Striker tank tactics

[Reban]

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?

-snip-

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.

Having pulled out Striker and taken a look at the rules and design sequence I think its doable. Remote MRLs are listed in the design sequence and missile Package Launchers are noted as consisting the guidance system and missile in a container.

Take a cargo pallet (lets make it a Traveller standard 1.5m x 1.5m). Fix the missile containers to the pallet with a suitable communicator and the control equipment listed under remote MRL. The operator retains the guidance system and requires a matching communicator.


On the other question of recovering drone missile. Its fairly clear that the drone could be ordered to "return to launcher" or be given a rally point to be retrieved at. I'd say at minimum you should need a workshop to recondition and refuel the drone missile.

 

[Carlobrand]

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?

Striker offers four ways to launch a missile: a package (what the troops use), a rail on the outside of a vehicle, a launch tube (think of a thin-wall cannon that you stick missiles in instead of artillery shells), and a magazine launcher (basically a launch tube with a magazine). The latter two can be "field-mounted" - roughly the equivalent of putting a couple wheels on the thing so you can tow it around. Or, in the case of something small, maybe a tripod or baseplate or something so you can set it up where you want it. Field mounts aren't light: four times the mass of the missile launched, plus of course the launcher guidance systems, if needed. However, having a vehicle transport them in and setting them isn't terribly time consuming if you're trying to hurry together a prepared defense.

Here's my concern: the enemy kills it by dropping artillery on the area. Put a lot of tubes on one field mount design, and a lot of tubes die when the artillery falls and they roll a frag hit. You want individual field-mounted tubes, not cubes of several, to increase the survival of the launchers when the artillery hits. There are also guidance types that aren't really practical - if you've got 8 operator guided missiles in a box, you still need 8 operators; that's not an issue for target-designated, homing or target memory, of course.

You could conceivably design a kind of armored "vehicle" that consisted of little more than the launcher(s) and a suspension inside an armored shell, the "vehicle" towed in or placed by another vehicle. You save a bit by going to a vehicle-mount tube rather than a field-mount tube, then spend that and more putting armor around and a suspension under it. It amounts to a home-made field mount, with the benefit of a bit of armor protection. However, the heavier the armor, the fewer the transport can carry and the greater the cost and the gnashing of teeth if it takes a direct hit or you're obliged to leave it behind, so it's worth a close look to decide if it's worth it or not. More naked missiles might be a better option, even if you lose more to artillery.

The nice thing about the set-up is - with target designated, homing, and target memory missiles - you can have one man launch a lotta missiles, assuming he's close enough to control them. That means you've gotta have a radio or laser link. Radio can be jammed, a point of vulnerability. In the case of laser, it gets tricky since he properly needs a laser comm of his own for each missile if he intends to launch them all at once. That need also imposes problems - he needs to have a clear line of sight to each launcher, so brush and stuff needs to be cut out of the way, which in some terrain might give the game away. Maser comm? Would that penetrate brush? Maybe, though there's still a bit of set-up involved in establishing a control point with several maser comms. You could use wire, doing something akin to the field telephone set-up, but wire can be cut by artillery.

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.

MT introduced the "EMS Array" combos at TL10, folding all the detection systems into one package. Also introduced EMS jammers, doing the same with counter-detection. I don't recall if the jammer could be used to contest the lock on as well as the initial location attempt, but it definitely put an end to the supremacy of ladar. That TNE thing, I'm not sure I like it all that much: with inertia damping technology and computers and such, moving the turret around quickly doesn't seem like a terribly daunting feat of engineering.

 

[Reban]

First a quick admission. I based this idea on a design by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin for their LAM and PAM missiles as part of the US Army's "Land Warrior" program.

Striker offers four ways to launch a missile: a package (what the troops use), a rail on the outside of a vehicle, a launch tube (think of a thin-wall cannon that you stick missiles in instead of artillery shells), and a magazine launcher (basically a launch tube with a magazine). The latter two can be "field-mounted" - roughly the equivalent of putting a couple wheels on the thing so you can tow it around. Or, in the case of something small, maybe a tripod or baseplate or something so you can set it up where you want it. Field mounts aren't light: four times the mass of the missile launched, plus of course the launcher guidance systems, if needed. However, having a vehicle transport them in and setting them isn't terribly time consuming if you're trying to hurry together a prepared defense.

The real world version is designed to fit on the back of a cargo variant of the Humvee from which they can be fired as they use a soft launch motor.

The principle idea I was striking at with my version was providing a cheap way of providing the ordinary infantry anti-tank specialist with a lot of missiles to hit those Grav Tanks with while not adding to his burden.

