Lane Shutt said:
Morgan_Keyes said:
-Information on infantry carrying capacity.
As a D20 system book use the tables in the D&D PHB.
IMHO load carrying equipment should modify the table results. A standard day pack would have a max carry weight, high quality civilian or military packs/ vest should negate either a set amount or percentage of carried load.
Let me clarify. That's not carrying capactiy for the infantry soldier, but how much space is used in an AFV to carry an infantry contingent.
Lane Shutt said:
Morgan_Keyes said:
- what about the use of regular cannons in the indirect fire role. Yes, we have howitzers and they'll handle it best, but even today the US Army is looking at incorporating indirect fire in the future for MBT armaments.
Sounds like one of those "lets save money by making something that does several jobs poorly" or "It does both jobs well, at three times the cost"
Tanks have been used to provide indirect fire support, just not nearly as accurately. I'll have to think about this before I recommend anything.
Again, not quite. This is not such a measure as you would think. There are rounds in the inventory like STAFF which allow a tank to strike at targets behind hills with top-attack EFP shells. That is to expand the anti-armor ability to do something current battalion mortar systems cannot do.
As for fire support, I have thought about that and I have also been going off the studies done by DARPA and
Future Combat System programs. Expansion of the IVIS 'combat internet' seen on all current M1A2 Abrams and M2A3 Bradleys would allow accurate placement of fire. This is
not done to replace howitzer and MRL fires, but to expand the battlespace that an MBT can affect (hit armored targets outside their own range and/or LOS, engage infantry in cover). It could
potentially replace the battalion mortar section, but that'd be a doctrine call.
As for quotes on cost or effect. The point is not whether it's cost effective or not, it's already being looked at today. This is just to allow the option so that the AFVs presented in
Armored Companies actually
are advanced designs of 2089 and not simply AFV's of the '80's and '90's with better guns. Reminds be about looking into the mechanics in the
Soldier's Companion for tactical armor and Land Warrior to apply that 'battlespace awareness' to the Tread Heads (hey, I can saw it since I am a Mud Foot and Lawn Dart in their estimation).
Lane Shutt said:
Morgan_Keyes said:
-Mortars: 'Pocket Arty' is always welcome, especially with the appearance even today of homing projectiles and smart munitions.
I'm working on it, man portable to automated vehicle mounted systems, either post here or submit to S&P.
Good, look forward to seeing that.
For a look at concepts being looked at for next-gen AFVs, there is the Future Combat System write-up
here. Not too wild about the armoring and passive defense assumptions, but much of the other tech is interesting to include Netfires, the cannons for the MCS (ie., next tank), and the lightweight 155mm 'Thunderbolt' howitzer for the >25 ton NLOS howitzer vehicle.