if you don't manage to stop the enemy force on the way in, lay an ambush on his exit path make his victory as costly as you can.


How do you deploy defenses?

GT Ground Forces mentions the concept of "Nodal Warfare". Nodes are anything you need to defend, cities, power plants, communications hubs, and formations in the field. Around these nodes you won't have a defensive line because as you've said a defensive line just "isn't". Rather make it a defensive sponge.

Way out, and up, deploy sensors. Just like radar in the Battle of Britain detect the enemy formation early and deploy your forces to take best advantage. With early detection you can deploy those mobile tank hunters I mentioned above either to blunt the raid or ambush it as it withdraws.

Second, use all the defenses you mentioned in your original post. Deploy them in depth and make them mutually supporting. If you have weapons systems with active sensors deploy systems with passive sensors like the Mk. 1 eyeball to overlap them. There should be no possibility of the raiders blowing a hole in your defenses, for every system they take out there should be another two covering the gap. For every active radar guided missile battery there should an optically tracked mass driver battery overlapping and supporting it.

For every kilometer the raiders approach their target there should be so many active sensor, missiles, bullets and stones flying at them that.. if nothing else...it unnerves them. I don't care how high tech a tin can is, if you are sitting in it and your sensors are telling you that the entire countryside is trying to kill you that should have an effect (but this is a game and I'm not sure if Strikers morale rules account for things like that).

 

[Reban]

Defending Field Formations

For MTU I've thought a lot about what armies look and fight like and like you I've tried to wrap my head around things like air defense and countering vehicles like Grav Tanks. It might be of some assistance if I set down a few of the relevant things I've come up with.

• I've merged Air Defense and Anti-tank into Anti-Armour.
• I've tried to integrate point defense in all units below Brigade level
• I've given Divisions and corps "Area Defense" assests which are equvilent to theather defenses today.
• My Grav Tanks usually combine a main fusion weapon, a coaxial gauss weapon and missiles or rockets (more Attack Helo than MBT influenced)
• All Headquaters elements are split in two. A tactical HQ for the CO and a backup commanded by the XO.
• All my forces are highly networked but taking out one node or HQ element does not destroy the net.

Anti-Armor is inspired by the Javelin missile's ability to attack helicopters as well as tanks. I see this trend continuing as tanks and attack helicopters merge into Grav Tanks. Missiles need to be fast, agile and capable of defeating tank armor.

Point Defense is all about a unit defending itself from Aerospace or missile/artillery attack where as Area Defense is an umbrella that at least discourages enemy operation at what Striker terms High level.

A long time ago I played a computer game called Commanche Werewolf where the attack helicopter had a main gun, missiles and rockets to take on a variety of targets in different ways. You could also acquire a target with your sensors and call in an artillery strike on it (in Traveller terms this includes ortillery, aerospace strikes and drone missiles). The way the helo moved, either high speed at altitude, noe, or really slow and sneaky behind hills and down valleys has always influenced the way I look at Grav Tanks.

My headquarters elements are small. I mount them in similar vehicles to the formations they command and integrate them into a communications net that will survive having bits chopped off it. I also make the Brigade the main deployable combat formation rather than the Division. Brigades are highly self sufficient in terms of both command and logistics. Fixed HQs in a combat environment are a no no for me but I've mainly been thinking about expeditionary forces. For home defense I think I'd assume the same but I acknowledge there will have to be a higher headquarters element somewhere and for me that would be located with the deep meson sites.

The concept of TacNet from Ogre and other GURPS rules is how I've structured my C4I network IMTU. If the brigade scout elements detect a raiding force they have via TacNet access to any drone or weapons system available to the brigade as a resource with which they can engague or observe the enemy. Again via the TacNet what the scouts can see, the Brigade CO can see and issue orders accordingly (The XO in the alternate or back-up HQ has access to this and the COs plans should the Main HQ be hit or need to bug out).


Now I'm conscious that Striker doesn't cover a lot of the concepts I've dealt with here especially the Cyberwarfare elements of the TacNet system but with a little creative thinking it probably could, after all it deals with communications, fog of war and communication between units. Anyway Carlobrand I hope some of the above might help you with your thoughts about tactics.

 

[Carlobrand]

PD can be used by moving grav vehicles...

