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 09-06-2012, 11:10 AM
Matt W Matt W is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 298
Default Project Artillery

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09...umper_offered/

http://www.iai.co.il/34225-40145-en/...ems.aspx?btl=1

An interesting system. It's not going to work with a 1989 wardate. But it might be present in a later campaign
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-06-2012, 02:01 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

I was kinda leaning toward.........



Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-09-2012, 09:19 AM
Father Fletch Father Fletch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18
Default Just my .02

But...why?



I have to say at first read that this is more Twilight 2000 than Morrow Project. While the core book had missiles and heavy weapons they were restricted for the most part to the MARS 1 vehicles.
It is fun to speculate, but unfortunately a lot of MP talk seems to be more about hardware Pr0n than about what the mission would really need to succeed. More about kill tools than what the people and life in the 'pockylips landscape would be like for a team coming out of cold-sleep.
In my minds-eye things like working tanks and artillery are more the tools of Rich 5 and Krell armies, and the poor MP recon team has to use their smarts and connection with locals to succeed, not just MOARGUNZ.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-09-2012, 05:56 PM
mikeo80 mikeo80 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 962
Default

I agree with you philosophy, Father Fletch.

However let's look at both ends of TMP timeline.

IF the project works as proposed, then it stands to reason that there would be some surviving military units.

IF you play the "canon" version, then 150+ years have passed, and something like the KFS has evolved out of the chaos.

In either case, our heros are going to be REALLY outgunned. Guile and stealth and civilian support are all great things.

But, sometimes you need a BIG STICK to force the demons back into their cages.

And that big stick comes in the form of artillery. I, personnaly, can see a few MARS units being armed with either the 105 mm or 155 mm US Army artillery. Both can be towed by V-150's. IF you buy the idea of a Morrow Air Force, both types of artillery can be air dropped.

To paraphrase:

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil...

Cause I AM the meanest SOB in the valley.

My $0.02

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-15-2012, 04:25 PM
Matt W Matt W is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father Fletch View Post
But...why?



I have to say at first read that this is more Twilight 2000 than Morrow Project. While the core book had missiles and heavy weapons they were restricted for the most part to the MARS 1 vehicles.
It is fun to speculate, but unfortunately a lot of MP talk seems to be more about hardware Pr0n than about what the mission would really need to succeed. More about kill tools than what the people and life in the 'pockylips landscape would be like for a team coming out of cold-sleep.
In my minds-eye things like working tanks and artillery are more the tools of Rich 5 and Krell armies, and the poor MP recon team has to use their smarts and connection with locals to succeed, not just MOARGUNZ.
I quite agree. And my proposal would be that the "8-pack of missiles" would substitute for the MARS-1 and its complement of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

After all, what is the MARS-ONE? A command vehicle? A mobile resuscitation unit? Mobile Artilery?

OTOH, you'd never give a MARS-ONE to a PC unit. But you might give 8 missiles to the players
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-21-2012, 06:49 AM
Gamer Gamer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt W View Post
I quite agree. And my proposal would be that the "8-pack of missiles" would substitute for the MARS-1 and its complement of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

After all, what is the MARS-ONE? A command vehicle? A mobile resuscitation unit? Mobile Artilery?

OTOH, you'd never give a MARS-ONE to a PC unit. But you might give 8 missiles to the players
The heaviest artillery I will ever allow to the MP regardless of canon is mortars anything larger exceeds MP missions.
Their mission is never to outgun, they are NOT meant to be warlords.

What's next heavy naval assets?
There is not a fine line here, just simple common sense.
An MP Air Force would at most to consist of this: http://www.802u.com/
anything more is too excessive.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-24-2012, 07:10 PM
nuke11 nuke11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamer View Post
The heaviest artillery I will ever allow to the MP regardless of canon is mortars anything larger exceeds MP missions.
Their mission is never to outgun, they are NOT meant to be warlords.

What's next heavy naval assets?
There is not a fine line here, just simple common sense.
An MP Air Force would at most to consist of this: http://www.802u.com/
anything more is too excessive.
I think if you are planning for aircraft there are a few more that fit the bill. Not overly powerful, but can provide the needed close air-support required by a team in need.

