#1
|
|||
|
|||
Equipping the Project
There are a lot of posts on here suggesting various vehicles that Teams could use, ranging from one-off prototypes to limited production vehicles to widely-fielded vehicles, and there seem to be realistic problems with all of these. So I wanted to ask some questions of the forum:
What percentage of equipment (especially weapons and vehicles) are obtained by: 1) Building them from scratch (like the MARS-One and Science-One vehicles) 2) Buying surplus 3) Buying commercial and modifying to "military" standards 4) Buying the production lines and running off extra Each method has problems: 1) A lot of engineering and lots of hard-to-conceal manufacturing 2 and 4) Most of the good stuff is watched pretty closely and might be hard to move 3) For most of the vehicles needed, this would be extremely difficult. The Project suffers from the problems of every large organization, a large variety of vehicles provides a diverse set of specialized tools that can handle a large range of problems, but logistically it is better to have few vehicles that can individually decently handle a lot of problems. So how is this balanced in your games? If we assume that the Project has 10,000 people (my low-end estimate of project strength), and that you need about 1 vehicle for every 8 people (accounting both for the fact that some teams have 2-3 vehicles and that a base of 50 might only have 2 vehicles) then that is still 1250 armored, fusion-powered vehicles that need to be acquired. If the Project has 50,000 people (my high-end estimate) then the same math gives us 6250 such vehicles. Any way you look at it, this is a lot of vehicles. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
This is a difficult question for me. I use many vehicles that are not military because not all of them need to be. Any decent tractor pulling a box trailer or flatbed trailer has lots of utility transporting materials in areas that seen as stable. Likewise a modified Conqueror UEV-490 pulled by a fusion powered Ford Expedition may serve a Science team quite well. Both cases, other than the conversion to fusion power adding run-flat tires, these are relatively common purchases. So for me, I first have to answer the question, how many vehicles need to be military vehicles or derived from them.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Remember also that you have some basic survivability requirements that are going to be pretty severe compared to civilian vehicles - even armoring to 7.62mm NATO will turn a well-performing vehicle into a beast that is straining just to move. And if you are going to put a nuclear reactor of ANY type into a vehicle I would really hope that armoring would be a high priority! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
With the planned wake-up date being five years after, then planning on modified civilian vehicles becomes much more likely. V-150s are classed as police vehicles, so they don't come under the same level of scrutiny as saw, a M-113. Armored SUVs make sense in this scenario, there are over 200 companies involved in modifying such vehicles for government, corporate and personnel use. An a argument can be made for such modified vehicles, due to large sections of the road network still being usable. Playing with the 150-year wakeup...then these modified vehicles will be less likely to be useable over most terrain. In the end, it boils down to what the PD is most comfortable with.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
They also have scout hovercraft and mortar carriers, not every canon decision makes sense. FAV's, if used, should be battery powered and charge off of some larger vehicle that can actually support a team in the field. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The 150-year plan makes rebuilding much harder, but I think it is actually the safer scenario for the Project. 5 years in there are thousands of civilian 50-cal rifles and all those armored SUV's, most still operating and presumably many of them in unfriendly hands. The base APC perhaps, put a 20mm or a TOW on it and that goes out the window. Seriously, it is unlikely that any vehicle suitable for MARS, Recon, or Science (possibly) is going to pass as a police vehicle. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Team offensive/defensive requirements
I started off talking about what could be obtained, it has to be balanced against what is required. Let's start by looking at different team needs:
MARS As the "military" of the Project, MARS teams need heavy weapons and armor. Presumably they need the ability to withstand .50cal across the board, and heavier for many teams, although they will rely more on mobility than armor. They will likewise need the ability to take out typical military targets from tanks to aircraft. Recon Less engaged than MARS, but still expected to engage with hostile forces (to assist MARS and because it is their job to find them), Recon teams need the ability to withstand small arms fire up to and including 7.62 NATO (lots of those in private hands) and preferably up to .50cal across the board, but really they should run from anything bigger. Some heavy weapons would be useful so that they can take out isolated vehicles and hardened positions without needed to call in a MARS team. Science, Base staff,... ... and other "high value" assets. Supposed to run or bunker down, but they are likely to be slow and cumbersome and need to be able to protect themselves. Protection to .50cal seems appropriate as a minimum, considering the value, but weaponry does not need to match. Remember that base personnel are not likely to have much of a perimeter, and depending on the base likely lack extensive defenses, so what vehicles they DO have need to be bug-out vehicles, able to depart under fire. Specialty MARS and Recon should clear areas of "high risk" opponents before Specialty enters, but they are likely to need protection to 7.62 NATO regardless and may need more - the Project will NOT have the manpower to secure borders! As far as those protection levels go, it is worthwhile to note that it needs to be durable - many armored vehicles are considered disposable after even modest damage, the Project can't do that. One alternative is over-armoring - something that can shrug off small amounts of .50cal fire can probably shrug off small arms all day long. Last edited by cosmicfish; 03-24-2017 at 07:21 AM. