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 offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 313
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: 316
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 offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 313
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: 316
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: 2,357
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 offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 313
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 offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 313
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 offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 313
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: 88
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: 88
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 offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 313
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 offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 313
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 03-28-2017, 03:48 AM
.45cultist .45cultist is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 735
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 03-28-2017, 07:01 AM
cosmicfish cosmicfish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 313
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 03-28-2017, 06:42 PM
.45cultist .45cultist is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 735
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
  #16  
Old 03-31-2017, 03:25 PM
bobcat bobcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 395
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-01-2017, 09:06 AM
.45cultist .45cultist is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobcat View Post
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.
Facilities that change tractor trailer, older bus tires will have these cages because of the lethal split rims used on these vehicles or one can wrap a tow chain around the tire and smack it with a sledge hammer. Not the preferred method, but an expedient.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-02-2017, 03:45 AM
Project_Sardonicus Project_Sardonicus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 88
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-04-2017, 07:15 AM
cosmicfish cosmicfish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobcat View Post
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.
Well aware, I am assuming something like a proton-boron plant, stable fuel and high energy density. No, my concern for a fusion plant has nothing to do with radioactivity and more to do with the massive energy densities that would need to be contained for the reaction to take place, and breaching that vessel could have some pretty bad effects for anyone in the area. Put a round through a gas engine, and the engine dies. Put a round through an unprotected fusion reactor and there is a good chance everyone within 50 feet dies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobcat View Post
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.
I agree that maintenance would be a large concern, but disagree that it would be primary. The reason is simple: a maintenance failure means you lose the use of the vehicle for some amount of time, while a protection failure means you lose the vehicle and the crew permanently. The most easily maintainable vehicle in the world is useless if it cannot protect the crew from the huge number of people (compared to the size of TMP) interested in killing them and/or taking their vehicles.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-04-2017, 07:31 AM
cosmicfish cosmicfish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
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.
I think the mission and parameters of Recon is going to be a bit different than conventional military reconnaissance. I always envisioned most of the Recon mission being performed dismounted or at least unbuttoned, with the vehicles serving primarily as (a) mobile bases of operations and (b) escape vehicles. It is on the latter that I look for decent armor - TMP expects to largely face irregular forces willing to sacrifice some portion of their force in order to capture/destroy the team, and those forces are likely to be highly mobile, lightly armored, and moderately armed. Put simply, the team isn't going to outrun an enemy using jeeps and F-150's, and they aren't going to survive if they can't handle a ton of people shooting at them with deer rifles and AR-15's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
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.
I think the situational awareness problems can be substantially mitigated while still protecting the crew, and "drive away fast" isn't a realistic option unless the operational plan for the Project involves waiting until vehicles aren't running any more, and that will likely take more than 5 years. A Peacekeeper tops out at 70mph, more than enough to outrun a person but not really enough to keep anyone with cars away. And an unarmored Humvee is going to have a problem running away when the fist definitive indication of a need to run is the incoming gunfire that can easily immobilize an unarmored vehicle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
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.
What you now have is a vehicle never designed to haul people that is hard to get into and out of and that can no longer fight effectively. If I was concerned about creating a heavy APC that doesn't exist, I would probably go back to plan 1 from the original post and see if I could design one from scratch.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-04-2017, 07:21 PM
Matt W Matt W is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 234
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-04-2017, 09:01 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
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.
In WW2 these were called "Kangaroos. The practice began with obsolete M7 Priest self propelled artillery and later extended to obsolete tank platforms. Capacity varied from a fire team to a squad.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-05-2017, 02:24 AM
Project_Sardonicus Project_Sardonicus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 88
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicfish View Post
I think the mission and parameters of Recon is going to be a bit different than conventional military reconnaissance. I always envisioned most of the Recon mission being performed dismounted or at least unbuttoned, with the vehicles serving primarily as (a) mobile bases of operations and (b) escape vehicles. It is on the latter that I look for decent armor - TMP expects to largely face irregular forces willing to sacrifice some portion of their force in order to capture/destroy the team, and those forces are likely to be highly mobile, lightly armored, and moderately armed. Put simply, the team isn't going to outrun an enemy using jeeps and F-150's, and they aren't going to survive if they can't handle a ton of people shooting at them with deer rifles and AR-15's.