1. A-1 Skyraider
2. OV-10B/D Bronco
3. T-28D Trojan
4. IA-58 Pucara
5. PA-48 Enforcer
6. P-51D/H Mustang
7. F-51 Cavalier Mustang
8. AT-6B Texan
9. EMB-314 Super Tucano

There are others, but this covers the major ones.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-25-2012, 09:22 PM
bobcat bobcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 403
Default

the MP teams are supposed to operate similar to special forces A-teams not armored divisions. ie. the biggest thing i give my PCs for hardware is an M202A3 if you can't bring it down with a four-pack of WP and/or HEAT rockets you should have already been running away.
__________________
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
  #9  
Old 04-09-2013, 03:23 AM
PapillonHeroes
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It is fun to speculate, but unfortunately a lot of MP talk seems to be more about hardware Pr0n than about what the mission would really need to succeed. More about kill tools than what the people and life in the 'pockylips landscape would be like for a team coming out of cold-sleep.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-24-2013, 01:35 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Liberation at Riverton - V-150 APC with M2HB (over 6 add XR-311)

Damocles - Commando Scout with 20mm Autocannon (over 6 players, add Commando Scout with 20mm A/C or XR-311)

Operation Lucifer - V-150 APC with M2HB

Ruins of Chicago - Commando Ranger APC with M2HB

Starnaman Incident - V150 with 81mm Mortar

Lonestar - Air Cushion Vehicles Quequod class laboratory, Flying Dutchman Mars ACV, Albatross Light Recon ACV.

Desert Search - V-150 with TOW launcher, Fast Attack Vehicle (FAV) with M174E4 automatic grenade launchers.

Prime Base - No equipment included. Continued from Desert Search or another module.

Bullets and Bluegrass - SK-5 ACV (Science One can be re-captured).

Final Watch - Commando Ranger (no pintle mount) (Mobile Command Post Variant).

Fall Back - V-150 with turreted 20mm, Commando Ranger APC

American Outback - Commando Ranger APC with turreted twin GPMGs.

Last edited by ArmySGT.; 10-05-2013 at 01:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-05-2013, 03:38 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

M102 Howitzer, Towed, 105mm.





Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-28-2013, 02:28 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Name M102 Howitzer
Crew 6
Length 21 ft 10-1/2 in. (6.7 m)

Width 6 ft 4 in. (1.9 m)

Height 5 ft 2-3/4 in. (1.6 m)
Ground Clearance
Turning radius same as tractor
Max road speed Super highway ....45 mph Improved roads ...35 mph Cross country ... 10 mph
Max. towed load. N/a
Water Speed N/a
Fording depth same as tractor
Gradient same as tractor
Side slope same as tractor
Vertical obstacle N/a
Trench .5 M
Armor class
Armament 105 mm Rifled cannon
Ammunition None stored

M102 Howitzer.
Maximum range .................................................. .................................................. .. 11,500 meters
Designated prime movers .................................................. .............1-1/4 ton and 2-1/2 ton truck
(1) Is a lightweight, towed weapon, which has a very low silhouette when in the firing position.
(2) Can be airlifted, dropped by parachute, or towed into position.
(3) Employs a roller assembly and firing platform assembly permitting a 6400-mil capability.
(4) Has a variable recoil system which eliminates the need for a recoil pit.

Ammunition for your M102 howitzer is of the semi-fixed type. Most of these rounds have an adjustable propelling charge
for zone firing, and the complete round is loaded into the weapon as a unit. The High Explosive Plastic (HEP) and the
Target Practice (TP) rounds are exceptions and do not have adjustable charges. Semi-fixed ammunition is issued fuzed
for all projectiles except HE, and sometimes WP rounds. Draw separate fuzes for these rounds.

In Project use, the M102 Howitzer fulfills a defensive role protecting large scale assets like bases, depots, supply dumps, and refugee centers by forcing hostile groups far out of their effective range for small arms and light crew served weapons. Additionally the planners prepared for the howitzers to assist in civilian missions such as avalanche control and destroying ice dams preventing flooding issues. Illumination missions are prepared for to assist in dangerous, but timely rescue or recovery operations, in addition to support of MARS personnel disrupting hostile actors plans. Tactical CS is also considered as a method of turning refugees away from areas highly contaminated by radioactive fallout. The CS can be felt, whereas the harmful gamma rays are undetectable with proper meters.

Last edited by ArmySGT.; 09-28-2013 at 03:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-28-2013, 03:02 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Model. Abbreviation. Type. Use.

XM546* and M546* APERS-T Flechette-loaded, aluminum projectile Antipersonnel(effective in dense foliage) *Dispersion pattern for XM546 and M546 set on MA (muzzle action) and time.

