Scouts and dinky armoured cars

On 14 Aug 2002 at 23:09, Ryan Gill wrote:

> Not every rifleman has a GMS. Every rifleman has something that can 
> damage a soft skin vehicle. Its about giving them some protection. If 
> you want super sneaky scouts, get some NAC SAS or Ghurkas to sneak 
> out and slit some Eurie throats.

I'm not arguing against having armour 1. I recommend that for scouts. 
Their protection should stop rifles and LMGs. HMGs if it is feasible. 

My point was that effective anti-armour weapons appear in almost any 
squad in the 2183 TO&E, and therefore I don't think they get 
protection that really matters in most situations. Might stop some 
small arms, but the prevalence of IAVRs and GMS/P make me think that  
light armoured vehicles are under severe threat unless they are very 
very hard to hit.
 
> >[Tomb] And I'm arguing in favour of this. But a wheeled armoured car
> >can't run from grav or AC tanks! You don't have the terrain/mobility
> >to manage.
> 
> Granted. But if you're up against Grav, then you need to have more 
> than guys out doing recce in vehicles.

This is probably true versus most AC and fast tracked too.

 You need air search assets. 
> Grav can move far too fast for ground recce to do so well.

Drones fill this role nicely.

 Like as 
> not, they'll be coming to you. Wheeled or something else, its not as 
> big a deal.

Airborne and satellite recce is still a significant factor.

 However, you're going to hear GEV coming from a bloody 
> long way off. They aren't going to surprise anyone as scouts. Wheeled 
> are as quiet as they come. Noone really knows what grav sounds like. 
> I figure youve got some kind of rotational field generating coil that 
> makes a subsonc humm that'll have ever farm dog for miles howling.

Whereas I think wheeled vehicle weighing multiple tons crinkling 
along gravel and dirt are far louder than the utterly silent solid-
state grav technology IMU. :) 

This is what I meant when I said it comes down to personal 
taste/assumption.
 
> Which with a Sup ECM and Size 1 Signature and a hull down position, 
> it's likely to occur if its going to happen at all.

Yes, that helps. Which is what I was arguing for. But it happens even 
less if your scouts end up beating feet most times when the enemy is 
that close. 
 
> >[Tomb] In a heavy force, I'd hope my scouts are significantly faster
> >and lighter. I know they'll be able to call on big brother (tanks)
> >and artillery assets. I don't want to turn them into tankers. That
> >kind of mentality leads to dead people - just like AIFVs thinking
> >that slugging matches with tanks are a winning proposition.
> 
> Not advocating turning them into tankers. What I'm saying is that in 
> a heavy force it doesn't much makes sense to have scouts that are 
> underarmed and underarmored.

Does the role of finding the enemy, calling down air and artillery 
assets, executing sniper missions, etc. change in this case? 

No, the only mission that changes is the force on force using the 
scouts. Since I am not fond of these situations for my scouts, I 
might actively discourage them from arising. 

 Someting of a proportion of armement. A 
> heavy force is more likely to go up against a heavy opponent. 
> Likewise the cav units are as well.

And while your enemy heavy force is spending transit mass and $$ on 
packing in heavier armoured scouts with more dismounts (bigger 
target, harder to stealth, etc), I'm taking that same mass and $$$ in 
extra MBTs. I like my chances. 
 
> For WWII as an example, it doesn't do your scouts much good if they 
> can't get past a single road block of a few guys on a key road.

True, but a size 1 grav vehicle with armour 1 and superior ECM and 
decoys and whatnot certainly is tough enough defensively. Give it a 
couple of APSWs and give the crew some IAVRs and it can probably 
punch through any road block. 

If every system took up space and space wasn't broken down so 
ungranularly as size classes, it would make even better sense to have 
smaller, flatter, lighter scout vehicles that had very light 
armament.

 Or if 
> they are able to locate a key bridge, hold it until relieved. 

Putting in size 2 or 3 cav AIFVs instead of size 1 scout buggies 
isn't going to give them that much more of a chance to hold here 
versus a real enemy force, and the size 1 buggies can hold against 
light enemy forces just fine. 

