Re: Scouts and dinky armoured cars

At 6:31 PM -0400 8/15/02, kaladorn@magma.ca wrote:

>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.

Usually something designers try for. Its hard. HMGs are getting 
bigger and nastier at their job.

>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.

I never dis-advocated that. My emphesis is that a near hit that 
merely damages or bumps a light armored vehicle will destroy a 
softskin from blast effects only. HE rounds make it harder too.

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

The air cushion vehicles will allow the wheeled vehicles to stop and 
hide first what with their signature. Fast track we already have.

>
>Airborne and satellite recce is still a significant factor.

Assuming they haven't been knocked out of the sky Hammer's style.
>
>
>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. :)

*shrug*  Ok. I guess Grav gets you a free lunch humm?
>
>Does the role of finding the enemy, calling down air and artillery
>assets, executing sniper missions, etc. change in this case?

Its a question of proportional force ability across the board. But if 
you want really heavy armor and scouts that can't defend themselves 
from militia, let alone a heavy armor force on the other side of the 
valley go ahead.

>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.

Then your scouts won't be executing counter intelligence gathering?

>
>
>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.
>

Except my scouts will eat your scouts for lunch. Then, we'll see who
hits who.

>
>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?

Ferret is denser. A friend here in town has a HMMWV and a Ferret. 
We've had all three vehicles out at an event. The ferret is taller 
but not as long. Its also almost as wide, but not quite. The Dingo 
when I've had it out off road is able to do some amazing feats over 
some really rough ground. Having armor all over the place and huge 
bullet proof suspension components is really really nice. No alloy 
there, its all steel.

>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.

Bradlys seem too large for their role. Something smaller really makes 
more sense. I'm stuck on the WWII british recce units. Maybe 
something the size of the Fox Armored car from the 70's and 80s. Good 
compact size, albeit top heavy. Good weapon, low weight.

>What I'm suggesting is more like a grav FAV with light armour. Sort
>of like a Grav Ferret. Armed with an MG/APSW.
>

Not a bad idea.

>
>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.

PA probably has problems with long duration marches. How do you scout 
on the move?

>
>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.

Well, they performed route recce, a role of scouts. Point being, the 
crews added extra MGs to the vehicles because the situation warranted 
it. The brass had a fit because of the "unauthorized" gunshields and 
M60's on the loaders side of the M47 and M48s. The crews simply made 
sure there weren't easily seen gunmounts. As a result the Loaders 
didn't have gunshields. I wonder how many troopers died because the 
brass got upset about a triviality in a warzone.

In that kind of war, the recce units had to put lots of fire on an 
ambush to kill it. Generally they could. In Vietnam tanks were 
actually very well used and very useful for the fight. With every MG 
and weapon on a tank firing things were pretty good. They even	put 
the gunner on the back deck with an M60 while the loader serviced the 
Main Gun. The Commander controlled the main-gun with his override and 
fired the coax by virtue of either a lanyard or kicking the rear 
plate with his boot (worked on one kind of gun). Main Gun, Coax, 
Commander's mg and an M60+M79. 3-5 of those M47 or M48s and several 
more ACAVS is a lot of lead into an ambush. Thats a heck of a lot of 
suppression going down range.

>
>
>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.

Guess what, sometimes recce units are the supply convoy. Happened in 
WWII in a few instances. Turretless M5's from the recce troop were 
used in some British armored divisons to get supplies up quickly.

>
>
>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.
>

Guess what. It's reality. The folks that get shipped off to such 
functions are typically using the same gear. Britains recce units 
provided a significant portion of the internal security armor for 
road duties in Northern Ireland. Ferrets and Saracens abounded in 
Bandit country. Saladins were there too. The Pigs came later, then 
came the piglets.

>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.

Ahh. So you thought ferrets were big stinking vehicles? You need to 
buy yourself some armor or go to an event.
>
>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).

Guess what. HMMWV have portal axles. They have complex gear boxes. So 
do Unimogs. That's why all three vehicles have similar cross country 
performance. Fully independent suspension that's driven on all 
wheels. Thats how you avoid wheel slip. The ferret does it in a nice 
old fashioned way with 1940's tech. Hard to beat that for 
maintainablity. The difference with the Mogs and HMMWVs is they 
probably leak less. Seal technology can really help. So can 
manufacturing and casting methods.

There are sevearl AFV designs that are going on some extant truck 
chassis. Nations that already have that truck in inventory really 
like AFV components that are directly taken from their logistics 
vehicles. The Ferret had significant parts commonality with the 
Saracens, Saladins, Stalwarts and Champ. Does the M1 Abrams have 
parts commonality with anything in the US force structure? Does the 
LAV?

Noone's agreed on how GRAV works our more specifically sounds. I 
think TANSTAAFL will drive GRAV to be a noisy technology. Wheels are 
pretty quiet on the road. Tracks are louder. GEV is positively worse, 
GRAV must scream.

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

Well, lessee, Ferret Airportable in a C130. Similar armored vehicles 
that are being looked at by the Brits for this service are to be C130 
portable. Its a good benchmark.

>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).

Whats setting off the mine? Probably some kind of field flux. If you 
can repel gravity, you can use detectors to swivel the charge at the 
vehicle.

>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.
>

Should or will? I've heard of a few guys getting hurt by Mine 
explosions. We're talking AntiTank mines here. Not AP mines. But then 
I guess countries like Rhodesia, South African and others that had to 
play in mine infested areas the hard way invested money for nothing 
if the HMMWV is so mine resistant. The same could be said for 
Austrailia's new Digger Mover Truck as well as a number of other 
wheeled AFV technologies.

>
>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.

Cant carry much gear can you? Long road marches. You should have seen 
how the Brits loaded down their Royal Engineer route recce elements. 
In later years Ferrets grew a rear stowage basket over the rear 
engine deck. I'm not sure what those RE guys carried, but there was a 
lot of it from the photo's I've seen.

>  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

Not by much. Thats probably a size 2. Ferret would be size 1-2.

>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).

Well, a vehicle that carries 6 guys with combat gear is far bigger 
than a ferret. LAVs are huge compared to a ferret or a dingo. 
Vertical signature on the ferret is 6'. Compared to tanks they look 
like a field mouse sneaking across the battle field.

>No doubt. If you want to emphasize wheeled vehicles in your universe.

Cheap and easy to get parts mfged on remote worlds. Common with the 
logistics vehicles. Mine resitant hulls are easy to gravt onto 
standard truck chassis.

-- 
--
Ryan Gill	       rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com
----------------------------------------------------------
      |        |		   |	     -==----	  
      | O--=-  |		   |	    /_8[*]°_\	   
      |_/|o|_\_|       | _________ |	    /_[===]_\	  
      / 00DA61 \       |/---------\|	 __/	     \--- 
   _w/|=_[__]_= \w_    // [_]  o[]\\   _oO_\	     /_O|_
  |: O(4) ==	O :|  _Oo\=======/_O_  |____\	    /____|
  |---\________/---|  [__O_______W__]	|x||_\	   /_||x| 
   |s|\        /|s|   |s|/BSV 575\|s|	|x|-\|	   |/-|x| 
   |s|=\______/=|s|   |s|=|_____|=|s|	|x|--|_____|--|x| 
   |s|		|s|   |s|	  |s|	|x|	      |x| 
'60 Daimler Ferret '42 Daimler Dingo '42 Humber MkIV (1/3)