RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Morrow Project/ Project Phoenix Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-18-2017, 05:06 PM
cosmicfish cosmicfish is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 304
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-18-2017, 08:50 PM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 311
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-19-2017, 07:21 PM
cosmicfish cosmicfish is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmartin798 View Post
This is a difficult question for me. I use many vehicles that are not military because not all of them need to be.
I disagree wholeheartedly on this one. My first professional job as an engineer was looking into reliability of military equipment for a defense contractor (won't get any more specific on an open forum). Civilian equipment is made with vastly different expectations of reliability, ruggedness, survivability, and "combat" performance. There are relatively few civilian vehicles that can even be modified to that standard, which is why military inventories look the way they do - if someone could make a Ford Expedition do what a Humvee does, the Humvee would never have existed in the first place.

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!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:23 PM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicfish View Post
There are relatively few civilian vehicles that can even be modified to that standard, which is why military inventories look the way they do - if someone could make a Ford Expedition do what a Humvee does, the Humvee would never have existed in the first place.
This statement is true for vehicles in a tactical role. In Morrow Projects military forces, of course you don't use civilian vehicles. But in the operation plan, not everyone is not going to be in a combat theater. The US Army employs a great number of civilian vehicles in non-tactical roles such as busses, ambulances and more. I would also expects a number of these to be fusion powered even without armor. Morrow has fusion powered FAV/DPVs which have little armor
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-22-2017, 08:38 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: South Mississippi, USA
Posts: 2,355
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-22-2017, 12:52 PM
cosmicfish cosmicfish is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmartin798 View Post
This statement is true for vehicles in a tactical role. In Morrow Projects military forces, of course you don't use civilian vehicles. But in the operation plan, not everyone is not going to be in a combat theater. The US Army employs a great number of civilian vehicles in non-tactical roles such as busses, ambulances and more. I would also expects a number of these to be fusion powered even without armor.
The US Army deploys those vehicles in vastly different situations than the Project, both in terms of the ability to provide safe zones and the ability to provide escort outside those zones. A 10,000-person Project has 300 miles to cover per Project member, that does not suggest a situation where even the "least combat" Project Team is going to be able to depend on anyone else to protect them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmartin798 View Post
Morrow has fusion powered FAV/DPVs which have little armor
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-22-2017, 01:01 PM
cosmicfish cosmicfish is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
With the planned wake-up date being five years after, then planning on modified civilian vehicles becomes much more likely... 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.
Armored SUV's are generally designed for minimal off-roading and/or minimal protection - they use SUV's because they can haul the armor, but that seriously degrades their off-road performance. And even modern armored cars (Brinks, for example) can only handle a small amount of small arms fire before they are compromised, but TMP can't expect to outrun their enemies nor rely on backup in any short time frame. Assuming the 5-year plan, the Project is looking at a war-torn environment with gangs, militia groups, mini-empires, and the remains of invading forces, all of which will have easy access to substantial small arms and probably some access to heavy weapons and vehicles.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
V-150s are classed as police vehicles
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-22-2017, 01:33 PM
cosmicfish cosmicfish is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 304
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-25-2017, 04:15 AM
Project_Sardonicus Project_Sardonicus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicfish View Post
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.
Thing is the project is like any military type organisation going to be in constant conflict between what they want and what they can achieve.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-25-2017, 04:21 AM
Project_Sardonicus Project_Sardonicus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicfish View Post
Armored SUV's are generally designed for minimal off-roading and/or minimal protection - they use SUV's because they can haul the armor, but that seriously degrades their off-road performance. And even modern armored cars (Brinks, for example) can only handle a small amount of small arms fire before they are compromised, but TMP can't expect to outrun their enemies nor rely on backup in any short time frame. Assuming the 5-year plan, the Project is looking at a war-torn environment with gangs, militia groups, mini-empires, and the remains of invading forces, all of which will have easy access to substantial small arms and probably some access to heavy weapons and vehicles.

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.
It might be easier to buy or build a whole stack of turrets 20mm cannons and ATGMs, then buy the vehicles to go with them separately. Once militaries get a chance to buy some shiny new toys they usually can't dump their old ones fast enough. Even if sold for a pittance with little oversight its cheapier than storing them and maintaining them.