There 
> were more than a few engagements where British Recce unit that had 
> the punch of light tanks were able to at least hold positions until 
> the Churchills and Cruiser tanks got there to help.

I wouldn't put my light tanks as recce, but I'd have them available 
to assist recce if opportunities came up. As would VTOL-mobile PA. 

Also, I don't mind the idea of scout PA (stealthier, a little lighter 
armoured, more sensors). 
 
> >[Tomb] Why is 10 scout vehicles in a platoon going to render the job
> >tough to do? Small, fast grav bike/buggies will allow very rapid
> >mobility, quiet movement, and will probably allow sensors to function
> >better. This is bad how? And having 10 vehicles lets you cover a fair
> >amount of ground. You have limited dismount capability, but a patrol
> >of 3 can get 3 or 4 guys to go check out hamlets/etc. And remote
> >sensing will be quite a bit improved by then (look at what you can do
> >now!). And the trade off is small vehicles, hard to detect, light to
> >transport, and a fewer number of scouts (slightly), which translates
> >to a smaller logistics tail. The only item that is high is cost
> >(assuming expense of grav).
> >
> 
> there isn't too much of a difference in the logistics tail between a 
> HMMWV and a Daimler Ferret. They both have similar sound signatures. 
> One is far more likely to survive a light ambush.

No? One carries two guys, one carries six. One carries an MG, the 
other an MG and possibly a GMS/L or H. Do they really weigh about the 
same? (I imagine the HMMWV is actually bigger) Are the logistics 
(counting carried crew) equivalent? Doesn't the Ferret require a lot 
of special lubricants/etc? 

When I made the comparison, I'm talking about heavy scouts like those 
in M3 CFVs. That would be more logistically challenging than a grav 
buggy - being bigger, heavier, and carrying more guys.

What I'm suggesting is more like a grav FAV with light armour. Sort 
of like a Grav Ferret. Armed with an MG/APSW. 
 
> Also, I have to point out, in light divisions, the unit recce is far 
> more likely to be sent on hard fast rushes to grab something.

For that role, I use airmobile PA. Normal vehicles (even heavier 
ones) and infantry won't hold out well against PA.... even if they 
are a little tougher. 

 Better 
> if they are able to carry as much armament as possible. But then of 
> course, you can take the General's argument that has confounded the 
> trooper in the field who doesn't really know what he's doing. Such 
> troopers come up with things like extra guns and shields for the 
> loaders on the Cav tanks, ACAVs and GunTrucks. All with weapons and 
> armor they scrounged. Their TO&E doesn't list it as required. So the 
> poorly imaginative brass get's its undies in a wad when they see such 
> things. Never mind that the man on the spot really needs the extra 
> kit.

And did recce units use Guntrucks a lot? Were they using ACAVs 
usefully for recce? (debatable how a large diesel/CFE is a good recce 
vehicle...), etc. 

Your argument about troops who do escort and other such duties 
picking up extra firepower to compensate for an undersupply seems to 
be a bit off-the-point to me, though I see where you try to make it 
fit.
 
We're talking about a recce unit doing recce taskings for which a 
lightly armed and armoured recce vehicle is sufficient (in fact, best 
suited). If you want to use your recce guys to babysit convoys, etc., 
then feel free. 

> Point being, I think scouts should be as bear as possible or at least 
> have some kind of armor.

I won't argue with armour 1 in the current construction system. If I 
have to start paying mass for it and slowing down my grav vehicles, 
then maybe I'll think twice about it. But for now, armour 1 on a size 
1 vehicle makes sense. 

 If they get stuck in a peacekeeping role 
> where they're supposed to use finesse and they can't they get stuck 
> out on a limb.

Peacekeeping requires a whole other force doctrine, training 
structure, and equipment loadout. It's highly debatable whether 
troops well trained and experienced at peacekeeping make excellent 
warfighters and vice versa. (this argument also applies to trying to 
turn warfighters into police and vice versa). 

So if your scouts are stuck in this kind of role, something isn't too 
right in the first place IMO.
 
