Small Craft and Ground Combat

[Golan2072]

The Mercenary Cruiser (TMB p.127) has two Modular Cutters. This has got me thinking - clearly, the mercs would typically deploy in these two cutters; and the cutters would provide fire support for them. While the p.151 rules detail ship/person/vehicle damage conversion, I wonder how effective would small craft be in actual ground combat: what would prevent them from replacing vehicles altogether for ship-carried troops and marines? And what would prevent ship-carried troops from dominating the battlefield due to the sheer firepower (and armor) of their small craft?

 

[Gentleman John]

My initial response on this would be "Not as effective as you think". Most battlefield support aircraft are designed either to fly slowly and saturate an area with firepower (like the Apache, Warthog or Magic Dragon) or designed to overfly an area and drop ordnance on it. Small craft generally are not designed to do either - and the modular cutters for the Broadsword Class most definitely are not.

Small craft seem to be designed to go from ground to orbit, then to transfer to another orbit. Their weapons tend to be designed to fend off other small craft or to act as stand-off weapons against larger spacecraft. They are generally not designed to loiter at slow speeds (not having the lifting surfaces) or to deliver close support firepower.

That doesn't mean that they can't be designed to do so. However, as grav vehicles come into existence, they take over as dropships and air and ground support vehicles. They don't need the extra equipment that a small craft needs, and so have more space for troops, equipment and weapons.

Just my $0.02 worth.

 

[katadder]

could always have a fighter strafe your opponents though if someone owns one

 

[Golan2072]

Small craft seem to be designed to go from ground to orbit, then to transfer to another orbit. Their weapons tend to be designed to fend off other small craft or to act as stand-off weapons against larger spacecraft. They are generally not designed to loiter at slow speeds (not having the lifting surfaces) or to deliver close support firepower.

Hmmm... on the other hand, small craft are gravitic in the typical Traveller setting, which (depending on the ruleset) possibly means that they have pretty good maneuverability, not to mention not being dependent on lifting surfaces.

I don't want small craft messing around my ground combat too much, so I'm looking for good reasons to keep them as the means of deployment (at most) and as long-range artillery support (given the right kind of missiles), but not super-flying-tanks.

That doesn't mean that they can't be designed to do so. However, as grav vehicles come into existence, they take over as dropships and air and ground support vehicles. They don't need the extra equipment that a small craft needs, and so have more space for troops, equipment and weapons

How good are G-Carriers in orbital operations? If they're good enough, they'll be better dropships than small craft, especially as they cost much less and require less fuel.

 

[Gentleman John]

I don't want small craft messing around my ground combat too much, so I'm looking for good reasons to keep them as the means of deployment (at most) and as long-range artillery support (given the right kind of missiles), but not super-flying-tanks.

Expense. That's the best reason. Compare the price of a gig to a G-carrier. Which represents the best value for money in the situation? OK, the G-carrier costs 15MCr as opposed to the gig's 14MCr. However, the G-carrier carries more men and gives them fire support in terms of a turreted fusion gun. Sure, the gig is less but the G-carrier does more. I reckon you need a Modular Cutter before you get to the same level of utility, and that costs 28MCr without the appropriate fire support module. If you're a mercenary group, that is an expense you could do without - as well as the crew and maintenance requirements.

But, as you say:

How good are G-Carriers in orbital operations? If they're good enough, they'll be better dropships than small craft, especially as they cost much less and require less fuel.

Depends on the ruleset. G-Carriers can operate from orbit and reach it from the ground. The actual level of performance varies, though. In the GTU, they were very useful. Not so good in Striker, though. Still, I would prefer G-carriers to small craft in most circumstances. The only reason I can think of using small craft is if ou are doing an in-system assault from another world. G-carriers would be useless then and starships too expensive.

 

[iainjcoleman]

I don't want small craft messing around my ground combat too much, so I'm looking for good reasons to keep them as the means of deployment (at most) and as long-range artillery support (given the right kind of missiles), but not super-flying-tanks.

The small craft are owned by the Navy, who don't want to get their boats scratched by a bunch of ground-pounders.

 

[Commander Drax]

Dont forget that turret mounted starship/space craft weaponry doesn't have the high rate of fire that smaller (shorter range) weaponry has like vehicle mounted fusion guns and plasma guns. Starship weaponry is optomised for range and punching through hulls at immense distances. Whilst destructive the speed of a small vehicle mounted turret in terms of tracking and rate of fire is the sure winner as the incredibly long range is simply not needed.

 

[Dave Chase]

Don't forget the ROE (rules of engagement).
There might be either 3I, world or contract requirements that state what can and cannot be used or allowed in that conflict or battle zone.

And if we are talking Merc versus standing/regular military, then the bottom line, what is effective, what will let them succeed with min cost of material and lives (depends on your CO) and such will determine if you will use X items.

Also, if that vehicle is your only way off that rock, I bet you will be a bit more cautious about letting it get into a fire fight.

Dave Chase

 

[Travellingdave]

I think this brings up the question of whether the small arms-to-starship damage conversion really works. At a 50/1 ratio, even a lightly armored (100/2 points) ship is nigh invulnerable to anything on the ground ... and the equal to a supertank armorwise.

This might require some rethinking of either the conversion ratio or the heavy weapon damage as depicted in Mercenary. Personally, I'd recommend maybe a 20/1 ratio. It seems a bit more realistic. YMMV.

 

[kristof65]

These are all just thoughts, w/o looking at any rules...

What about manueverability? Is a Modular Cutter as manueverable in an atmoshpere as a G-carrier would be?

Weapons mounting is another possible issue - IIRC, the cutter has a fixed direction (forward) hardpoint, rather than a turret. Between that, and a limited rate of fire, they aren't very effective. And shouldn't the ship-to-ship missiles they carry be more expensive than what would be used on the ground?

For a merc company operating out of a Broadsword, those cutters are their lifeline. They get the gear and men to/from the ground, they act as command posts and evacuation ambulances, fuel shuttles, etc. They aren't going to be risked for just anything, even if they are nigh invulnerable.