Thank you for that. Seems I knew that at one point, but so many rules and so many years, I forget vital bits. Probably the dementia creeping up.

Now I find myself wondering at the reverse: point defense CPRs and fusion guns being fired sideways to a 600 mile-an-hour wind.

...Grav gunships are spotted on 3+ if you use airborne spotters or radar. ...

I alluded to that in the initial post, yes. Range to an earth-size world's horizon's about 11 kilometers at 10 meters altitude; presumably you could spot a vehicle flying at 10 meters to twice that. Assuming your radar's being jammed, I don't know if there's benefit in getting higher 'cause after a bit your eyes become the limiting factor. I'm not sure how far off an eye can see a vehicle-sized target - ground spotting table gives you ranges but air spotting table doesn't. Image enhancement will double it, once we know what "it" is. Seems to me that high observer's a vital part of the defense

Still, 10 klicks a turn movement won't give your guns much time to react once it's in range. Best bet's long-range missiles that can engage him when you first spot him - and it appears he can shoot at those on the fly. A good tight formation of several fast tanks with good PD are going to require a lot of missiles before one gets through. On the other hand, he can't pack them too tight or they become good candidates for nukes. On the other, other hand, if he's jamming heavily and using extensive ECM, you're likely to see only limited results for your missile maelstrom.

At TL15 you can build a battery of rapid pulse fusion guns with a +8 DM to hit

And punch limited to 5 megawatts input per pulse; I mentioned that briefly as well.

Any tank designer worth his salt is going to make sure the fore and aft plates can repel fire from high-rate fusion guns if the vehicle's going to run this kind of race-through tactic. Forward armor on the canon Marine APC, for example, only takes surface hits from the best +5 16-pulser and doesn't really notice higher pulse-rate fusion guns. (Rear is lamentably weak for this tactic; a good designer would have given it better armor in the rear for just such occasions.)

A +8 rapid pulse is a real threat to combat cars and scout tanks, which makes it worthwhile for that, but the heavier machines will have no respect for it. The light machines still have better than a 50:50 shot of evading the hit as they race through its effective range.

 

[Golan2072]

I'd say that at TL15 (or even TL13+), there is no such thing as a "tank" or an "APC" - the vehicles involved are gunships, combining the abilities of a "helicopter" (may hover in place and land vertically), an air fighter and a short-range spacecraft (may reach orbit on its own). these vehicles have free-flight capabilities and probably won't look like tanks with grav-lifters (as grav vehicles may look at TL11 or so before free-flight is well enough developed) but more like aircraft - i.e. built for combat in a 3D environment. They'll still be called "tanks" and "APCs" in some places for historical reasons, though, just like some real-life Earth militaries call their tanks, or even helicopter troops, "cavalry" for historical reasons, despite the fact that they haven't used horses in combat for decades.

So tactics will probably look more like air tactics than tank tactics - but with aircraft as maneuverable as UFOs and as armored as tanks.

 

[Bob Weaver]

I'd say that at TL15 (or even TL13+), there is no such thing as a "tank" or an "APC" - the vehicles involved are gunships, combining the abilities of a "helicopter" (may hover in place and land vertically), an air fighter and a short-range spacecraft (may reach orbit on its own). these vehicles have free-flight capabilities and probably won't look like tanks with grav-lifters (as grav vehicles may look at TL11 or so before free-flight is well enough developed) but more like aircraft - i.e. built for combat in a 3D environment. They'll still be called "tanks" and "APCs" in some places for historical reasons, though, just like some real-life Earth militaries call their tanks, or even helicopter troops, "cavalry" for historical reasons, despite the fact that they haven't used horses in combat for decades.

So tactics will probably look more like air tactics than tank tactics - but with aircraft as maneuverable as UFOs and as armored as tanks.

Quite right. Book 4 states specifically (p. 47) that by TL 12 "All vehicles have sufficient free-flight performance that ground combat vehicles effectively no longer exist, having merged with aircraft." At those higher tech levels, we have to re-frame our thinking about what armored warfare is going to look like. That showed up in the JTAS #7 Amber Zone adventure Pursue and Destroy. The PC's had grav tanks, and were being pursued/opposed by ground-based enemy forces. The grav tanks could zip past their opponents at such speed as to make in near impossible to engage them.

Best regards,
Bob W.

