Missing in Action Details: Armored Companies

[Morgan_Keyes]

-Information on infantry carrying capacity for AFVs. While we can build a tank or SPH, one can't make a real IFV or APC. I had waited and hoped to maybe see an addition for Armored Companies in Soldier's Companion to address this. Nope. A shame. Any stabs at this?

-Maybe could have even been addressed in the core book, but 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.

-Mortars: 'Pocket Arty' is always welcome, especially with the appearance even today of homing projectiles and smart munitions.

-The given vehicles: while not missing,...well by and large the less said about them the better.

 

[Lane Shutt]

-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.

- 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.

-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.

 

[Morgan_Keyes]

-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.

- 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).

-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.

 

[Lane Shutt]

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.

I noticed this as well, hopefully addressed in the FAQ.
For now I would use the space requirement for crew members but not the power cost.

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.

Sounds like special ammo rather than a change in weapons stats.

 

[Morgan_Keyes]

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.

Sounds like special ammo rather than a change in weapons stats.

It's a combination of special ammo coupled with enhancements to the fire control system. Currently on the M1A2s this is to allow them to place STAFF rounds on targets out of LOS taking information from the IVIS. The FCS Main Combat System's (MCS, aka 'tank') main gun is planned to have an elevation of +60 (M1A2 is +20) and with additions to the fire control computer would also allow it to lob other shells to include HE and ICM.

It doesn't so much require a change in the existing stats of weapons, but an addendum to the game mechanics on pg. 95 of the core book concerning range increments for nominally direct fire cannons backed by the appropriate fire control system and likely a small increase (+1 or 2) to the hardpoint requirements on the weapon for the increased elevation. Nothing that's a default on existing weapons, but an option open to them.

 

[Lane Shutt]

It doesn't so much require a change in the existing stats of weapons, but an addendum to the game mechanics on pg. 95 of the core book concerning range increments for nominally direct fire cannons backed by the appropriate fire control system and likely a small increase (+1 or 2) to the hardpoint requirements on the weapon for the increased elevation.

Howitzers are already lighter than most Cannon on tanks, so increasing the HP requirement would make indirect capable cannon even less common. Cannon on Warmech shouldn't even need extra HP to fire indirect, an arm can point up as easily as horizontal, unless you assume the extra HPs are to account for off axis recoil effects.

The real problem is game balance. A 140 mm Electrothermal Cannon firing indirectly would have 160% damage, 250% range and 600% more ammo per ton compared to a 200 mm Howitzer.

I would suggest the indirect attack capability be represented as follows.
Catchy Name (or acronym) round - allows any cannon (other than auto cannon) to fire indirectly at targets out of LoS or behind cover. A normal indirect fire attack is made with a max range of 20 increments. If a hit is scored on the target, or the same 10 m hex, roll damage as a single SADARM or SADRORD attack. If the attack is a miss the round hits the closest target within 30 m.

 

[Morgan_Keyes]

It doesn't so much require a change in the existing stats of weapons, but an addendum to the game mechanics on pg. 95 of the core book concerning range increments for nominally direct fire cannons backed by the appropriate fire control system and likely a small increase (+1 or 2) to the hardpoint requirements on the weapon for the increased elevation.

Howitzers are already lighter than most Cannon on tanks, so increasing the HP requirement would make indirect capable cannon even less common. Cannon on Warmech shouldn't even need extra HP to fire indirect, an arm can point up as easily as horizontal, unless you assume the extra HPs are to account for off axis recoil effects.

I'm referring to AFV's, which why the post title included 'Armored Companies', not about the WarMechs. But on WarMechs, if you look at pg. 95 in the core book you'll see the typical WarMech only gets +45 for elevation. Better then most tank direct fire guns, but not what howitzers do (+60 to +75).

The real problem is game balance. A 140 mm Electrothermal Cannon firing indirectly would have 160% damage, 250% range and 600% more ammo per ton compared to a 200 mm Howitzer.

You'll want to recheck those numbers and check the info on pg 95 concerning howitzer increments and then the differences in ammo types.

I haven't estabilished the range increment for a normal cannon firing indirect fire. Currently howitzers hold the edge with 40 increments (and that's 1000m per increment, per pg 95) when going indirect. I'm not proposing to cut into that, simply that cannon should have the build option of firing indirect. So the howitzers would still hold and edge over any of the existing cannons, even ET ones and even if they also got 40 increments on indirect. The howitzers hit out to 40000m indirect, whereas even a 140mm ET cannon would only reach half that with the same increment bonus. And that isn't even getting into rocket-assist howitzer shells. So the howitzer still has it's place even with my suggestions.

Direct fire cannon also take a hit punch with an HE round compared to a howitzer, since they must give up 2 dice of damage. That drops a 140mm ET to 3d8 with an HE munition. Not bad, but given the rarity of a 140mm ET and looking at the more common tank guns one can see a howitzer hits harder and with more coverage with an HE round. This is even more nasty with a cluster shell.

