Re: Scouts and dinky armoured cars

> 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.

And stopping fragments is good sense since 
everything from a rifle GL up will have 
fragmentation options.
 
> The air cushion vehicles will allow the wheeled vehicles to stop and 
> hide first what with their signature. Fast track we already have.

Hiding vehicles will become less and less simple 
as sensors continue to advance. There is a 
balance thing between capability and counter-
capability, but I think the hiders have been 
losing ground steadily for the last few years and 
see this trend continuing. It also helps to justify 
the underlying "I know where it all is" 
assumptions of the DS2 game. 
 
> >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?

Pardon?

Have you examined the DS2 cost of a grav 
mobility type? 

I hardly call that "a free lunch". 

> >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.

And if you want to build your scouts to be 
capable of defending themselves versus heavy 
armour with the associated weights, costs, and 
logistics penalties, go ahead. I fancy my 
chances in a campaign. ;)
 
> >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?

If it means tackling enemy scout formations that 
are heavily armed and armoured, I'll probably 
use my rapid reaction forces - mobile infantry 
and light armour. I can afford to do this 
because my de-emphasis of this role for scouts 
means I have more of them with me than your 
more heavy-scout equipped force.

> >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.

And my reaction forces will kill your scouts. This 
boils down to "does too!" "does not!". A 
pointless argument hereafter.
 
> >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.

So its quite heavy, relatively speaking? (knowing 
the hummer is not light, I ask because I'm 
assuming your little AC is heavier?)
 
> >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.

And what is your opinion of the Scorpion or the 
Scimitar? Or the Coyote?
 
> >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?

That's a different concern. My ability to tackle a 
force once a fight is imminent is a tad different 
than my ability to move over distance. My 
scouts don't spend a lot of time marching 
around in PA. The PA is merely on-call if the 
scouts hit something they need help to crack.
 
> >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.

This may boil down to: Did they have the right 
equipment for the task? Were they being 
assigned a task to which they were not suited?	
 
> In that kind of war, the recce units had to put lots of fire on an 
> ambush to kill it.

>From what I've seen of that war, American 
forces put a lot of fire on everything, including a 
lot of trees, shrubs, dirt, etc. 

Generally speaking, the amount of ammo fired 
into open space in that conflict was rather 
ludicrously large. (Just looking at stats in 
comparison to other conflicts). 

 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.

True. Although one suspects that a more 
effective capability at route scouting might have 
removed some of the dangers of this kind of 
event. 
 
> >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.

So, you're arguing that because sometimes unit 
types get used for taskings they aren't really 
designed for, they should be equipped for 
those tasks? Pardon?

Do your MBTs all have engineer vehicle 
capability? Do your MPs all have capability for 
Medevac? This seems a rather specious 
argument to me. 
 
> >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.

Yes, reality sometimes dictates troops are 
dispatched for tasks they are ill suited for. And 
sometimes they improvise improvements over 
the objections of the brass. However, this 
doesn't exactly suggest that one should 
prepare every unit for every task, now does it?

> >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.

No, but when you talk about scouts able to 
stand off MBTs or hold bridges against main 
force elements, I don't think size 1 cuts the 
mustard. So I presume some larger CFVs with 
more firepower. Or do you think a formation of 
size 1 ferrets can handle enemy heavy forces? 
If so, I think you'll find out differently at the 
game table... ;) 

> >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.

Yep. Moving parts. Outside of armour. Prone to 
breakage. And providing cross country 
performance worse than a grav vehicle by a 
longshot, given DS2 terrain effects tables. 

 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.

You actually think that anything with moving 
parts is easier to maintain than a solid state 
solution? 
 
I can't argue with you factually about how grav 
drives are implemented, I just have ideas 
gleaned from various sources of sci-fi. I don't 
even think they produce a huge grav signature 
because I don't think other objects (rocks, 
trees, etc) do. I think of grav drive as mostly 
cancelling existing mass. But I do think of it as a 
solid state solution with few or no moving parts, 
entirely deployed under armour (the last part 
for sure meets GZG canon). 

So it is superior IMU to wheeled solutions for 
maintainability and performance over rough 
terrain and for survivability versus enemy fire.

How well does your little ferret perform after it 
has its tires torn off? Or an axle busted? 