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Armour is heavy which makes for heavy vehicles, which are usually slow can't travel across rough terrain as easily or certainly damaged bridges and even the heftiest tank isn't necessarily going to be able to ride over a freeway full of rusted out cars. Up until the 2000s anything lighter than an actual battle tank was usually pretty thinly armoured. Resisting armour piercing 7.62 bullets through the sides and rear were a big issue. And conflicts would leave hordes of m113s or BMPs with flammable aluminium armour by the side of the road burned out. Unless the project actually wants to invest in hefty and hard to maintain tougher APCs like the Bradley. Chances are they will be relying on speed, stealth and observation most likely observing enemies and ambushing them and running away if confronted. Which often is the strategy that historically worked best. Certainly Recon I think will do most of the actual driving and fighting at night, with night vision and silent electric engines. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Thousands of Hueys and even Chinooks get sold as commercial helicopters and police forces across the US are taking delivery these days of Afghanistan heavy APCs and MRAAPs. Putting on a moderate sized turret isn't that much of a chore. nb even an airforce becomes an option with Hawk Jets being popular with civil jet flying experience days out. And as for the Huey Cobra, a bunch got handed over to the US forestry service for fire fighting. If the project doesn't mind being about a decade behind the times they could be surprisingly well equipped. http://wildfiretoday.com/2010/06/27/...ra-helicopter/ |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
MARS will be nocturnal, most of the Specialty teams will be diurnal, and Recon will split, going by day when they need to talk to people and by night when they really don't (and don't mind being mistaken for unfriendlies). |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
They kept almost all of them in government service, only a couple ever made it into private hands, so making more than one or two disappear would likely be difficult. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Besides, helicopters are relatively easy, since you really can buy civilian models and uprated them to military performance. The project doesn't need gunships anyway, you can mount a lot of weapons on a Blackhawk/S-70. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
as far as the concerns over the power plant. remember we aren't talking about a navy design light water reactors that irradiate everyone around at the drop of a hat. we're talking about properly designed fusion reactors that fail-safe as a default.so there is no reason to be particularly paranoid about them.
as for requirements i think the project would have to take a more pragmatic approach to their requirements. ease of maintenance would have to be a primary concern with armor/reliability both sharing a backseat. vehicles would have to be capable of functioning for a significant amount of time without regular maintenance facilities which means every possible problem would have to be use-level maintenance. this actually eliminates most military vehicles from consideration. if you need cages and special equipment to top off air in a tire for example that is not a vehicle that can be maintained by a team in the middle of a post-apocalyptic wasteland with no fancy depot level maintenance.
__________________
the best course of action when all is against you is to slow down and think critically about the situation. this way you are not blindly rushing into an ambush and your mind is doing something useful rather than getting you killed. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
One of the other issues is that recon will generally be scouting with one or two vehicles up close. And literally everytime a military has tried to do that with heavy armour it's failed.
Tanks be they M1s or Panthers have poor visibility (well except maybe the very latest generation of all around cameras). Are limited in their agility and by their weight where they can go. The same pretty much applies to the heavy APCs they may be considering. So giving the Recon team a heavy vehicle on it's own would more than likely be a deathtrap if swarmed by an enemy armed with little more than petrol or the ability to knock over buildings. So something like a Peacekeeper or even an unarmoured Humvee would enable a team to drive away fast over most surfaces and with plain old windows that everyone can look out of, would have far superior situational awareness. Recon is traditionally one of the most dangerous missions for any military unit, the future maybe more so. If the project is considering a heavy APC for MARS etc. A popular solution is to get an obsolete tank; rip the turret out and ammo storage and put some seats in there. Voila instant heavy APC. In fact with the weight saved from losing the turret you can give it better all around armour then it would have had as a tank. Ok so you've got an APC that weighs 40 tonnes+ with all the inherent problems but it'll do the job without getting wiped out like a lighter dedicated APC. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
I hate to seem like I'm stating the obvious, but equipment choice depends on a number of things: mission, opposition, terrain, available personnel, and so on.