Here's my concern: the enemy kills it by dropping artillery on the area. Put a lot of tubes on one field mount design, and a lot of tubes die when the artillery falls and they roll a frag hit. You want individual field-mounted tubes, not cubes of several, to increase the survival of the launchers when the artillery hits. There are also guidance types that aren't really practical - if you've got 8 operator guided missiles in a box, you still need 8 operators; that's not an issue for target-designated, homing or target memory, of course.

Have a look at this interesting write-up for the Green Hunter missile in 2300AD on the Etranger site http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/Europe/UK/UK/Britinfeq.htm#heavy

Essentially it follows your idea of a tripod mounted package and allows the firer to take advantage of volley fire.

Operator guided missiles definitely don't suit this idea as the operator may never actually see a missile that is remote launched.

You could conceivably design a kind of armored "vehicle" that consisted of little more than the launcher(s) and a suspension inside an armored shell, the "vehicle" towed in or placed by another vehicle. You save a bit by going to a vehicle-mount tube rather than a field-mount tube, then spend that and more putting armor around and a suspension under it. It amounts to a home-made field mount, with the benefit of a bit of armor protection. However, the heavier the armor, the fewer the transport can carry and the greater the cost and the gnashing of teeth if it takes a direct hit or you're obliged to leave it behind, so it's worth a close look to decide if it's worth it or not. More naked missiles might be a better option, even if you lose more to artillery.

This is how I see post MRL and Mass Driver Artillery going. The vehicle you describe except as a grav drone controlled by an artillery vehicle that acts as a tender or mother and FDC to the drones (you could actually do this as ground vehicles too). You can put the drone a lot closer to the unit its supporting than traditional artillery. You can achieve similar things with drone missiles from Striker but with a drone carrying missiles you can fit it with target acquisition sensors and you can have it carry a range of TAC missiles to deal with different target types.

The nice thing about the set-up is - with target designated, homing, and target memory missiles - you can have one man launch a lotta missiles, assuming he's close enough to control them. That means you've gotta have a radio or laser link. Radio can be jammed, a point of vulnerability. In the case of laser, it gets tricky since he properly needs a laser comm of his own for each missile if he intends to launch them all at once. That need also imposes problems - he needs to have a clear line of sight to each launcher, so brush and stuff needs to be cut out of the way, which in some terrain might give the game away. Maser comm? Would that penetrate brush? Maybe, though there's still a bit of set-up involved in establishing a control point with several maser comms. You could use wire, doing something akin to the field telephone set-up, but wire can be cut by artillery.

If you're being jammed you're loosing the Electronic War and thats bad. As part of the sort of full spectrum combat you're facing in a high TL setting EW should be a major tool in your arsenal and a major component of your combined arms force.

Lasers are line of sight yes, but you should be using relays. Either simple mirrors or more sophisticated repeater stations. Don't have the operator communicate directly with the box launcher, have an aircraft or drone orbit high above the battlefield to act as a comms relay (two things, yes this introduces lag but for guidance types that don't require direct operator input thats okay. Second, Striker doesn't really cater for this kind of comms net or high flying support except for orbiting spacecraft).

I recall some rule in Striker that lasers can penetrate 1cm of smoke or brush on the table?


Anyway having taken a detour down the road of missile launchers I had a point to make relative to your original question, about how to construct effective air defenses.

If you're not going to send grav tanks to kill grav tanks or fighters to kill fighters, the way to go is cheap and numerous systems that over lap and support in their capabilities. You can spend a lot on a few units that are certain to be capable of killing the intruders or you can equip lots of units with weapons that are a threat to the intruders. Of course what you actually do is use a mix of both but giving the lowliest infantry man the ability to direct a missile (or artillery etc.) on to a grav tank forces that grav tank to take account of every infantryman as a possible threat. That should at least make your defenses less permeable than grav tanks at first make them seem.

At least thats my theory

 

[Carlobrand]

...This is how I see post MRL and Mass Driver Artillery going. The vehicle you describe except as a grav drone controlled by an artillery vehicle that acts as a tender or mother and FDC to the drones (you could actually do this as ground vehicles too). You can put the drone a lot closer to the unit its supporting than traditional artillery. ...

Pricey. A drone vehicle brain ranges from Cr750,000 at TL15 to Cr2 million at TL13, and not available below TL13. With that kind of investment, you want to add more to protect the brain - point defense and so forth - then put more missiles on to justify your investment. Ends up being a full-fledged multimillion credit AFV - a good one, and a good way to push more missiles forward, but quite a bit more expensive than the "drop-off-boxes" idea.