M1, HE, High explosive-bursting.Antipersonnel,blast, mining

M60 H/HD Bursting, chemical mustard/distilled mustard Antipersonnel, persistent

M360 GB Bursting, chemical- sarin Antipersonnel, non-persistent

M327 HEP/HEP-T High explosive, bursting/high ex-plosive, bursting, tracer. Defeat armor (effective against concrete and timber targets).

M314 series-ILLUM Base ejection projectile, parachute candle. Illumination.

M60A3 Smoke,WP Bursting chemical. Screening, spotting incendiary.

M84A1 Smoke,HC Base-ejection projectile with canisters-for use with M548, M565, M577 series, or M762 fuzes. Screening/target identification,signaling.

M84B1 Smoke, HC/colored Base-ejection projectile with canisters for use with M501 series fuze only. Screening/target identification,signaling.

M444* ICM High-explosive bouncing grenades. Antipersonnel * Expect a higher submunition dud rate when M444 is fired at charges 6 and 7.

M67 TP/TP-T Inert projectile/inert projectile w/tracer. Training.

M548 HERA High explosive rocket assisted. Antipersonnel,blast, mining.

M629 Tactical,CS Base-ejection projectile w/CS canisters. Riot control.

M14 Dummy Completely inert round Training
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-29-2013, 08:51 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 221
Default

I feel the 81mm-armed V150 is pretty much as artillery-ish as the Project needs to get. It can serve as a expedient APC/cargo vehicle, and it uses tires and spares common to other Project vehicles.

If you use an M102 howitzer, and are running around with a single gun, you'll need 6 to 8 people for crew; so that's one vehicle (might be a V150). If you want to take a lot of different kinds of ammunition, and a sufficient amount of ammunition to be useful, there'll be at least one vehicle hauling ammo. Projectiles weigh 18 to 20 kg each; powder charges are 7 kg; let's say 25 kg per round. 200 rounds is thus 5 tons: so your gun needs a 5 or 10 ton truck. If you're operating halfway across the country from your ammo supply point, you'll probably bring several trucks of ammo. You might also need some security around your gun when it's firing ... in case someone sneaks up on foot behind you. So another team of "infantry" comes along, with some vehicle. And, do you stash caches of 105mm ammo all over the United States? Which ... could have been caches of stuff for re-building the country, not blowing it up.

A few howitzers aren't much use across a continent; a lot of howitzers makes a very odd Morrow Project. I think some MARS mortar teams, TOW teams and so forth, plus the MARS-One, should be sufficient for most purposes. Of course, it's your Project -- run your game as you see fit, and to entertain yourself and your players!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-30-2013, 09:10 AM
hyppoleonida hyppoleonida is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3
Default Don't know where did you find these...

But surely both the new IAI autonomous missile system that this kind of ultralight flying tank you came across are very nice additions to the arsenal of a MP Team, maybe the AT-802U is more adequate for a Recon Team and the Jumper is more likely to support a MARS Team but in every other way, IMHO they shoud belong to a MP Team, since the mission requires survivability in the (presumably) hostile environment of post-catastrophe Earth, more so since the original Mission Directive foresaw the resurrection of the teams in the immediate aftermath of an apocalyptic conflict, not 150 years later, as happens in Morrow Project.

Since the bolthole of each team would have to be equipped with the best that was available at the time of the team's hibernation, considering that - in all likelihood - the average team will have exhausted most of its hi-tech resources in a relatively short time, unless that is, they know how to find somewhere a hidden storage (which also in the official scenarios is more often than not only a wishful proposition), I do not see anything wrong in equipping a team with a little 'big stick', especially if is semi-autonomous, portable and in any case with a (necessarily) limited endurance.

I don't avocate in any way the presence of heavy armor or - as some have suggested jokingly (but are we so sure of it?) - naval vessels, since they are outside the mission's purpose and above all, cool as they may seem at first, they are a real logistical nightmares in terms of resources and maintenance on the medium/long distance, though - as suggested by the examples already in the historic manual TM 1-1 of the 80s - there's sufficient stuff around that can fit perfectly to the need of small units, like MP Teams are.

After all, even with the military planners, there has always been the need to equip and arm elite and/or special forces units with incospicous means to transport and use in air, land and sea, beginning with the modified trucks of the 8th Army's Desert Rats in North Africa during WWII, to the armed (and sometime armored) off-road, air-droppable light vehicles of today.