 

[Golan2072]

Quite right. Book 4 states specifically (p. 47) that by TL 12 "All vehicles have sufficient free-flight performance that ground combat vehicles effectively no longer exist, having merged with aircraft." At those higher tech levels, we have to re-frame our thinking about what armored warfare is going to look like. That showed up in the JTAS #7 Amber Zone adventure Pursue and Destroy. The PC's had grav tanks, and were being pursued/opposed by ground-based enemy forces. The grav tanks could zip past their opponents at such speed as to make in near impossible to engage them.

The opposition needs a good deal of anti-air weapons, or, better yet, an airforce, to be effective. Think of the X-Com scenario - TL7-8 jet interceptors vs. TL12+ "grav apcs" (UFOs).

 

[Peter the Swede]

Would there not be variations in Grav tank design based on their area of operations. For example, below the swirling storms of Grav tank battles there would still be a need to take and hold ground.

The design criteria for vehicles operating, effectively in the air space would be different to grav vehicles in units whose mission it is to secure objectives on the surface.

I would imagine that ground based Grav vehicles would be more like tank as they are now. However those Grav vehicles involved in aerospace battles would be more like tank/aircraft/helicopter hybrids - designed to manoeuvre in atmosphere, engaging targets in the atmosphere and on the ground.

 

[Carlobrand]

Would there not be variations in Grav tank design based on their area of operations. For example, below the swirling storms of Grav tank battles there would still be a need to take and hold ground.

The design criteria for vehicles operating, effectively in the air space would be different to grav vehicles in units whose mission it is to secure objectives on the surface.

I would imagine that ground based Grav vehicles would be more like tank as they are now. However those Grav vehicles involved in aerospace battles would be more like tank/aircraft/helicopter hybrids - designed to manoeuvre in atmosphere, engaging targets in the atmosphere and on the ground.

Depends on the tech level, but not so much, I think.

As tech level goes up, you draw more power from a plant of the same size - and it's lighter. Weapons get more hungry for power too, but you reach a point where it really doesn't take much to make something go fast. The canon Marine APC, for example, mounts a 156 megawatt power plant and uses 94 megawatts of that for gravs - but it needs 60 of that just to be able to get off the ground. You don't end up with much savings by shaving into the remaining 30-some megs to cut power and speed - just an inferior vehicle that costs maybe 10% less than the speedster.

The canon TL 9 Laser Grav Tank, in the same book, pumps 46 megawatts into achieving 1.4 Gs and a respectable 480 KPH maximum speed - but it needs 33 megs just to get off the ground. Again, not a whole lot to shave and not a whole lot of savings when you do.

And remember, the mission of the tank is not to support infantry or hold ground; the French learned that lesson the hard way. The mission of the tank is to punch through the enemy defense and go make a royal mess of the enemy's rear so that the enemy's defensive line becomes unsupportable and either withdraws or collapses - or to get something ahead of his thrust fast when he does that to you. It's the old, "Get there first with the most," song of the cavalry. Slow and low doesn't really accomplish that. Securing objectives is much easier once you've forced the enemy to withdraw from them by smashing his lines of supply.

If you want to support infantry in the ground fight - well, wait a minute, the problem at that point is making sure your infantry can keep up with the advance, or you lose momentum and give the enemy a chance to regroup. And, vice versa, anyone needing to retreat that doesn't have good speed to them is at risk of being encircled and trapped. So, you want your infantry to have fast transports available to them. Having that and then bringing in some kind of slow support armor to help the infantry once they engage just means the slow support armor gets left behind when the infantry board their transports and go chasing the retreating enemy - or need to retreat themselves. So either your transports end up doing double duty, being fast and having enough armored hide and firepower to go join the fight, or you support the infantry with fast tanks that can also stand up to a close fight.

Me, once the gravs show up, I abandon tracks and wheels. If I feel a need for something cheap on the ground, I'd go with an air cushion vehicle that can still make some acceptable speed, assuming the terrain allowed it, and where it didn't I'd put gravs on something with a cheap MHD power plant and a CPR.

 

[Vladika]

Depends on the tech level, but not so much, I think.

