Should the MI use tanks

[cOwgummi]

Yeah I stated that multiple times actually that I don't have a problem with an APC to bring the MI to the fight on a strategic level, but I just don't see any reason for frontline battletanks or anything similiar.

Its like bringing a Truck or Horse-Wagon in Firing Range of the Enemy in the middle of world war 2.
You don't do it!

 

[Gauntlet-]

well i wouldn't go that far... perhaps more like cavalry usage in WWI, it had a point but was rare, and ultimately not worth the time and resources.

it wasn't quite as bad, like the polish cavalry charges against German Panzers in WWII

PS- just realized the last 2 pages or so was about cavalry lol, sorry i skipped a little...



I want to note for accuracy, that any 'acceptable losses' is very much an allied or particularly English idea and strategy dating from WWI, the Germans have consistently been much kinder or rather 'careful' (they do have less) to their armed forces in how they have been used with the notable exception of some of the last few fights of the Eastern Front.

Cost to kill an allied soldier in WWI: $11,345
Cost to kill a German soldier in WWI: $36,485

Casualty rates become even more excessive for the allies when you add in their fairly bad (comparable to the Germans) surrender rates.

-Figures from 'The Pity of War' good book on my desk right now

 

[cOwgummi]

I personally think that "acceptable losses" kinda is a basic principle of every war.
You can't go to war without somebody dying.


also yeah I know its not that bad as the WW2 sample, but I just wanted to make my point clear.

 

[Gauntlet-]

The phrase emerged as part of the attitude to disregard or otherwise ignore or counter argue punitive losses in battle as part of some grand scheme to 'wear' down the enemy. Which in reality was A. not working and B. piss poor tactics when compared to those employed by armies which sought effective means.

Basically I'm criticizing the idea that 'Germans' don't care about their men's lives in WWI or II, ultimately allied commanders were far more callous regarding casualty rates. Now this does not confer any sort of morality 'per-se' as the allies had more men and therefore could afford to be less cautious, and the Germans did not and therefore could not afford to be wasteful. The other part of this, is that the German's simply had superior tactics which says nothing of morality but did save lives.

 

[shotgun-toting chipmunk]

Marauders give us the firepower, etc of a main battle tank. Hiro's argument in favor of the tank is the limited time a Marauder can see action. However, you have to remember that support vehicles like the Pegasus skimmer negate that issue. These can be used to transport the units to a fight, recharging them as they go. It's actually quite similar to the Land Warrior-Stryker Interoperable concept the US Army is tweaking. Battery Life is an issue, so troops are assigned to Strykers and essentially use them as mobile recharging stations. The pegasus, etc enable the Marauders to do the same thing.

This of course assumes a situation where they can't just drop in and hop out via fleet assets.

Sorry, but for front line units the tank has been replaced.

 

[Hiromoon]

Well if we're going to argue in that direction, the tank removes the need to have two vehicles in the field, Shotgun. Bean-counters negate the claim that the tank has been replaced.

 

[shotgun-toting chipmunk]

Tanks would still need support from fuel trucks to maintain long missions the same way the Marauders would use the Pegasus. The tank, however, cannot be picked up by a Skyhook if the situation goes "R-Triple-D"

 

[MaxSteiner]

Having just started reading Hammers Slammers, Im even more convinced that Tanks don't belong in the MI
I still don't see what the problem is with tanks being available to militia type forces and not the MI really...

 

[shotgun-toting chipmunk]

Militia and such would be the most likely option, if you absolutely had to have them in the game. The problem of course is that it seems to be an awful lot of heavy duty equipment for non-front line units, especially when you factor in the additional development and resources to create and maintain them. I think the best option is to stick with the idea of them having larger numbers of Heavy Geckos to fulfill that role.

 

[127th Angry Angels]

I promised myself i wouldn't get into this debate but it just won't die.

Ok first up- i love tanks. Any other wargame i play- i'd like the tanky-est army please.

With my M.I (Cap trooper army) i like the idea that these guys are like an Air assault platoon or Air Cav, that's the flavour i like to play them with.

I can see the potential for having a seperate unit for tanks such as the suggested militia. It's definately be an option for a rebel army list. Perhaps tanks would be drafted into service in reserve regiments after the road to victory losses, a sort of needs must. In the UK a few years ago the firebrigade went on strike accross th ecountry and the MOD had to pick up the slack to cover the country they got Green Goddess fireengines out of mothballs last used in WW2. I dunno, if the management want tanks in they can write fluff to include them. They could dismiss most arguments levelled against them with a bit of fluff. The discovery of <insert jargon here> has meant <Tanks can do X> etc.