Just as an example, let's take the case of the AT802U; a thing like that you can see even in the official scenarios, when it comes to the air forces of the KFS and others adversaries of the Project: fixed-wing propeller-driven aircrafts instead of the more expensive and resource-hungry jet-fighter, 'cause they're notoriously less costly to fly, arm and mantain.

My favorite in this regard remain the Skydiver A-1, the P-51 Mustang and P-47 Thunderbolt, by virtue of their relative simplicity, autonomy, load bearing capacity and availability, as even today there are around hundreds of specimens both original and replicas and it is possible that they can survive or be recovered even after a disaster such as that provided in the Morrow Project background.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-30-2013, 05:45 PM
LBraden's Avatar
LBraden LBraden is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: England
Posts: 148
Default

When I was setting up a Project Atlantis session (that fell apart due to other reasons) I had given the British teams some old Hurricanes, yes everyone likes the spit, but the Hurricane is more of a workhorse, mostly cloth, dope and linen, it was the simplest form it could be, and was to give more of a "over the horizon" view along with at least being able to strafe a few people, but I had only given the Brit team 3 of them aircraft, near an old RAF base (assuming that 150 years later, no one would go near to an RAF base that had been stripped for about 200 years, and the Hurricane can take off and land on grass fields.

The P47 and P51 are good aircraft, but are more for the US side of things.
__________________
Newbie DM/PM/GM
Semi-experienced player

Mostly a sci-fi nut, who plays a few PC games.
I do some technical and vehicle drawings in my native M20 scale. - http://braden1986.deviantart.com/
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-01-2013, 03:59 AM
hyppoleonida hyppoleonida is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3
Default

Very well done, and perfectly in line with my own way of thinking; I always thought that the equipment of a party, not just that of a MP Team, should be consistent with the place of origin / operations of the party, unless, that is, this same equipment is not particularly widespread or international.

Speaking of old aircraft, it seems only natural that, using as setting the UK, we are looking at the classic Spit - or the good ol' Hurricane, for that matter - because I believe there are still many around those parts, in museums or in private hands.

When I mentioned the classic warbirds made ​​in the USA, it is because most of the campaigns MP I wrote / played are set in the States (by the way, I'm Italian) where it is not uncommon to find even today vintage equipment, vehicles and weapons and even where there are immense cemeteries where it would be possible to draw everything and more (for the series: here we don't throw anything away).

Same would apply if there was a Morrow Project beyond the Iron Curtain, because the Russians and their allies and satellites have never thrown anything away, they mostly recycled and resold / distributed their old equipment all around the world, so that would not surprise me at all to find an eastern equivalent of the MP loaded for bear with - just as an example - the Lavochkin-5 or the ubiquitous Il-2 Sturmovik, always to stay in the aircraft field.

However, the use of outdated vehicles and weapons as part of a MP's campaign, as far as I'm concerned, is limited to only two cases: the project teams who recur to salvage and refurbishing of relics in place of their own unusable/destroyed equipment or to replenish the reserves in case of success of the project and widening of the fleet / arsenal, or as standard equipment (more or less) of the various political entities that the team sees / faces ergo of the many agencies against which the Project fight for its own continued success.

It seems only logical to me that a job like the recovery, restoration and conservation is more useful to those who remained in the real world after the war, while the MP teams slept in their cryogenic sleep, unless you feel like assuming that a particular team was outfitted for precise will of the Project or for other reasons, with outdated equipment, although I can't see a purpose in a similar decision right now.

All this talk brings us back to the question: unless you want to take as a point of view, the principle by which the equipment assigned to MP Teams is obsolete simply because the events of the original game took place around the the late 80s of last century, it goes without saying that looking around for the best that exists at the time to equip their teams' boltholes is only natural.

After all, the equipment already included in the manual TM 1-1 was the best available in the years when it was written; just as an example look at the missiles assigned to the MARS teams: in the '80s were the non-plus ultra of military technology.

So, in my humble opinion, unless you want to maintain the principle that the teams, once hibernated, were no longer re-equipped, effectively sealing them in their tombs of concrete and steel (which among other things, I can't remember if it's written anywhere in the manual), I think it's only natural that, at the awakening of the teams you can find ... surprises in the form of weapons, vehicles and equipment that are state of the art today, but didn't exist when the team was put to sleep.