So why then do I still look at indirect for the cannons? Well I can tell you from personal experience that the artillery is not always there when you need it. If that wasn't the case then why do infantry and armor battalions have organic mortars? Even those aren't always available when you need them. Indirect fire for MBTs increases their effect on the battlespace since they don't need LOS/LOF to hit a target, and don't need to wait for artillery to become availiable. If you get it great, but a 'tank' (in whatever flavor) that suddenly is warned of an infantry mortar section over the hill with guided armor killing shells, or to hit targets in an urban setting can do a quick response shot instead of waiting for a fire support request to go through. Just one more thing in it's bag of tricks.

I would suggest the indirect attack capability be represented as follows.
Catchy Name (or acronym) round - allows any cannon (other than auto cannon) to fire indirectly at targets out of LoS or behind cover. A normal indirect fire attack is made with a max range of 20 increments. If a hit is scored on the target, or the same 10 m hex, roll damage as a single SADARM or SADRORD attack. If the attack is a miss the round hits the closest target within 30 m.

But what I'm talking about goes beyond this (which exists today with STAFF) and requires more then just a shell, but an enhancement of the cannon for proper elevation and improvements in it's fire control to lay accurate indirect fire, especially against targets like infantry that don't give a nice signiture for the SADARM/SADRORD-type round. While the LOS/BLOS (Line Of Sight/Beyond Line Of Sight) -type cannon may not be anywhere as effective as a howitzer or mortar for indirect fire, it provides the fast moving armor battalions with immediate indirect fires which can use rapid response, massed fires, and precise placement to make up for it's performance deficiencies compared to it's cousins.

 

[Lane Shutt]

I'm referring to AFV's, which why the post title included 'Armored Companies', not about the WarMechs. But on WarMechs, if you look at pg. 95 in the core book you'll see the typical WarMech only gets +45 for elevation. Better then most tank direct fire guns, but not what howitzers do (+60 to +75).

Well 45 degrees will give max range, higher just allows you to shoot at closer range with a high arc.

You'll want to recheck those numbers and check the info on pg 95 concerning howitzer increments and then the differences in ammo types.

I forgot about the dual range increment for Howitzers.
IMHO a cannon firing indirect should use it's direct fire increment with 30-40 increments max.

But what I'm talking about goes beyond this ... against targets like infantry that don't give a nice signiture for the SADARM/SADRORD-type round.

Then use something already in development, a round that functions as a SADARM/ SADRORD round unless it fails to detect a target, or programed to, in which case it detonates as a HE round. Remember that even a 1D6 HE (structure point damage) shell will kill most in infantry.

 

[Morgan_Keyes]

But what I'm talking about goes beyond this ... against targets like infantry that don't give a nice signiture for the SADARM/SADRORD-type round.

Then use something already in development, a round that functions as a SADARM/ SADRORD round unless it fails to detect a target, or programed to, in which case it detonates as a HE round. Remember that even a 1D6 HE (structure point damage) shell will kill most in infantry.[/quote]

This is expanding from the very basic info of the core book. From personal experience (ie., actually getting shot at and having arty dropped around the ears) infantry units are a damn sight harder to kill.

As I've said before, taking this the next level up requires more then the addition of a new round (though one will have to appear; there being work on a variant of the Sensor Fused Munition), but also some additions to an AFVs fire control to allow for full utilitzation. Your own later arguments really just support this, sans the addition of additional fire control. That's all I was asking and pointing out, the oversight left in Armored Companies and pointing such out to other players.

 

[Anonymous]

This is expanding from the very basic info of the core book. From personal experience (ie., actually getting shot at and having arty dropped around the ears) infantry units are a damn sight harder to kill.

Well cover, even a hasty fighting position, helps a lot. The incomplete coverage of most artillery helps as well.

As I've said before, taking this the next level up requires more then the addition of a new round ... but also some additions to an AFVs fire control to allow for full utilization.

I agree that it would be a reasonable addition but as you have pointed out the A:2089 weapons tech is little better than present day issue. What you are asking might make a good article for S&P as experimental gear.

I also agree that organic indirect fire support would be essential for small units. However in A:2089 most units are company sized or less Mercenaries. If they fail to contract reliable fire support, other mercs, or purchase their own assets then they deserve to get shot up. Remember that rockets are long range and fairly light, UAVs would also be perfect for fire support.

BTW I may have some questions for you about lawn darts, I have some ideas for airborne ops that may get submitted to S&P.

 

[Lane Shutt]

How odd, I was logged in and still posted as guest.

 

[Morgan_Keyes]

As I've said before, taking this the next level up requires more then the addition of a new round ... but also some additions to an AFVs fire control to allow for full utilization.

I agree that it would be a reasonable addition but as you have pointed out the A:2089 weapons tech is little better than present day issue. What you are asking might make a good article for S&P as experimental gear.

I also agree that organic indirect fire support would be essential for small units. However in A:2089 most units are company sized or less Mercenaries. If they fail to contract reliable fire support, other mercs, or purchase their own assets then they deserve to get shot up. Remember that rockets are long range and fairly light, UAVs would also be perfect for fire support.