I'm happy without tanks, i don't think the game needs them for M.I players. Maybe a different SICON force could beincluded in a suplement or something but we've plenty of other cool stuff to deal death with. And it does mark SST apart from 40k in some small way.

I'd rather argue over getting pics of the new flyers! Slingshot! Slingshot! Slingshot! Slingshot! Slingshot! Slingshot! Slingshot! Slingshot! Slingshot!

 

[Hiromoon]

Tanks would still need support from fuel trucks to maintain long missions the same way the Marauders would use the Pegasus. The tank, however, cannot be picked up by a Skyhook if the situation goes "R-Triple-D"

Well, your Pegasus needs a fuel truck too Shotgun, and I don't think you can squeeze a Marauder onto a Skyhook either (I checked, maximum size is Size 1). Now, abandoning the vehicles is always an option. You also have the issue of deploying the Pegasus too, with that dreaded heavy lift requirement rearing its ugly head again.

Maximum Size
Skyhook: 1
Viking: 2
Slingshot: 4

Now, theoretically the Pegasus could be small enough to fit on a Slingshot, but using Roughneck Chronicals as an example, it's a larger vehicle used to drop the combat skimmers into the combat zone...

 

[xeoran]

Cost to kill an allied soldier in WWI: $11,345
Cost to kill a German soldier in WWI: $36,485

Remember though you have to factor in the fact that the Western Allies were generally on the offensive permanently from 1915-18 with the only blip being the German Ludendorff offensive- which collapsed ignomiously na dled to the amazingly successful 100 days campaign.

Incidentally when it says Allied who does it count? Because if it counts the Russian army then the figures will obviously be very skewed. Similarly you have to factor in industrial concerns: British shells were awful, one of every three I think failing to detonate, meaning more was required. Do the figures also account for the amount spent on moving troops to Africa/Middle East which was very costly.

I'd reject utterly the idea that the Germans had better tactics. They developed excellent defensive tactics but offensive tactics were disasterous (the Stormtrooper program being a failure because it meant that whilst you had a very effective breakthrough weapon they would then totally exhaust themselves meaning the brunt of the fighting would then have to be taken over by less able units who'd had their best men removed to join Stormtrooper units). On the other hand the Western Front allies developed the various forms of barrage, pioneered the best MMG's, trained all units not just specialised ones, developed platoon warfare and utterly crushed the Germans in the 100 days campaign. Whilst I dislike the attempts at morality Gary Sheffields "The Forgotten Victory" is excellent (though it should be read with other books because Sheffield only includes revisionist topics).

 

[cOwgummi]

Tanks would still need support from fuel trucks to maintain long missions the same way the Marauders would use the Pegasus. The tank, however, cannot be picked up by a Skyhook if the situation goes "R-Triple-D"

Well, your Pegasus needs a fuel truck too Shotgun, and I don't think you can squeeze a Marauder onto a Skyhook either (I checked, maximum size is Size 1). Now, abandoning the vehicles is always an option. You also have the issue of deploying the Pegasus too, with that dreaded heavy lift requirement rearing its ugly head again.

Maximum Size
Skyhook: 1
Viking: 2
Slingshot: 4

Now, theoretically the Pegasus could be small enough to fit on a Slingshot, but using Roughneck Chronicals as an example, it's a larger vehicle used
to drop the combat skimmers into the combat zone...

But you see direct landings by a vihicle that is neither a viking nor a slingshot multiple times, and it kinda loooks exactly like mongooses slingshot artwork...

 

[Sight]

Tanks and the MI... answer to that question depends on which universe you base the game on the most.

The book: MI don't use tanks, combat is nuclear-heavy, bugs use beam weapons, tools, vehicles, space-ships... you name it. Tanks would get horribly mauled by airforce and smart missiles launched by MI.

The movie: MI don't use tanks, strategy or any common sense. Hordes of infantry run in general direction of the enemy, occasionally shooting small arms at elephant sized enemies, and constantly crossing each others' lines of fire. Arachnids have no tools, weapons (other than themselves), ships, and can absorb your knowledge by eating your brain, asteroids travel light years in manner of days, etc. Needles to says I'm not a very big fan of the movie.
Any (ANY!) movie bug would be completely useless against any WW2+ era tank (yes, including the tanker).

The series: MI are somewhat closer to the book, but mostly resembles tho movie. Some vehicles are used, but no sign of tanks.

Now would it make sense to use tanks?
Book: No, Arachnids would annihilate them using nukes, rayguns and whatnot.
Movie: Absolutely. I see your 40 ton tanker bug (which BTW would not be even able to move in RL) and raise you a 63 ton M1 Abrams, which can blast its head off from 4 cliks away and will crush it beneath its threads in a direct confrontation (steel>>>chitin).
Series: Bugs are mostly the same as in the movie, but the MI have other equipment that does a lot of the same work (Marauders, IFVs, etc.). Tanks would be same as in RL. A pain in the @ss to transport to combat zones, but an enormously powerful fighting force once they get there.