After all, even the ubiquitous V-series armored cars so loved and used by the MP, today are ridicolous at best but in the '80s were perfect for the purpose and they were state-of-the-art light armor at the time.
So it's no surprise to me (and in fact I have done so more than once) to find that in the bolthole our heroes find instead of a V-150 a Renault VBL or a Lince or Puma armored cars, modern and premium vehicles compared to the old Cadillac-Gage's armored cars that have been discontinued for years now, while still in use in many countries, mainly in the Third World.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-01-2013, 02:56 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 221
Default

The introduction to TMP 3rd Edition states, "In 1987, the Project carried out a complete updating of all the previously "stored" equipment, opening the buried and sealed chambers of the sleepers without waking them and leaving behind new equipment, vehicles, and the instruction manuals on how to operate them."

Interesting point: who did all this? Opening potentially several thousand boltholes and caches in a year, bringing in new vehicles, hauling off old ones .. and where did the old vehicles and equipment go to? The depots? Does that mean the depots have a lot of not-quite-state-of-the-art stuff stashed "out in back"?

--
Michael B.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-04-2013, 10:55 AM
hyppoleonida hyppoleonida is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelrir View Post
The introduction to TMP 3rd Edition states, "In 1987, the Project carried out a complete updating of all the previously "stored" equipment, opening the buried and sealed chambers of the sleepers without waking them and leaving behind new equipment, vehicles, and the instruction manuals on how to operate them."

Interesting point: who did all this? Opening potentially several thousand boltholes and caches in a year, bringing in new vehicles, hauling off old ones .. and where did the old vehicles and equipment go to? The depots? Does that mean the depots have a lot of not-quite-state-of-the-art stuff stashed "out in back"?

--
Michael B.
Very likely, after all is not said anywhere that the Project's leaders - despite their affiliation to the industrial/military apparatus - should be a bunch of wasteful capitalists to throw away vehicles, weapons and equipment practically still in mothballs and fully functional.

Logically, they could always come in handy, once the MP Teams have established the basics of the Project, to swell the ranks and equip the new recruits.

By this same way, it's also possible introduce in our campaign even the more experimental and/or historical pieces of hardware, since it is likely that the same industrial / military apparatus behind the scenes of Bruce Morrow's project, may be the same behind the innumerable projects for the armed forces that eventually never took off nor saw widespread adoption but that - on paper - were the best and most advanced in their times.

I'm particularly fond of, just to name a few, the Colt SCAMP machine-pistol or the Hughes Lockless rifle/light machine gun system or the TRW Low Maintenance Rifle.
These are all valuable "high-tech" addition for any MP Team... can you just imagine what a surprise, when the players were to discover that their exceptional equipment in reality never got beyond a (very) limited production (for them no less!) ergo the prototype stage?

What a show!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-04-2013, 04:48 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 221
Default

Keep in mind that even small organizations can make mistakes; especially if (say) one person in Procurement is convinced they've found the Right Thing. Once you've bought a zillion of the latest high-tech thing, and stashed them in boltholes -- what do you do when 3 years later there's a big product recall?

In some ways, it's a good role-playing feature for the Project -- it demonstrates that there were sincere but not omniscient human beings involved. Examples:

* the Cadillac-Gage Ranger is a terrible off-road vehicle. The Air Force had to issue a 25 mph speed restriction for use on gravel roads, 15 mph on rough dirt roads. The top hatch is very small, difficult to get through with gear or body armor. The spotlight cable would get tangled up in the hatch/cupola. The side doors are heavy, and have quick-closing spring systems: quick-closing enough to do some damage if you're not clear of the door frame. The runflat tires were foam-filled; when the tires got hot, the foam would liquefy -- then, when you parked the vehicle, the foam would cool, all down at the bottom of the wheel.
* the High Standard M10B shotgun doesn't work with regular or low-power shotgun shells, and is entirely unsuited for left-handed persons.
* the Stoner LMG doesn't use standard military 5.56mm links (a minor issue, but affects post-Atomic-War-ness), and (due to the short barrel) doesn't always produce enough gas pressure to pull the belt up (especially with a full belt hanging loose)
* the CP-7 laser rangefinder (more often known as the GVS-5 in the US military) fires 20 millijoule IR pulses, which can blind people all over the place if pointed at reflective surfaces. The US military stopped using these in the early 90s. Although: blinding people deliberately can have tactical uses, as well ...
* various items that use tritium to activate flourescent materials will be non-glowing after 150 years -- some reflex sights, compasses, etc.. Some early (Gen I mostly) night-vision gear employed tritium in the imaging system, I seem to recall.
* Morrow Project communication or power generation satellites ... certainly useless or destroyed after 150 years.