As tech level goes up, you draw more power from a plant of the same size - and it's lighter. Weapons get more hungry for power too, but you reach a point where it really doesn't take much to make something go fast. The canon Marine APC, for example, mounts a 156 megawatt power plant and uses 94 megawatts of that for gravs - but it needs 60 of that just to be able to get off the ground. You don't end up with much savings by shaving into the remaining 30-some megs to cut power and speed - just an inferior vehicle that costs maybe 10% less than the speedster.

The canon TL 9 Laser Grav Tank, in the same book, pumps 46 megawatts into achieving 1.4 Gs and a respectable 480 KPH maximum speed - but it needs 33 megs just to get off the ground. Again, not a whole lot to shave and not a whole lot of savings when you do.

And remember, the mission of the tank is not to support infantry or hold ground; the French learned that lesson the hard way. The mission of the tank is to punch through the enemy defense and go make a royal mess of the enemy's rear so that the enemy's defensive line becomes unsupportable and either withdraws or collapses - or to get something ahead of his thrust fast when he does that to you. It's the old, "Get there first with the most," song of the cavalry. Slow and low doesn't really accomplish that. Securing objectives is much easier once you've forced the enemy to withdraw from them by smashing his lines of supply.

If you want to support infantry in the ground fight - well, wait a minute, the problem at that point is making sure your infantry can keep up with the advance, or you lose momentum and give the enemy a chance to regroup. And, vice versa, anyone needing to retreat that doesn't have good speed to them is at risk of being encircled and trapped. So, you want your infantry to have fast transports available to them. Having that and then bringing in some kind of slow support armor to help the infantry once they engage just means the slow support armor gets left behind when the infantry board their transports and go chasing the retreating enemy - or need to retreat themselves. So either your transports end up doing double duty, being fast and having enough armored hide and firepower to go join the fight, or you support the infantry with fast tanks that can also stand up to a close fight.

Me, once the gravs show up, I abandon tracks and wheels. If I feel a need for something cheap on the ground, I'd go with an air cushion vehicle that can still make some acceptable speed, assuming the terrain allowed it, and where it didn't I'd put gravs on something with a cheap MHD power plant and a CPR.

The "fast and high" is essentially the future version of today's Mechanized forces. And, like today, combined arms will be just as crucial for successful combat.

The deep penetration approach is certainly the correct usage. Two points though:

1) Tanks were originally designed to kill infantry as their primary reason for inclusion in the order of battle. THEY STILL HAVE THAT MISSION, then, now and in the future. (It was realized early on that tanks would have to deal with other tanks. They are DUAL MISSION.)

2) Once engaged, the combat becomes, of necessity, "low and slow". It's the only way to go.

In a one on one maybe an aerial "dogfight" would work but... If you can be seen, you can be killed. (And WILL be, if there are several firing platforms out there while you are "dog fighting" and showing off. They hide, wait, and kill while you are to occupied to see, or deal with them.)

Look at the success and survivability of traditional fighter pilot "aces". Not very good. Compare that to Armor "aces" and note the vast difference.

For seriously opposed combat "Low* and slow" is the only way to go.

*Comparatively speaking

It should be noted that many German tank kills during WW2 were from "substandard" STUG platforms against superior Russian 34 tanks. The 34s were faster and, unlike the STUG, had a turret. LOW and SLOW, the way to GO! (Excellent sources are the post WW2 DA PAMs)

 

[mike wightman]

Makes you wonder why the STUG has all but disappeared from the modern militaries of the world.

Or even why the MBT is still around since they can be killed so easily (note that no western military has engaged a comparative TL opponent for quite a while now).

I wonder if the next war will show the MBT to be as obsolete as the battleship (my earnest hope is that I never get an answer to that question).

 

[Vladika]

Makes you wonder why the STUG has all but disappeared from the modern militaries of the world.

Or even why the MBT is still around since they can be killed so easily (note that no western military has engaged a comparative TL opponent for quite a while now).

I wonder if the next war will show the MBT to be as obsolete as the battleship (my earnest hope is that I never get an answer to that question).

For Germany the STUG was simply a necessity as it was easier, cheaper and quicker to build. Also, the Mk4 chassis were obsolescent and were available for conversion. Additionally it was felt there would be to much down time to retool the factories and assembly lines.

I hope we never learn that lesson first hand either. The Abrams has been successfully destroyed by RPGs. Cost wise MBTs are vastly overpriced for what they are designed to do. A simpler, and cheaper, solution would have been the Brazilian The Engesa EE-T1 Osório. Sweet little machine.

