No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

[sideranautae]

You want to take out a corrupt gov on a small pop planet (and then run the place) but don't want to wipe out the civilians. We could have nuked Iraq. That wasn't a politically viable strategy. So, troops and tanks.

So, you just answered your own question. :wink:

Not really. I answered yours.

 

[dragoner]

Or you kill the leaders and their cronies with uber tech you can't see... targeted viruses honed to their dna...

Which we could also do today, but which would cause a political firestorm. Though the ability to burn someone up from orbit with a laser, or knock out a tank with a tungsten rod, still pretty persuasive.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, we'd better not cause a shitstorm with our tanks and soldiers then. Not that I'd be referencing any current day events cos that would breach forum rules...

:roll:

 

[dragoner]

Are those forum rules?

 

[sideranautae]

Are those forum rules?

 

[dragoner]

Not really. I answered yours.

So, tanks, but no tanks?

 

[dragoner]

Are those forum rules?

Me neither, afiak the mods are pretty lenient here, as long as it remains friendly.

 

[sideranautae]

Not really. I answered yours.

So, tanks, but no tanks?

Replace with fighters or, use just troops. But my idea was about confronting a force that has grav tanks with fighters. = no contest. My answer to you was, why would someone use ground forces be used? Which I answered. Given a limited situation of course. All out war? No way. At that point what you were talking about comes into play.

 

[dragoner]

Replace with fighters or, use just troops. But my idea was about confronting a force that has grav tanks with fighters. = no contest. My answer to you was, why would someone use ground forces be used? Which I answered. Given a limited situation of course. All out war? No way. At that point what you were talking about comes into play.

Traditionally it's called a measured response; tanks and other AFV's can be considered infantry support vehicles, and you need infantry to hold ground. If you are going to "nuke the place from orbit, just to be sure", then ground forces are irrelevant.

CAS vs ground forces is a question of an adequate ADS, which I believe starports have, so that if there is no analog in vehicles, it is a gap in the rules.

SDB's can also be used as CAS, with launches as IFV's, fairly potent; Norris' Huscarles had all three (SDB's, Fighters, and Grav Tanks), for example.

 

[sideranautae]

CAS vs ground forces is a question of an adequate ADS, which I believe starports have, so that if there is no analog in vehicles, it is a gap in the rules.

I don't think so as default. Anymore than a large port like L.A. has an adequate ASW force. In 3I you would have to see a Mil base in the code to be sure of that.

 

[dragoner]

So then you have your own fighter's fly CAP; this issue was big on military forums a while back - airpower vs tanks, it fell off post Restore Hope.

 

[CosmicGamer]

A concept that the rules don't cover well is "what happens to the bullets when you miss".

From previous discussion we have a fighter that is less likely to hit and it does more damage than a grav tank. Thus, the fighter is much more likely than the tank to be responsible for collateral damage and friendly fire.

Another concept the rules don't cover well is overkill or splash damage for those ships weapons. Taking out a vehicle landed on a rooftop? Yea, the small craft got it. Um, hope there was nobody on the top floor when the roof caved in.

 

[sideranautae]

So then you have your own fighter's fly CAP; this issue was big on military forums a while back - airpower vs tanks, it fell off post Restore Hope.

Of course. That has been the solution of choice since later WW1. But in Trav Mil sense, the other question is answered. Tanks get killed, space fighters rule. Well, rule when pitted against tanks. A good ADS, I have no idea. If they are coming into the atmosphere they are limiting their speed greatly. That is not something that will increase the odds for the fighters.

 

[dragoner]

A concept that the rules don't cover well is "what happens to the bullets when you miss".

Exactly, there are a lot of instances where CAS isn't effective, like use in urbanized terrain, but armor is.

 

[sideranautae]

A concept that the rules don't cover well is "what happens to the bullets when you miss".

Exactly, there are a lot of instances where CAS isn't effective, like use in urbanized terrain, but armor is.

You are stuck in the thought mode of fast movers. Small craft can hover down an urban street at .05 kph if desired. In reality. Small craft appropriately designed ARE the MBTs of the high TL's.

 

[dragoner]

So then you have your own fighter's fly CAP; this issue was big on military forums a while back - airpower vs tanks, it fell off post Restore Hope.

Of course. That has been the solution of choice since later WW1. But in Trav Mil sense, the other question is answered. Tanks get killed, space fighters rule. Well, rule when pitted against tanks. A good ADS, I have no idea. If they are coming into the atmosphere they are limiting their speed greatly. That is not something that will increase the odds for the fighters.

It's kind of an airforce troll on army guys, esp us armored cavalry types. But a tank's role isn't fighting fighters, it's ground combat; without control of the air, and in Traveller, orbit, offensive operations are limited. It has been a principle of warfare since ww2, but it doesn't mean tanks are necessarily obsolete.

 

[dragoner]

A concept that the rules don't cover well is "what happens to the bullets when you miss".

Exactly, there are a lot of instances where CAS isn't effective, like use in urbanized terrain, but armor is.

You are stuck in the thought mode of fast movers. Small craft can hover down an urban street at .05 kph if desired. In reality. Small craft appropriately designed ARE the MBTs of the high TL's.

No, I said put a turret on a small craft and call it a tank; either it is gaming the rules or semantics otherwise.

 

[sideranautae]

but it doesn't mean tanks are necessarily obsolete.

They just merge. Become a couple of different models. Why spend MORE on a "tank" when you can get much better for less? A 20t fighter is only 8 meters in diameter. The tank as depicted in MGT would logically have no place at high TL's. Look at the cost alone.

 

[sideranautae]

No, I said put a turret on a small craft and call it a tank; either it is gaming the rules or semantics otherwise.

Yes, that is what would happen. Small craft can have turrets with Ship sized weapons AND vehicle sized weapons. Tanks as currently shown in the game would be gone.

 

[Condottiere]

Smallcraft with turrets can shoot at targets independent of their direction, and I would attach the anti-personnel weapons to that as well.

I see the Grav tanks more as helicopters, presumably well armoured ones; the light fighters as Warthogs, potentially very fast ones.