Or it might be some holster that has a weak seam; a flavor of "freeze dried food" that nobody can stand ("Ugh, not the chicken with rice again!"); or even just the weight of the standard white phosphorus grenade.

Nobody can pick "correctly" every time, after all. Even Bruce Morrow is only "sorta" psychic.

If your Project is stashing "super high tech" goodies beyond what is listed in TM 1-1, some of them might be unissued for a reason. Gyrojet pistols, rocket belts, clothing in ultra-modern (circa 1983) synthetic fabrics ...

--
Michael B
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-04-2013, 07:08 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelrir View Post
I feel the 81mm-armed V150 is pretty much as artillery-ish as the Project needs to get. It can serve as a expedient APC/cargo vehicle, and it uses tires and spares common to other Project vehicles.

If you use an M102 howitzer, and are running around with a single gun, you'll need 6 to 8 people for crew; so that's one vehicle (might be a V150). If you want to take a lot of different kinds of ammunition, and a sufficient amount of ammunition to be useful, there'll be at least one vehicle hauling ammo. Projectiles weigh 18 to 20 kg each; powder charges are 7 kg; let's say 25 kg per round. 200 rounds is thus 5 tons: so your gun needs a 5 or 10 ton truck. If you're operating halfway across the country from your ammo supply point, you'll probably bring several trucks of ammo. You might also need some security around your gun when it's firing ... in case someone sneaks up on foot behind you. So another team of "infantry" comes along, with some vehicle. And, do you stash caches of 105mm ammo all over the United States? Which ... could have been caches of stuff for re-building the country, not blowing it up.

A few howitzers aren't much use across a continent; a lot of howitzers makes a very odd Morrow Project. I think some MARS mortar teams, TOW teams and so forth, plus the MARS-One, should be sufficient for most purposes. Of course, it's your Project -- run your game as you see fit, and to entertain yourself and your players!
One V-150 and One M35A3 2 1/2 ton truck. Both are MP vehicles. The Deuce is stated out in "Fall Back". Probably an XR-311, though I am converting the Humvee for MP games.

V-150 (CP version) to use as an FDC, crewed by three. M35A2 to haul ammunition and spares, crewed by 2. XR-311, hauls personal gear, crewed by 2.

MARS team with seven personnel. Part of the MARS contingent for a Combined Group tasked with protecting Morrow Assets. Draws additional munitions from Bases, and Depots. May be assisted by other MP Teams withing the Combined Group for security and hauling munitions.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-04-2013, 07:13 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Looking forward to stating the M7B1 Priest for both the Project and as a Snake Eater support piece.

A fusion plant and electric drive overcomes the fuel issue and the power to wight issue. The fuel tanks are removed opening up space. The Autonav gives it a rapid mission effect and a shoot and scoot that this platform did not before.

The open top makes it vulnerable to counter battery and reminds PCs it is not a tank, while the ring mount give it some self defense.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-04-2013, 11:01 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 221
Default

You might want to go with the 5-ton truck; the V150 shares a lot of drivetrain components with those -- handy for post-apocalyptic logistics. Or the HEMMT -- some versions come with a handy cargo crane.

http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_m54.php
http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_hemtt_m977.php
http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_hemtt_m985.php

7 people with an M102 leaves no more than one person to operate an FDC, act as a radio operator, and as a forward observer. And the unit still has no innate security when it's emplaced and ready to fire.

Instead of the ancient Priest, how about something newer:

http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_pho...8_howitzer.php

For that matter, if this a one-of-a-kind thing, why not just make a custom vehicle, suited to the Morrow Project?