I believe Carlobrand is on the right track with cheaper land combat vehicles, though not necessarily the ACVs.

 

[Carlobrand]

...My headquarters elements are small. I mount them in similar vehicles to the formations they command and integrate them into a communications net that will survive having bits chopped off it. ... Fixed HQs in a combat environment are a no no for me but I've mainly been thinking about expeditionary forces. For home defense I think I'd assume the same but I acknowledge there will have to be a higher headquarters element somewhere and for me that would be located with the deep meson sites. ...

Goes with my thoughts. With the threat of armored craft able to move at fighter jet speeds, the best defense for the rear is mobility - everything mobile. Headquarters does not use tents - they live in vehicles that can bug out at the first alert while still maintaining command and control of the units under their control. Maintenance - same. Artillery - same. Supply - same. The enemy penetrates, but the enemy is left with a cat-and-mouse game while friendly tanks are vectored on the intruder's position to persuade them to retire. When your entire force is air-mobile, penetrating into the rear gets him very little. Installations that must be fixed can be deeply buried, limiting the damage that can be achieved either through raid or by orbital bombardment.

...I hope we never learn that lesson first hand either. The Abrams has been successfully destroyed by RPGs. Cost wise MBTs are vastly overpriced for what they are designed to do. A simpler, and cheaper, solution would have been the Brazilian The Engesa EE-T1 Osório. Sweet little machine.

I believe Carlobrand is on the right track with cheaper land combat vehicles, though not necessarily the ACVs.

Destroyed? You mean stopped? I'm seeing incidents of RPGs hitting tracks, but I'm not seeing an incident of RPGs penetrating the main armor. Osorio was an MBT too, just not so big and expensive as the Abrams. Weighed just a wee bit less than a T72.

I don't know that comparing fighter pilots in unarmored lift-dependent aircraft to tank commanders in ground-based heavily armored vehicles tells us as much as we'd like about the success of air armor. For one thing, I'm not entirely convinced there's a need for low and slow in a deep penetration attack - in a game in which the same craft that could launch missiles at an air intruder can as easily pop-up and launch missiles at a ground hugging intruder, I don't see the slower vehicle having gained any advantage.

The principal advantages I see in those expensive fusion powered tanks are their ability to go from orbit to ground, their ability to battle without depending on a supply tail for ammo and their ability both to function longer without refueling and to draw on a readily available fuel source - assuming there's a source of water handy and a ship with a fuel purification plant available to process it. Those advantages play very well for the Imperium as an attacker. The principal disadvantage is the cost, but an empire of several thousand worlds can spend on fewer more expensive vehicles and still show up to the war with more tanks than the other guy.

On the other hand, a missile is a great equalizer - especially a drone missile with a good-size warhead and the ability to seek out the desired face, since drone missiles don't appear to be affected by ECM. The only serious restraint on missiles other than ECM is point defense and the gunner being limited to launching one missile per turn - and point defense can be either overwhelmed or defeated by getting inside 150 meters. So you have the possibility of inexpensive but fast air defense APCs with several gunners launching waves of missiles to bring down the multi-million credit battle tanks, or agile combat cars dancing close enough to get a missile off inside the tank's defensive circle.

 

[Carlobrand]

Looking some more at this, penetrating air defense is increasingly tricky. The vehicles seem to settle into roughly three categories by size.

At the +1 size DM are what I think of as combat cars or scout tanks: they're cheap (from about a megacredit to as little as half a megacredit), fast and actually surprisingly well armored (at a bit over a megacredit), but there's no power for weapons - they depend on non-energy weapons, especially missiles and CPRs. They can be made heavily armored fore and aft, allowing them to play the fast intruder role well, but they tend to be vulnerable in flank and above-below - infantry weapons won't hurt them (not even that FGMP) but they're vulnerable to artillery and to splash hits from energy weapons, which means they need to fly up at 80 meters when doing the high-speed evasion thing in order to keep from being brought down by big fusion guns aimed at the ground in front of them. With no power spent on anything but movement, they can be impressively fast and difficult to hit - you can get the agility DM up to 11 or better, which needs a +5 or better rapid fire weapon to score a hit, and you can put enough armor fore and aft to stop e-weapons with those pulse rates; they remain vulnerable to a lucky flanking shot, but the flanker's only going to get one try (if you can get enough fast pursuers up, there are maneuvering tricks to force it to expose a flank to one attacker while running from another attacker, but that depends on there being enough space to chase without being drawn over his lines). However, they are intruder/interceptors, dependant on expendable munitions and therefore only there for a short fight before they have to go home to replenish.