For example. My own version of the Atlantis Project doesn't have "Recon Teams". It has "Network Teams" which are tasked with initial contact, survey and assessment (which usually involves interaction with survivor communities). These teams also have a responsibility to 'connect' these communities with the Atlantis Project - and other survivors. Opposition is expected to be very lightly armed. Terrain would be mostly "on-road" and teams would be about 6 people (who have to transport light weaponry and LOTS of communications gear). Tanks would not be appropriate - but something like an armoured Unimog would be useful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyssen_Henschel_UR-416 (check out the "home-made" PLO version) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_Dingo Last edited by Matt W; 04-04-2017 at 07:28 PM. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Currently, it is the Ukranians doing this with T-55s making the BMP-55 or the Israelis using T-55s to make the Acharzit or purpose built chassis to make the Namer. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
https://aw.my.com/gb/news/general/he...urion-variants well no everyone from the Indian army to the Ukraneans do it, Israel more than most has made an art of repurposing old tanks. As it is buying a bunch of outdated hardware and messing around with it, is not that suspicious but building brand new multi million dollar APCs is. As for recon I think they were always viewed as a disposable asset. If they don't respond on radio checks send another recon team, if that fails send a MARS team. Sensible Recon teams would have worked to observe from a distance and then send foot patrols in probably in mufti. I'm not sure this uparmoured and heavily armed vision of Recon was what the project would have been looking for. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Yup I was reading up on it, once you take the old diesel powerpack out of a Centurion or a T55 you've saved enough room in the back for a door way out of the rear. And once you've yanked the turret you've saved enough weight to put heavy armour all the way around. In fact IDF Merkavas have been knocked out by heavy Kornet ATGMS, whilst Nammer APCs have taken similar hits and kept on trucking. The cost of a couple million dollars on these HAPCs usually comes down to ROWs, reactive armour, extra cameras and communication systems. But if you just want a basic APC like the WW2 Kangaroo the whole thing could be done for a fraction of that. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Especially if they have advanced weapons like ATGMs to further even the odds. |
#26
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The Project can't just recruit or draft a replacement, losing a single team is a problem, losing 2 in one area means you don't have Recon teams in that area of a few thousand square miles any more. The fact that you are going to lose Recon teams to enemy action doesn't mean that you consider them disposable. Quote:
Quote:
R-001: Recon Team with V-150 w/ 20mm cannon R-002: Recon Team with Commando Scout w/20mm cannon and XR-311 R-003: Recon Team with V-150 w/M2HB R-004: Recon Team with Commando Ranger w/M2HB R-005: Recon Team with V-150 x/ 81mm mortar R-007: Recon Team with V-150 w/ TOW and FAVs R-010: 3 Recon Teams with (1) Commando Ranger w/M2HB, (2) Commando Scout w/20mm cannon and XR-311, and (3) V-150 w/ 20mm cannon Out of 9 Recon teams, 5 V-150's, 2 Commando Scouts, and 2 Commando Rangers. Recon teams were never envisioned as being lightly armored or armed unless you look at some optional takes on a couple of modules. And I think that is a reasonable starting point, I see no reason to say that Recon teams should be in uparmored pickups. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The kangaroos were about repurposing old gear at a lower relative standard of performance, I think you could do a much better job by other means, especially if you don't already have the tanks and a desire to save money. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
I think in some of the official stuff that came out in magazines afterwards there was description of the rather sinister replacements. Basically a team of similarly skilled MORROW members with a basic equipment load. Who when the first team were reduced in number or wiped out could replace them.
Most military or paramilitary organisations work on the basis that not everyones going to make it. And when you're job is going out and looking what's going on in a world of desperate lawlesness then more so. And the generically skilled team in a small armoured vehicle are way more disposable than the specialised disaster recovery team or medical unit. nb the Commando is pushing the definition of a heavy armour vehicle. Developed in the Vietnam War as a quick and cheap way of providing armoured support for military police escorting convoys or guarding air bases. It's basically an armoured school bus with the same engine and drive system. Which left it lightly armoured and not really capable of taking on much more than it came with. Not to mention a 4 wheeled military vehicle is always going to be at risk of being crippled by having one of them blown off. |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
There is a thread for them here ---> Frozen Watch |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If your men are disposable, you're the bad guy. Even if there are ONLY bad guys, you're still one of them, there is no one you can stand next to that makes you a good guy. There are huge sections of history and fiction that illustrate this. Quote:
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|