BTW I may have some questions for you about lawn darts, I have some ideas for airborne ops that may get submitted to S&P.

Indeed. Actually, A:2089 has been fairly good for weapons. It's sometimes the other technologies that get overlooked that make these weapons function better then their raw stats. The hybrid and ET guns make good examples. The obvious benefit of increased velocity with reduction in space per shot jumps right out. But the way the tech in both work...one could adjust the plasma on a shot-to-shot basis. K-kill shot? Ramp it all the way up! Cannon-launched missile? No prob, just dial it back for a soft launch. Artillery? No need to worry so much about getting the right charge as the gun can vary it and do so during a salvo for even faster 'time on target' (ie., all shells of a salvo hitting at the same time) per gun tube.

True you have a number of merc units working in company or smaller, but that can even be an argument for some wanting to pick up some multi-use platforms. Some units might prefer to be able to have indirect support without having to sub-contract or rely on an outside unit, not to mention the potential to reduce logistics and overhead by not having to field a company mortar section...or at least reduce their need. This also works good for those units that may be primarily infantry. Some commanders with AFV support may be torn, 'Do I get the armored mortars, or do I spring for armored gun systems (AGS, aka light tanks) and lose the arty support?' Now some have the option to get a vehicle that can cover both. It's not the optimal solution, but if they can't afford both but do have a bit extra funds they may may be able to spring for the somewhat more expensive 'armored fire support' AFV. Per unit they're costlier then either the armored mortar or the AGS but cheaper then fielding both.

Rockets are also great for the cheap artillery. The Brazilians have a real simple system I wish we'd adopt for some of our light infantry or medium brigades. It's a trailer that hold 6 19-shot Hydra rocket pods. For those that don't know, a Hydra rocket is the 2.75" rocket the US uses in pods off their attack and scout choppers. There's a submunition version that spits out 10 grenades per rocket. So you have a light trailer with 114 70mm rockets ready to go. Hmm...maybe need to do a piece on artillery too. The Metalstorm system has some interesting applications for dropped, remote fire mortar systems. Don't worry though Lane, not gonna steal your thunder since I remember you said you were working on a mortar article.

This is also bringing up some other points I may take a stab at addressing. Lane already pointed out that by the rules the Poor Bloody Infantry (PBI) get splattered by anything in the WarMek range. But we also both agreed that those same 'squishy' PBI can in fact be damn hard to kill. How a WarMek takes damage from area of effect weapons is different then how it'd affect the infantry. Something to look at, how to stat out infantry squads in the game.

I'm in the process of clearing post right now, but I'll try to take a stab at some actual numbers this weeke....eh, well Saturday at least. Got the game after all and since I'm at Ft. Bragg I have to be cheering on the Panthers, neh? :lol:

 

[wpngjstr]

Remember that rockets are long range and fairly light, UAVs would also be perfect for fire support.

Do you mean for providing it themselves, or calling for fire? They work VERY well at calling in artillery - during OIF we did such a good job that we got assigned priority for CFF...we have some very "graphic" footage of the strikes we called in (and the PBIs on the receiving end didn't fare well at all...)
Of course Predator got the credit for some of our more interesting missions (bloody press can't tell the difference between drone types)
The one problem I see is that for battlefield UAVs altitudes tend to be around 6-10,000 ft, with a stand off of around 1-4km, which makes them easy meat for any halfway decent ADA/SAM setup. The only real defence is low signature, which drives up cost, reducing expendability (we got very blase about writing off a $1 million aircraft! -it's still cheaper than some missiles) This also reduces the effectiveness of putting serious weapons on a UAV- more weapons, more cost, bigger target, less expendable... The next generation UAV we're looking at is estimated at around $6-8 million, carrying missiles and rockets, and is NOT regarded as expendable (pretty silly really, but they didn't ask me)

 

[Draco Argentum]

I was reading this and thought of this topic. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m943.htm

Apparently the STAFF round dosen't need modification to the turret. Presumably this means that the 20 degree elevation of the M1A1 is enough.

Obviously the terminal guidance calls for a scan check vs the target's radar signiture. I'm not sure how the crew's attack roll should be done or what damage to use. I'd have it hit the turret on a tank and re-roll any legs hits on a mek.

 

[Morgan_Keyes]

I was reading this and thought of this topic. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m943.htm

Apparently the STAFF round dosen't need modification to the turret. Presumably this means that the 20 degree elevation of the M1A1 is enough.

Obviously the terminal guidance calls for a scan check vs the target's radar signiture. I'm not sure how the crew's attack roll should be done or what damage to use. I'd have it hit the turret on a tank and re-roll any legs hits on a mek.

Correct, no modification is required. I just used it and TERM as examples of developments and showing that the potential is open for traditional direct-fire combatants like MBT's to conduct indirect missions.

In BG (ret) Grange's books Air-Mech Strike there is a design example of an Abrams with a high elevation pedestal turret. And if I remember right, the gun on the FCS 'tank' is supposed to have high-angle elevation as well.