At the +2 size range come the proper tanks with powered weapons, up to the main battle tanks. They can be fast and hard to hit too, though the larger size and greater mass means they have to spend much more to get it. They get expensive - easy to get into the 4 to 6 megacredit range here. Here we start seeing the balancing act: high speed, strong armor, and good price - pick any two. You can make a tank to shrug off any CPR round or conventional tac missile, but it's slow or expensive. You can make a fast intruder, but it'll have a weak point or be expensive. Expensive becomes a temptation to use nukes - there's a sweet spot between 150 meters and about 50 meters where point defenses can't save you and a 0.1 Kt nuke will kill you dead without hurting the other guy (assuming the other guy has factor-30 armor facing the blast) - and he doesn't technically have to hit you to do it, just hit some point of ground nearby, an inducement to stay above about 50 meters. Of course, it sucks to be infantry in that area, but what are you going to do?

+3 and above go to APCs and maybe really massive tanks - I haven't looked at that much. Doesn't seem to be much point in an Ogre when a tac nuke can ruin your whole day so easily.

Which brings us to missiles:

• Your basic TL9 point defense behind a TL8 gatling gun will take out at least 2 and up to 6 missiles, average 4. Doesn't care what tech level the inbounds are. A platoon of 4 flying reasonably close can be wicked hard to get at - unless you shoot inside of 150 meters.
• Evading or fast craft can't be targeted by operator guided, teleguided or target designated missiles unless the shooter has target acquisition radar or ladar. Takes OG and teleguided out of infantry hands, and they need some vehicle to designate for them for target designated. Radar can be jammed, so ladar's usually the way to go. Ladar can trigger a blinding anti-laser aerosol - sometimes - but at TL 13 and above, aerosols are useless, though the laser detector will still spot you when you spot him. Life gets hard for light vehicles at TL13, though heavies can mount enough armor to take the shot.
• Target designated missiles hit - period - assuming they've got the speed DM to overcome your agility DM. Doesn't particularly care who's designating, though again the designator's likely to be spotted. Vehicles designating for infantry below can mean a whole lotta little missiles with big warheads coming up.
• Extensive ECM leaves a homing missile with a 12 to hit - and it can't hit anything with extensive ECM of a higher tech level than the missile. Still, nice fall back for infantry, where you can make a light short-range homer and face a tank platoon with 30-40 missiles rising up unexpectedly from a hidden infantry platoon's position. Point defense goes before the missile roll to hit, and we've already mentioned a few reasons to stay high, so decent chance of at least one belly shot getting in. Still a lotta misses, and very likely an unpleasant response from the surviving tanks - though if the groundpounders have a second and third round in the foxhole with them, it could be an unhealthy place for armor
• Target memory does not seem to have this failing - it's homing on your image, and there don't seem to be any ECM effects. Badly affected by agility until TL14, though you can make them faster to compensate. Infantry T-mems are an option, but they're very short range and a bit heavy; easier as stuff to keep handy in a foxhole than as something you carry on the walk. Works well if infantry have an APC or MULE to carry loads.
• Drone missiles are expensive but will find the weak face, at a slight penalty to hit, can "hang out" defensively and aren't affected by ECM. Perhaps one could argue for programming them to land for recharge; then you could keep a few up in rotation - though the temptation for the enemy to nuke the area to clear a path would be strong. Vague on the agility DM business, but one could argue that the drone gets an agility DM too and should be able to use that to overcome the target agility, roughly analogous to a tac missile's speed DM.

What I'm seeing is -

First, it sucks to be lower tech facing higher tech. Imperium and Zho are basically running roughshod over TL12- opposition.

Second, the value of fast and light essentially evaporates at TL13, when tagging you from a distance becomes child's play. Wasn't as high as I expected to begin with since ladar appears when the gravs appear, can't be jammed and isn't easy to detect until it's on the brink of being replaced by an x-ray version you can't block. On the other hand, a fast and light TL14 Zho is going to have so much fun with his TL12- opponents. (There don't seem to be any rules about aerosols confronting 600 KPH headwinds. There should be. Still, a barrage of smoke rounds is a nasty thing to do to TL12- opponents.)