...If you're being jammed you're loosing the Electronic War and thats bad. ...

And unavoidable short of modifying the rules. Strongest radio jammer's a 5000-power model, pretty well blanks everything from where it sits out to the horizon, and a bit beyond for flying vehicles out that way. Only way to fight it, other than killing it, is to have your own 5000-power radio set, which gives you radio communications out to about halfway between you and the jammer. Instinct tells me that being a man in a foxhole with a 5000 power radio is being a man with a short life-expectancy. Of course, he doesn't have to switch the thing on until he uses it, but by yiminy he's gonna attract some serious unwanted attention at that point. Rather defeats the purpose of scattering those missiles around.

I have a vague idea that there are some modern advances Striker hadn't thought of, but incorporating those is in the realm of modifying rules, ergo something you and the player across from you would have to agree on.

...Lasers are line of sight yes, but you should be using relays. Either simple mirrors or more sophisticated repeater stations. ...

Possible with sufficient planning, preparation and expense. Have him laser a signal to some high point and then down from there. It's doable, just costs more and involves more set-up.

...Don't have the operator communicate directly with the box launcher, have an aircraft or drone orbit high above the battlefield to act as a comms relay ...

Beg pardon, but that does require at least some assurance of control of airspace. Volleys of long-range missiles can deprive you of that, obliging you to play a risky cat-and-mouse game where your flying repeater hides and then hopes he can get high quick enough to do his job when the intruder shows up. With intruders covering several kilometers in a turn, he might not.

...
I recall some rule in Striker that lasers can penetrate 1cm of smoke or brush on the table? ...

1 cm (i.e. 10 meters) of smoke, yes. I can't find anything that says it penetrates brush, certainly not to that degree. TL12- lasers are visible light or maybe IR. TL13+ lasers are x-ray and won't be bothered by brush. I don't think microwaves'll be bothered either.

...Anyway having taken a detour down the road of missile launchers I had a point to make relative to your original question, about how to construct effective air defenses.

If you're not going to send grav tanks to kill grav tanks or fighters to kill fighters, the way to go is cheap and numerous systems that over lap and support in their capabilities. You can spend a lot on a few units that are certain to be capable of killing the intruders or you can equip lots of units with weapons that are a threat to the intruders. Of course what you actually do is use a mix of both but giving the lowliest infantry man the ability to direct a missile (or artillery etc.) on to a grav tank forces that grav tank to take account of every infantryman as a possible threat. That should at least make your defenses less permeable than grav tanks at first make them seem.

At least thats my theory

It's a good theory. Missiles appear to do to tanks what aircraft did to battleships. For a tank, fast is a good way to make sure the enemy only gets one chance at you, but missiles are cheap enough and accurate enough that the one chance is more than enough. There's a window for heavily armored tanks, but it only exists while folk are restricted from using nukes. Otherwise, it's looking like the armor isn't getting through unless you've got such overwhelming local superiority that your collective PD can bat down whatever they shoot at you - or unless you can find a way to suppress the missiles. Now, with those speeds, assembling enough AFVs to achieve overwhelming local superiority on a narrow front is possible - it's just really tricky.

 

[Reban]

Ouch I hadn't counted on those huge prices for brains in Striker, they're much cheaper in T5.

I have a vague idea that there are some modern advances Striker hadn't thought of, but incorporating those is in the realm of modifying rules, ergo something you and the player across from you would have to agree on.

This is very true. Striker came out in 1981 and so based its basic understanding of military technology on what was cutting edge in the 70's. Although a lot of the military material that we use today is still 1970's vintage the electronics we put into them and how we link them up with communication is bounding far ahead.

What Striker doesn't cover in the field of communication includes; frequency hopping radios to defeat jamming and interception, radio relays where any set in range can repeat the signal to extend the range of the sending set artificially. Transmission of GPS data to Headquarters giving the commander a clear view of unit locations and reducing blue on blue incidents. The ability to transmit data and video for recon and FO operations. Over all the increasing ability of the soldier on the ground to contact and request assistance such as artillery and air support which was previously only available to higher levels such as battalion, brigade or division. It may not always be available or accurate but he can ask for it because of his communication equipment and the net it plugs into.

Actually something very simple that Striker doesn't account for in its command and communications rules is that today most militaries equip their soldiers with personal role radios for inter squad communications.


I'd love to see an updated version of Striker that deals with networked warfare and allows a little more open ended force design. As a wargame its rather good and doesn't complicate itself with rules mechanics, but as a Traveller warfare simulator its stuck in a TL7 universe.