> 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?

And do grav scout vehicles have commonalities 
of parts with grav trucks or grav jeeps or grav 
air rafts? Quite possibly. 

Yes, wheeled AC that have common parts with 
trucks and jeeps make sense on the frontier. 
But I didn't think we were arguing about what 
the colonial militia would have, but what a main 
force element supplied from the Core might 
have. Different ball of wax. 
 
> 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.

By your argument, electric cars should be 
louder than CFE.....
 
Last time I drove down a gravel road (today), I 
noted quite a lot of noise in my wheeled vehicle. 

And as for "Grav must scream", neither you nor 
I have anything more than our own opinions, 
thus again rendering this a fine "does too/does 
not" point. 

> >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.

Sure, and I think I can fit 2 or even 3 of my 
chosen gravbuggy designs in a 130 cargo bay. 
So what? It's utterly conjectural on my part and 
on  yours.
 
> >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.

Perhaps. Expensive mines you make. Hope you 
don't plan to lay them over a very wide area or 
have a very rich backer......

More likely the large mass of metal floating 1m 
off the surface.

 If you 
> can repel gravity, you can use detectors to swivel the charge at the 
> vehicle.

Yep, and if grav is expensive (ref DS2 costs), 
you'd think grav-sensing mines would be 
costlier too. And mines are NOT something you 
want to make expensive if you plan ubiquitous 
deployment. 
 
> >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.

So am I.

 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.

Ever occur to you that some of those decisions 
about what to buy and where it is made have a 
lot to do with who might sell you anything (or 
be prohibited from same) and by political 
factors that apply like who it will create 
jobs/income for? After all, Canada didn't want 
US desert camo for Afghanistan because 
(according to DND brass) it would hurt the 
morale of the troops. (Yes, as an infanteer, I 
often found being better hidden from my 
enemies to be disturbing to my morale.....)

 The same could be said for 
> Austrailia's new Digger Mover Truck as well as a number of other 
> wheeled AFV technologies.

These enjoy benefits over tracked in terms of 
long-range capabilities and maintainability, 
probably as or more important than the better 
off-road performance of the tracked vehicles. 
And they weren't really comparable to grav 
either. :)  And I'll bet many of these solutions 
are cheaper than the US hummer and I'll bet 
THAT factors more heavily than anything. 
 
Besides, with a lot of these designs, you hit a 
mine, blow a wheel/axle off, and have a simple 
repair. The hummer might require a depot job. 
But it IS survivable for the inside 
crew/passengers. To a point. Like most things, 
I'm sure the right type of mine, right size of 
mine, etc will kill it. But I'm sure the same is 
true of these Wheeled Wonders (TM).

> >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.

Gee, plenty of infanteers have been heaped up 
with gear before, much of which was eventually 
determined to be excessive. Would that be a 
historical first? Why do you assume, not 
knowing what it was, that it was necessary? 
Rather than say "mandated"?

And if your vehicle is simply repaired (for the 
user serviceable parts) with minimal effort (or if, 
say, you don't have as much risk of suspension 
damage during travel in rough conditions), then 
you suddenly need a lot less junk carried 
around.
 
> >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.

So I have some idea.
 
> >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.

Yep. And my grav buggies would have about 
the same height. Maybe be slightly narrower. 
But it you want something that will stand off 
heavy elements, or carry larger dismount scout 
sections, you're gonna need something bigger. 
Especially if you want to carry all that gear that 
you're talking about. And ammo and fire 
control etc. for your heavier AT weapons. 
 
> >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.

All fair statements. 

Detectable sonic signatures, exposed 
suspension parts and wheels requiring more 
spares, poorer all-terrain performance (tell me, 
how do they do through water or cultivated? 
not as good as grav), and larger size if they 
want to carry effective AT armament and ammo 
for same. 
 
I'm not saying wheeled recce isn't a fine idea, 
but its a fine idea for colonial forces. And those 
who envision grav systems to scream like a 
howling banshee even though they cost 
mutliples of a wheeled suspension. ;)

---------------------------------------------
Thomas Barclay
Co-Creator of http://www.stargrunt.ca 
Stargrunt II and Dirtside II game site

No Battle Plan Survives Contact With Dice.
-- Mark 'Indy' Kochte