Third, it pays to fly high - until the infantry pop one in your belly. Or maybe it pays to stay low - until the z-gun splash-kills you. Hmmm, I gotta think on that one. It certainly pays to be heavily armored - until a tac nuke launched within 150 meters melts you.

Any points I'm getting wrong?

 

[Reban]

Extensive ECM leaves a homing missile with a 12 to hit - and it can't hit anything with extensive ECM of a higher tech level than the missile. Still, nice fall back for infantry, where you can make a light short-range homer and face a tank platoon with 30-40 missiles rising up unexpectedly from a hidden infantry platoon's position.

Target memory does not seem to have this failing - it's homing on your image, and there don't seem to be any ECM effects. Badly affected by agility until TL14, though you can make them faster to compensate. Infantry T-mems are an option, but they're very short range and a bit heavy; easier as stuff to keep handy in a foxhole than as something you carry on the walk. Works well if infantry have an APC or MULE to carry loads.

These two (emphasis added) points make me think "remote box launchers". With Striker could you construct a what is basically a cube on a cargo pallet stuffed with vertical launch cells that could fire individual or salvos of missiles?

Deploy them on the battlefield by pushing them off the back of a truck or cargo sled or air lift them into position slung under a helo or g-carrier or mount it on a mobile vehicle. Infantry anti-tank squads with designators could paint the target and trigger a launch from the nearest box launcher(s).

It takes away the burden of carrying the missiles from the infantry man especially where you need large volumes of missile fire to overcome defenses. Also if you can separate the launcher and designator you could give every infantry squad a designator and make them a threat to armor. I'll have to pull out my copy of Striker later and see if there is a way to do this.

And although the idea of a remote box launcher immediately speaks to prepared defense you could drop them ahead of your advancing troops or fit them on drone vehicles or carriers to make them offensive.

Drone missiles are expensive but will find the weak face, at a slight penalty to hit, can "hang out" defensively and aren't affected by ECM. Perhaps one could argue for programming them to land for recharge; then you could keep a few up in rotation - though the temptation for the enemy to nuke the area to clear a path would be strong. Vague on the agility DM business, but one could argue that the drone gets an agility DM too and should be able to use that to overcome the target agility, roughly analogous to a tac missile's speed DM.

I think thats fair enough. Recovering drone missiles seems a very reasonable idea. The way I think of artillery at higher TLs is that some batteries instead of firing units will consist of vehicles that act as motherships to drone missiles, launching and recovering and keeping some on station over friendly troops to be there when they call or available to an FO.

Third, it pays to fly high - until the infantry pop one in your belly. Or maybe it pays to stay low - until the z-gun splash-kills you. Hmmm, I gotta think on that one. It certainly pays to be heavily armored - until a tac nuke launched within 150 meters melts you.

Just an observation and I know how the rules work, but I've always though it a bit silly to up armour the front and rear of a flying vehicle. It makes sense in the real world that tanks should have there strongest armour on the face they present to the enemy, but when you have things fying above you and infantry with anti-tank weapons (or mines) below your belly shouldn't it make more sense to homogenize the armour all round and make up for the lost protection with greater speed and agility? Of course there is nothing stopping any army from following both design routes and having two classes of tank like the British in WW2 with their Cruiser (fast less protection) and Infantry (slow well protected) tanks. Anyway just a thought on a tangent to your question.

 

[jec10]

Re Ladar. From MT on they fixed ladar so that it became only a secondary system for maintaining a lockon rather than a wide-angle search system. But, in CT/Striker it is the system of choice for stellar tech military vehicles under the rules-as-written. Especially TL13+.

The other interesting point is that in TNE/FF&S they introduced a rule that turreted vehicles (i.e. grav tanks) could not slew their turrets at high speed. So, essentially that limited the utility of the high speed pass, which in CT/Striker a grav tank can do while slewing its turret to engage a target well off the forward arc. As written, in CT/Striker there is little point in having Speeders or grav fighters when you can have a grav tank zipping around like a fighter and turning its big main turret to engage in any direction while in free-flight.