What DO high tech grav tanks look like?

[simonh]

... Tracked vehicles aren't capable of fine motor movement like you think. You also have to take terrain factors into the equation too, as some are going to play havoc with your fine control. Grav vehicles would present with the same issues, though theirs would be more in regards to trying to stay in one place against the wind.

I'm not really talking about tracked vehicles, I just mentioned the S-Tank obliquely. It's an example that shows that even in a situation where having a turret seems like a no-brainer there are still exceptions, and in field tests in the UK and US the S-Tank performed surprisingly well.

I don't agree that a grav tank would have significant issues with wind or attitude control. Helicopters have much cruder propulsion systems, but can automatically maintain position and there are camera-equipped quad-copter drones available now that can compensate for wind drift. I'd imagine computer controlled grav flight control systems should be able to massively out-perform rotor propelled systems at that sort of thing.

Now, as to why turreted vehicles would be superior, well, that's easy. If your main weapon can be aimed independently of your vehicle, you now have the ability to both maneuver AND aim/fire at your enemy.

I don't see why grav vehicles wouldn't be able to do that anyway, unless we assume they are incapable of propulsively maneouvering lateraly and in reverse. If that's true yes, they will absolutely need turrets, because they wouldn't even be able to slow down without rotating 180 degrees first to re-orient the direction of propulsion. They are often depicted with aircraft-like fuselages, but if they have to rotate to manoeuver, a shape like that would make them flip out at high speeds due to extreme aerodynamic effects. They'd have to be some variation on a globe or saucer shape to allow lateral rotation to manueuver without dramatic changes in their aerodynamics.

That's not how I've always imagined them manoeuvering though, which is being able to propulsively manoeuver in any direction, though perhaps with a performance bias towards forward flight. If they can do this, they would be able to manoeuver without significant regard to their facing.

In practice though, you're likely to see a variety of designs depending on the vehicle's role. Turrets offer many advantages on a modern tank, and yet the S-Tank exists. There will always be oddities and exceptions to any rule whether the preponderence of advantages lies in most curcumstances either with or against turrets. Turrets are also likely to be used for any vehicle with more than one weapon system.

Simon Hibbs

 

[phavoc]

[The one thing that will probably never change is the job of a tank...

It has and does change with the enemy it is to face, you can see it reflected in ToE's from different wars, because forces are organized different for different missions.

Armor units have always has mixed units, not just tanks. When I was in 1st Cavalry we had tanks, apc's, air cavalry, assault choppers, tube artillery, MLRS, combat engineers, etc, etc. We had a pretty diverse To&E and the tanks still had the same task - punch holes in the enemy lines & kill other tanks. That job hasn't changed. And while the TO&E has become more diverse over the decades, that's more a reflection of a change in technology and what equipment can be fielded than in missions.

There are a few reaons why choppers use gun turrets. To start with while they are agile, they have problems pointing in a fixed direction consistently, due to their high and continuously variable engine torque and changes in wind speeds. This is more a problem for them than it would be for a grav tank due to their large wind-catching rotors and tail. Furthermore they are incapable of pointing the fuselage downwards without also inducing forward motion. So any change in orientation induces wobble and drift that isn't inducive to accurate targetting. I would expect a grav tank to have considerably better capabilities around station keeping and orientation control.

Simon Hibbs

You wouldn't walk a fusion or plasma gun onto your targets like you do gun-based systems. Any vehicle that can survive a direct hit by plasma is going to be able to shrug off a near miss. Or, in modern terms, if you miss by a inch with a APFSDS round, you might as well not have fired it.

A 30mm chain gun doesn't open fire with pinpoint accuracy, it walks it's fire onto a target because the gun platform is inherently unstable. The turret allows the gunner to counter the inevitable movement caused by the wind in hover mode. But a helo stands still rarely when engaging targets, as it's movement is also a protection from ground fire.

If you look at the other heliborne weapons, they fall within unguided (FFAR rockets which are AOE) or guided missiles (Hellfire, or optically tracked). The mast-mount on most helo's allows them to hide the helo behind terrain while still keeping their sensor on the target.

 

[dragoner]

Armor units have always has mixed units, not just tanks.

Combined arms. Look at your coy/pl toe's, they will be different if different arms are in support.

 

[phavoc]

Armor units have always has mixed units, not just tanks.

Combined arms. Look at your coy/pl toe's, they will be different if different arms are in support.

Well, sure. 1st Cav had a different TO&E breakdown division wide than 2nd AD which shared our post, or 5th ID, or 12th Mountain. The divisions all had subtle differences in their makeup, but isn't that to be expected?

Where I don't expect large differences is at the company level. A company/squadron/battery is the same across multiple division types - but only so long as you keep them the same. An artillery battery supporting 12th Mountain division might be equipped with 105mm howitzers whereas 1st Cavalry might have mechanized 155/8in/MLRS. I think as long as you keep perspective the differences make sense. But if you had 1st Infantry with 105s I'd say that would be a problem with the model.

 

[dragoner]

The divisions all had subtle differences in their makeup, but isn't that to be expected?

You can divine the mission from the toe, such as I was speaking with someone long ago about the Norris' Huscarls, because the toe was printed, and we could tell where Marc had a command. Vietnam had tanks in support of infantry as it's primary role. Later (and earlier) eto, inf followed tanks in a breakthrough and exploit/response, doctrine. So mission dictates tactics and organization, even in the same unit.

 

[Condottiere]

It's more cut and dried with naval operations.

It's a symbioses between the various arms, tanks, artillery, CAS and infantry, mutually supportive.