I think the situational awareness problems can be substantially mitigated while still protecting the crew, and "drive away fast" isn't a realistic option unless the operational plan for the Project involves waiting until vehicles aren't running any more, and that will likely take more than 5 years. A Peacekeeper tops out at 70mph, more than enough to outrun a person but not really enough to keep anyone with cars away. And an unarmored Humvee is going to have a problem running away when the fist definitive indication of a need to run is the incoming gunfire that can easily immobilize an unarmored vehicle.


What you now have is a vehicle never designed to haul people that is hard to get into and out of and that can no longer fight effectively. If I was concerned about creating a heavy APC that doesn't exist, I would probably go back to plan 1 from the original post and see if I could design one from scratch.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-05-2017, 02:29 AM
Project_Sardonicus Project_Sardonicus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 88
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
In WW2 these were called "Kangaroos. The practice began with obsolete M7 Priest self propelled artillery and later extended to obsolete tank platforms. Capacity varied from a fire team to a squad.

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.
Just saw you wrote the same thing!

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.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-05-2017, 02:32 AM
Project_Sardonicus Project_Sardonicus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 88
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt W View Post
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
That would look very workable, but something with excellent off road performance. It can be surprising how often light weight and lightly armoured vehicles beat much heavier opponents by simply being in the right place at the right time in the right numbers.

Especially if they have advanced weapons like ATGMs to further even the odds.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-05-2017, 11:43 PM
cosmicfish cosmicfish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
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.
Israel is always an interesting case, as they seem to be the only ones really committed to this idea. That having been said, the Israelis are protecting an area 1/400th that of the US, with an active roster more than 3 times what the Project could reasonably be fielding. There is some merit in that the Israelis are predominantly facing the same kinds of forces that the Project could expect to see, but the scale is so different that I am not sure a vehicle designed to operate in close conjunction with other such vehicles and within close range of support is going to be a good choice for operations where it will be out on its own and where support may be hours or even days away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
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.
The outdated hardware is already on the books. It's being tracked (ha ha). If you are building from scratch, you at least have a shot at keeping them off the books in the first place. What is the cover story for buying dozens of obsolete tanks and then making them disappear? How are the FBI and CIA not all over this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
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.
Wow. So much for Recon recruiting!

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:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
Sensible Recon teams would have worked to observe from a distance and then send foot patrols in probably in mufti.
Agreed!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
I'm not sure this uparmoured and heavily armed vision of Recon was what the project would have been looking for.
I'm not that familiar with 4ed, but in 3ed we see the following vehicles for Recon teams:

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.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-05-2017, 11:49 PM
cosmicfish cosmicfish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
Just saw you wrote the same thing!

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.
I am honestly not sure if you are arguing for these or against them at this point. Just because I don't want Recon in truly light armor does not mean that I would put Recon in anything nearly this heavy. I'm looking for something that shrug off .50cal fire, you're proposing something that shrugs off ATGMs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
But if you just want a basic APC like the WW2 Kangaroo the whole thing could be done for a fraction of that.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-08-2017, 02:00 AM
Project_Sardonicus Project_Sardonicus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 88
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-08-2017, 02:33 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
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.
The Frozen Watch. They are hidden and widely dispersed under locations marked "Ash Pits".

There is a thread for them here ---> Frozen Watch
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-09-2017, 10:38 AM
cosmicfish cosmicfish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
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.
There is a big difference between how military organizations work and the word "disposable". Military commanders risk assets, and occasionally sacrifice them for something more valuable, but they almost never consider them disposable. Yes, the Project knows that they will some team members during the war, and some more due to cryotube failure or bolthole collapse, and they know that some will die on the job. None of that makes them disposable or makes their preservation any less of a high priority. The closest they come to disposable is when not sacrificing them wouls result in a more costly loss, like sacrificing a MARS team to save a Science team, but even then you do everything you can to save BOTH teams.

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:
Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
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.
Every vehicle has vulnerabilities and limitations, and the V-150 stops rifle fire, which is my Recon threshold requirement. I never claimed to like that particular vehicle, I consider it at best adequate for the Recon mission.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 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 02:27 PM.


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