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/
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-27-2017, 11:33 PM
cosmicfish cosmicfish is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
Thing is the project is like any military type organisation going to be in constant conflict between what they want and what they can achieve.
Sure, but I personally think that the Project should be able to leverage their knowledge of the future to make this less of an issue than for other organizations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
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.
An absolutely valid point, but these are obstacles to transit, whereas an underarmored vehicle is an obstacle to survival.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
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.
The strategies being cited were based on very different operational expectations. Those M113's were deployed with an expectation of reconnaissance having identified threats, avoid heavy threats and leaving them to more capable units. And if things went wrong and the M113 was hit, supporting forces were supposed to be pretty close and the M113 and its troops relatively replaceable. TMP vehicles are unlikely to operate anywhere that reconnaissance is consistent or where support is closer than a few hours away, and Project resources are only barely replaceable - it does not make sense that the Frozen Watch and supply bases could replace more than a couple teams in any given branch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
Certainly Recon I think will do most of the actual driving and fighting at night, with night vision and silent electric engines.
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).
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-27-2017, 11:40 PM
cosmicfish cosmicfish is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
It might be easier to buy or build a whole stack of turrets 20mm cannons and ATGMs, then buy the vehicles to go with them separately. Once militaries get a chance to buy some shiny new toys they usually can't dump their old ones fast enough. Even if sold for a pittance with little oversight its cheapier than storing them and maintaining them.
It is a fair point that turrets could be added - it certainly should not be as big a retrofit as adding a nuclear-freaking-reactor. As to buying surplus, those sales and imports are still watched very closely. Buying them is easy, buying them without exposing the Project may be quite difficult. Because when they disappear... it will be noticed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
Thousands of Hueys and even Chinooks get sold as commercial helicopters...
It should be noted that there are commercial versions of these helicopters, once they are derated they aren't really much different than the civilian versions so they aren't worth watching.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
nb even an airforce becomes an option with Hawk Jets being popular with civil jet flying experience days out.
Fueling would be a nightmare, maintenance would be a pain, and the advantages would be minimal. Even the US doesn't do jets where they aren't actually necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
And as for the Huey Cobra, a bunch got handed over to the US forestry service for fire fighting.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old Yesterday, 03:48 AM
.45cultist .45cultist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 724
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicfish View Post
It is a fair point that turrets could be added - it certainly should not be as big a retrofit as adding a nuclear-freaking-reactor. As to buying surplus, those sales and imports are still watched very closely. Buying them is easy, buying them without exposing the Project may be quite difficult. Because when they disappear... it will be noticed.


It should be noted that there are commercial versions of these helicopters, once they are derated they aren't really much different than the civilian versions so they aren't worth watching.


Fueling would be a nightmare, maintenance would be a pain, and the advantages would be minimal. Even the US doesn't do jets where they aren't actually necessary.


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.
Real World fact:60 were left behind in South Vietnam, over half still in their packing crates. more were destroyed or transferred to Korea, Thailand under the federal law. Have an MP contractor placed in charge of this or taking advantage. More equipment held after the Shah was deposed, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Yesterday, 07:01 AM
cosmicfish cosmicfish is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by .45cultist View Post
Real World fact:60 were left behind in South Vietnam, over half still in their packing crates. more were destroyed or transferred to Korea, Thailand under the federal law. Have an MP contractor placed in charge of this or taking advantage. More equipment held after the Shah was deposed, etc.
Taking advantage of that requires foreknowledge of that specific set of facts, the ability to extract them from a hostile environment filled with other people who want them, and the ability to hide the involvement of the Project from governments that will be interested in knowing what the heck happened to an army's worth of equipment.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Yesterday, 06:42 PM
.45cultist .45cultist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 724
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicfish View Post
Taking advantage of that requires foreknowledge of that specific set of facts, the ability to extract them from a hostile environment filled with other people who want them, and the ability to hide the involvement of the Project from governments that will be interested in knowing what the heck happened to an army's worth of equipment.

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.
And the Huey can be a "Hog" for earlier eras.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.