Should tanks be in the game?
IMHO Mongoose don't need to manufacture models, but some general rules would be appreciated. Converting 1/40-1/50 scale models is pretty easy (I myself am occasinally using a converted 1/43 LAV) and one such model adds a lot of character to a force. As per the rules, tanks & such would need to be scaled down as an accurate representation would cause even a single vehicle to totally dominate all but the largest games. A scaled tank of the M1 category should be a shooting version of a tanker (maybe king tanker). Just my $0.02.

BTW: First post, yay.

 

[Hiromoon]

But you see direct landings by a vihicle that is neither a viking nor a slingshot multiple times, and it kinda loooks exactly like mongooses slingshot artwork...

Well, to address that I actually did come up with a few stats.

The first one, and the one you're probably thinking of, first seen during the Pluto campaign, is one I call the C-175 Heavy Drop Ship "Visgoth", complete with the ability to launch drop pods (basically, it takes the launch tubes from the vessels and puts them in a smaller, more manuverable vehicle similar to the Slingshot in design, but larger to support the launch equipment.

The second one, and the one that I've scene deploying Combat Skimmers and Jet Skies, is one I call the C-250 Heavy Hauler "Saxon", a bit of a play on the Viking Drop Ship's name. I say it has the capacity to carry Five combat skimmers, though I might be over esitmating the actual size (since scaling seems a little wonky with a "Saxon" appearing during the earth campaign).



Sight
Welcome to the board, and might I say that is an excellent summary for a first post! Bravo!

 

[cOwgummi]

I wanted to say "neither looking like a viking nor skyhook" but you never see vikings or skyhooks in the series anyway...

 

[Hiromoon]

Yeah, which is why I like Mongoose's incarnation of SST. It allows an interesting blending of all of the sources... Heck, it's spawned an excellent series of comic books!!

Anyway, if you want cOwgummi, you can name the next mystery vehicle

 

[Gauntlet-]

Hi Sight nice to meet you and welcome to the boards!

Though in what situation would a Tanker Bug be seen above ground at 4 clicks? Personally I don't think the bugs would ever do that, they would burrow to nearish range.

Also I don't think their is enough evidence to insist that steel is stronger than their chitin... the movie shows a morita at close range breaking the tanker shell, but this lets you see how thin that shell is. And we are told by some select sources that the morita is practically a guass rifle... and we don't see how Morita fire is against steel at any point to confirm that.

Not to mention I don't think the Tanker is the 'anti-tank' weapon of the Bugs, its really an anti-hard infantry or wall unit. It's the equivelent of a flame tank from WWII which isn't really expected to take on a regular tank and win.

But you did limit it to the movie, so yes the Tank would work, because the movie doesn't show us things like fire fries or blister bugs, which have been shown to literally dissolve through spaceship armorering... presumable that tank isn't going to be able to deal with acid spit that can melt through bunker walls!

Not to mention if you run over enough warriors I bet you can break the treads

 

[Sight]

When would a tanker bug be seen above ground? Well there was this scene in the movie, where troops are being evacuated from the fort and there is this huge number of bugs, including several tankers below the retrieval boat.

The movie morita definitely isn't a gauss rifle. You can tell that from the ammo (such as that being passed to kids in the beginning) and muzzle flashes. And even then I'm not certain about terminal balistics of a gauss small arm - yes, the bullet can go fast, but unless it's made of uranium or such it will still go "splat" when hitting anything of comparable hardness.

As for blister bugs... well, RL acid doesn't really work that way (that is why nobody uses acid weapons). Assuming that acids would really work that way, the result would be equivalent to WW2, where flamethrower troops were able to destroy tanks by spraying them with fire for a while (and thus roasting crew and/or detonating fuel & ammo), because that was before tanks came with halon dispensers. Still, they needed to get damn close and keep spraying at least for several seconds. And as long as the tank was able to move around, it could just move away.

 

[Gauntlet-]

well if you want to apply real life arguments to fiction then we have a problem here.

It simply isn't fair to assume or argue that Tanks would work because the bugs are 'impossible'. For the duration of this argument, where we are discussing tanks within the world of SST, one must acknowledge that SST is not real life.

Also that scene in the movie- wasn't exactly four miles, had tankers closer up, was an ambush where the bugs knew the aproximate force they were facing... etc.etc.etc.

They wouldn't put a tanker above ground 4 miles away knowing their are tanks about.

The Gauss thing- the SST game books and CGI show use some sort of gauss tech. Thats what I was referring too.