Or: variations on the M113A3 'Gavin' APC. The proposed M8 'Buford' AGS (armored gun system) had a 105mm autoloading gun, woot. And there's been discussion of a hybrid electric drive version, which would make a Morrow Project conversion as simple as plugging in your fusion pack.

http://www.combatreform.org/hybridelectricdrive.htm

(note that the author of the "combatreforms" pages can get mighty worked up about his favorite topics, one of which is the M113)

Imagine a hybrid-drive version of the M8. The Project could just snap them up and roll them right into a bolthole.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm

--
Michael B.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-05-2013, 12:26 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelrir View Post
You might want to go with the 5-ton truck; the V150 shares a lot of drivetrain components with those -- handy for post-apocalyptic logistics. Or the HEMMT -- some versions come with a handy cargo crane.

http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_m54.php
http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_hemtt_m977.php
http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_hemtt_m985.php

7 people with an M102 leaves no more than one person to operate an FDC, act as a radio operator, and as a forward observer. And the unit still has no innate security when it's emplaced and ready to fire.

Instead of the ancient Priest, how about something newer:

http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_pho...8_howitzer.php

For that matter, if this a one-of-a-kind thing, why not just make a custom vehicle, suited to the Morrow Project?

Or: variations on the M113A3 'Gavin' APC. The proposed M8 'Buford' AGS (armored gun system) had a 105mm autoloading gun, woot. And there's been discussion of a hybrid electric drive version, which would make a Morrow Project conversion as simple as plugging in your fusion pack.

http://www.combatreform.org/hybridelectricdrive.htm

(note that the author of the "combatreforms" pages can get mighty worked up about his favorite topics, one of which is the M113)

Imagine a hybrid-drive version of the M8. The Project could just snap them up and roll them right into a bolthole.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm

--
Michael B.

Sparky and his website is universally despised on this website. The M113 series has no name in U.S. Military designations. Gavin is something sparky made up.

A FDC doesn't have a Forward Observer. The FDC recieves calls for fire from a FO and processes them as a Fire Mission.

In this case that would be another MARS team or Recon Team from the Combined Group.

I could go with a 5 ton truck but, as yet the stats have not been written for them. The 2 1/2 has been stated and appears in Project File 11 "Fall Back".

This unit isn't manned to provide it's own security when emplaced. It is intended to be part of a Combined Group. The other units of the Combined group provide the security, combat engineering, logistics, and FO.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-05-2013, 12:44 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelrir View Post
Y
For that matter, if this a one-of-a-kind thing, why not just make a custom vehicle, suited to the Morrow Project?

Or: variations on the M113A3 APC. The proposed M8 'Buford' AGS (armored gun system) had a 105mm autoloading gun, woot. And there's been discussion of a hybrid electric drive version, which would make a Morrow Project conversion as simple as plugging in your fusion pack.



(note that the author of the "redacted" pages can get mighty worked up about his favorite topics, one of which is the M113)

Imagine a hybrid-drive version of the M8. The Project could just snap them up and roll them right into a bolthole.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm

--
Michael B.
The M8 is a light tank intended to give light forces (Airborne , Airmobile) an antiarmor punch that is protected under armor. Its a direct fire weapon and doesn't have the elevation to act as artillery.

However, you know it is a Cadillac Gage Stingray light tank. Who makes V-150s? Cadillac Gage. So if you want them in your game, I don't see why not.

I am not giving a Team other than MARS a Tank. Not sure about that either.

However, there is a tradition in the Project Files of giving the Team a vehicle that can't really be used or a weapon system that is not suited to the mission.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-05-2013, 12:59 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelrir View Post
Instead of the ancient Priest, how about something newer:

http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_pho...8_howitzer.php

For that matter, if this a one-of-a-kind thing, why not just make a custom vehicle, suited to the Morrow Project?
--
Michael B.
It is an interesting piece, and I am considering it. The dirty secret is that in Vietnam the Soviets supplied the NVA with the D-30 (130mm) Howitzer. This outranged the U.S. 105mm. You dont want to be outranged. Then you have to sit there and take it.

I picked the M7B1 for a few reasons.
  • it was a real world system. Don't have to make it up.
  • the open topped design is a vulnerability that offsets the 105mm cannon.
  • U.S. forces wouldn't shoot first, and look it up later.
  • The Project could have veterans familiar with it.
  • Many, many were decommissioned when a new design was fielded. Therefore these can be had cheap.
  • The is very little difference between the M101 and M102 Howitzers.
  • This has an onboard ammunition supply. (Which keeps the players careful).
  • It is self propelled. So They have to take it and not just stash the M102 in a barn while the V-150 is used to scout.
No one will miss or speculate on the fate of a vehicle decommissioned and no longer in service. In this way, both the Project and the Snake Eaters could field for themselves or as equipment to give out to Partisans, Law Enforcement, or surviving U.S. Military forces usable materiel in sufficient quantities. The planners also kept in mind that they did not want to create bad situations for themselves so that is why it is Korea and Vietnam vintage surplus and not fusion converted M1A2 Abrams with coaxial Mk3 laser.