> >[Tomb] Yes, speed, stealth, ECM, decoys, smoke, covering artillery
> >and manouver units. Their capability is to avoid detection and where
> >that fails, to break contact quickly and efficiently even under fire.
> >While your Ferrets are puttering along in the mud getting hosed by
> >anyone with a GAC/1 or a DFFG/1, the grav bikes are headed for the
> >horizon with foot to the floor. They're smaller, much faster, have
> >better caps re water/swamp/etc and can move evasive (try that with a
> >wheeled vehicle).
> 
> These could be Grav ferrets. Something. I'm saying rather than a 
> jeep, an armored car.

What's the difference between a grav mobile armour 1 jeep and a grav 
mobile armour 1 armoured car? Flavourtext. I'm arguing against size 2 
or 3 scout vehicles and heavy armaments. 

 Something heavier than 18 gauge sheet plastic 
> between your scouts and HV rounds coming at them from some militia 
> that weren't where they were supposed to be.

This I'm holeheartedly in favour of. Any military vehicle that can be 
killed by a 5.56 is underarmoured IMO.
 
> I personally like wheeled vehicles because its far easier to support 
> them. Since the NAC is using them as part of their TO&E, it makes 
> sense as a scout vehicle. Airportablity isn't an issue.

Really? Differentials (possibly multiple ones), complex gearboxes, 
ball joints, struts, etc. As opposed to a solid state field generator 
with no moving parts that operates from under armour. Hmmmm.... which 
is more complex and which is more capable? IMU, grav wins both 
(justifies the high costs). 

And I think spaceportability (and airportability) are issues. IMU 
anyway. Perhaps you have unlimited lift capacity in yours.

> Ok, take the Briths Army's FCLV programme. Its based around something 
> like the HMMWV, but its far more survivable than they are when it 
> comes to mines and small arms. They are built to protect the crew 
> from mine explosions particularly well.

Grav vehicles may well have a big plus here (they can skitter off 
when a mine goes off and disipate some of the energy just in movng 
them and their suspension isn't exposed).

 Such that the troops inside 
> will come out with a headache rather than in body bags that someone 
> scraped the remains into.

I've seen mine tests against the hummer (fitted out correctly). It'll 
take a mine without breaching the driver/passenger compartment. The 
vehicle probably won't move afterwards, but the crew should be okay.
 
> This is exactly the kind of light vehicle you seem to advocate. But 
> still want to seem to stick them into a Land Rover.

No, read what I said: A size 1 grav buggy/bike. Enclosed. Armour 1. 
APSW (or 2 x APSW) armament. I'd even argue for size 0.5, given I 
only want 2 crew. :)

 Thre brits plan 
> to replace some Saxons, FV432s, Spartans and Landrovers with this 
> platform. Its a compromise between all, and saves them a bunch.

--> 1 vehicle, smaller logistical tail, easier inventory/maintenance

 It 
> reduces the signature and isn't far off from the ferret if you add a 
> manned turret vs a remote weapons station.

Make it grav and you have what I'm talking about. But I'm not packing 
that weapon station with GMS/H. I'm adding more sensors and comms if 
I have excess space. More decoys, aerosol launchers, etc. Maybe even 
a couple of trashcan-lid sized fly-by-optical-wire drones. Better at 
what they do, not emphasizing what they don't do. (Or shouldn't).

 Its really not far off 
> from the Humber Scout of WWII vintage. Something with a short 
> wheelbase, wide track, weapons station on top and low signature is 
> great for recce.

Short, thin (not wide), grav mobile, fast, and stealthy. Great for 
recce. Also grav leaves less wake disturbance and it's harder to ID 
the enemy scout elements by tracking their tracks IMU.

 I don't think you realize just how small 4 wheeled 
> armored cars can get.

Is the ferret much smaller than the little german 222? (I think 
that's the small 
German one I've been aboard). I've been to a number of WW2 and later 
armour museums (including the Canadian War Museum Vehicle Annex). I 
know they can be quite small. But they can't be quite small, super 
fast, and 
carry heavy firepower, defenses and armour. That isn't feasible. So 
pick a few 
things. I pick minimal armour (enough to stop rifles), fast, some 
light defenses 
(smoke, ECM), and some light weapons (APSWs). 

 My dingo is tiny. Put a more powerful 
> power-pack in something of a similar layout and you've got a pretty 
> nice package for the crew.