One grav tank model might be like the Lee/Grant, in that id has a spinal mount shooting forward, and a turret mounted gun taking out threats to the flank and the rear.

Or even an additional turret on the bottom.

A medium or heavy tank is supposed to dominate his section of the battlefield, or try to.

 

[dragoner]

One difference would be an ass would not come down and hit you in the head; at least if you are buttoned up all the time because you are in vacuum.

 

[phavoc]

The divisions all had subtle differences in their makeup, but isn't that to be expected?

You can divine the mission from the toe, such as I was speaking with someone long ago about the Norris' Huscarls, because the toe was printed, and we could tell where Marc had a command. Vietnam had tanks in support of infantry as it's primary role. Later (and earlier) eto, inf followed tanks in a breakthrough and exploit/response, doctrine. So mission dictates tactics and organization, even in the same unit.

You are talking about the 4518th Lift Regiment? If you have the FFE DVD's you can find the original article in issue #9.

The 4518th is equipped to be pretty self-supporting, it has a flight element and even jump troops. But I wouldn't say it's a good example because it's more of a specialized unit rather than a standard line unit.

It's interesting that you mention the Grav tanks, as he has a standard grav tank with 4 crew, and the command grav tank with 6.

And yes, mission often influences tactics, but so does weapons, and training. Ideally you always adopt your tactics to fit the specific mission, enemy and terrain. History has shown us that military leaders (and civilian ones) don't always follow that maxim very well.

 

[dragoner]

You are talking about the 4518th Lift Regiment? If you have the FFE DVD's you can find the original article in issue #9.

It is also in Spinward Marches Campaign on the CT disk.

 

[Condottiere]

You'd really expect semi-permanent kampfgruppen that are supported by their respective parent units, who've similarly distributed their other subunits.

 

[dragoner]

Due to the nature of distances an travel time, space born units would be very independent minded.

This convo is kind of full circle of one I had years ago, still have a file with quickie sketches, unit toe's. Probably it's time to get off the tram.

Of interesting note, other than casualties like the commander getting his privates caught in the rotating basket hole, grav would solve two other most common accidents: rollover and running people over because you don't see them. They could be knocked down, but at least they wouldn't go under the treads

 

[Nobby-W]

"The advantage is armor & firepower."

"That works only in areas without air power of similar TL. In every battle where there has been significant air, enemy tanks get slaughtered. They will need armor all around. Not just the sides."

Point defence weapons are a thing in Traveller, and the fire control negates speed DMs under Striker rules. At any tech level where a decent sized laser can be fitted with P.D. fire control - basically TL9+ under Striker - aircraft or grav vehicles flying in high mode become quite vulnerable to ground fire due to the thinner belly armour.

IMTU I assume that P.D. fire control negates a lot of the advantages of air power so even if grav tanks have 'pronounced free-flight capability' they're still much safer flying NOE where they can hide behind terrain and face ground fire with much thicker frontal armour.

Point defence also makes it harder to use indirect fire effectively, giving direct fire weapons such as plasma guns and ground cover/fortifications a much more prominent role.

 

[F33D]

IMTU I assume that P.D. fire control negates a lot of the advantages of air power

Grav tanks ARE air power. So they will be pounding the "top" of your NOE tanks with their main (direct fire) guns. :lol:

 

[Reynard]

Only if there was no intel or sensor data concerning the opposition's assets and the battlefield. If one side challenges at High mode, the other side would do so too. Your assets drop to terrain following and NOE to avoid ground assets including Anti-Grav support. It's a chess game when both sides have grav assisted A-G batteries following. Do to risk a sky battle with the possibility of facing tanks as well as A-Gs or do you drop and face the other tanks nose to nose?

Big issue with aircraft today is surviving anywhere near a battlefield not only from other aircraft but Anti-Aircraft batteries. Fixed wing aircraft can't drop to NOE. Even rotary is more about hovering and pop-up maneuvers than racing at near ground level. Add on they are all lightly or unarmored. Gravs are highly versatile and their tactics to take advantage of air and ground make them formidable which neither aircraft nor ground vehicles can match. AA technology today make aircraft long ranged platforms to deliver payloads then get out as far from the battlefield as possible. A grav has the armor and weapons to take the fight but won't survive with their bellies out. That's why high mode is strategic mode to reach the target as fast as possible from bases or even orbit well outside the threat zone.

 

[F33D]

Only if there was no intel or sensor data concerning the opposition's assets and the battlefield.

No. I can see that you are not familiar with a real modern battlefield. What you listed DOES happen all the time. And, doesn't cause the effect you anticipate.

 

[Condottiere]

At this point, all things being equal, you have to look at the battlefield in six dimensions, not counting psionics.

 

[Nobby-W]

IMTU I assume that P.D. fire control negates a lot of the advantages of air power

Grav tanks ARE air power. So they will be pounding the "top" of your NOE tanks with their main (direct fire) guns. :lol:

It doesn't make them any less vulnerable in high mode, plus they are much easier to spot than a camouflaged AA battery on the ground. Under the Striker rules a battery of PD lasers would probably take out several times its cost in grav tanks in high mode before it was spotted and neutralised, especially if you augmented it with much cheaper surface-air missile batteries*

Just a few in theatre would be enough to make everyone keep their heads down or stick with stand-off attacks, possibly involving the aforementioned direct fire plasma guns.

Plus, it make for a much better scenario for skirmish games.

* Tac missiles and sensors are way underpriced in the Striker rules.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

What Do low tech grav tanks look like?
Here is a "low tech" grav vehicle in any case.

Kind of dumb, isn't it?