Last edited by ArmySGT.; 10-05-2013 at 01:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-05-2013, 07:23 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 221
Default

An issue with any tracked vehicle is 'track life'. The M7 'Priest' uses Sherman running gear and tracks (generally speaking), with probably a 5000 km life.

http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/...triy-loza.html

Though there are Shermans and Sherman-derived vehicles in museums to steal from, plus of course the team's caches would have tracks. There's a company still making Sherman suspension and track (as of a year or three ago), for a variety of industrial equipment!

Speed might be an issue: if your M7 is in Alabama, and the Bad Guys are acting up in South Dakota, the 1900 kilometers is gonna take you at least 79 driving hours. Redesigning the track, suspension, gearboxes, steering, etc. to allow higher speed (from a presumably more powerful engine) and survivable ride ... you might as well make a whole new vehicle.

Maybe: mount the howitzer in an open-topped version of the Cadillac-Gage Stingray 'tank'. At least twice as fast as the M7. All sorts of tanks in WW2 had "gun carriage" conversions, many just a simple rifle-proof box around the front and two sides. The Stingray was generally described (if I recall correctly) as proof against 14.5mm ammo on the front (so presumably just rifle-proof elsewhere, at best).

If an open top is important: the V150 carrying the 81mm mortar has an open top.

Nice to hear the artillery will be traveling with an escort (if all goes according to plan). Which, of course, it won't! "Where's the rest of the team? Where's the truck with the rest of the ammo?"

Hmm, regular crew for the M7 is 7 people ... increased to 8 after the 2nd World War:

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m7priest.html

I see a little trailer being towed ... either the M8 ammunition trailer (armored) or the M10 ammunition trailer (unarmored, open-topped). Either trailer was nominally "one ton" and could carry 42 rounds of ammunition. I've worked up numbers on the M8 trailer for my campaign:

"2 wheel trailer M8 in use since World War 2. 3 meters long, 2.25 meters wide; the armored box is 1.66 meters wide, 1.5 meters long, 0.66 meters deep (1.6 cubic meters). Empty weight 1200 kg, payload 1000 kg. The wheels are 7.5x20 or the usual 9x20 CCKW type. No running brakes are fitted, but a hand parking brake is installed. Military towing lunette ring on front."

"[The Armored Trailer, M8] is suitable for transporting fifty-four 5-gallon
Quartermaster gasoline cans or the following rounds of ammunition:

105mm howitzer, 42 rounds
75mm gun, 93 rounds
37mm gun, 360 rounds
Cal. .50 machine gun, 25,200 rounds
81mm mortar, 222 rounds"

The manual:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/150148927/...RMORED-TRAILER

Ah ha: the M7 didn't normally carry a radio ... it used telephone lines or just plain "adjacentness" to communicate with the FDC. Easy enough to drop in a modern tactical radio, and an operator.

Oooh, the manual:

http://cdm16635.contentdm.oclc.org/u...name/63358.pdf

You'll have to decide what ammo they have initially: giving them 69 rounds of tear gas and 44 rounds of propaganda leaflets would be mighty cruel!

One advantage of the M7: it's available in lots of miniature scales. Company B makes one in 25/28mm:

http://www.brigadegames.com/M7-Priest-156th_p_1936.html

Another useful manual -- not so much for the Project, but as a guideline for the world after the Atomic War:

http://www.90thidpg.us/Reference/Man...%20Vol%201.pdf


--
Michael B.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-05-2013, 07:58 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelrir View Post
An issue with any tracked vehicle is 'track life'. The M7 'Priest' uses Sherman running gear and tracks (generally speaking), with probably a 5000 km life.
http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/...triy-loza.html
Though there are Shermans and Sherman-derived vehicles in museums to steal from, plus of course the team's caches would have tracks. There's a company still making Sherman suspension and track (as of a year or three ago), for a variety of industrial equipment!
Likely a Division of Morrow Industries or a part of the Council of Tomorrow produces these for the civilian industry and for Allies that still use this suspension like Israel and Mexico. Soucy probably makes a rubber band track in this dimension as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelrir View Post
Speed might be an issue: if your M7 is in Alabama, and the Bad Guys are acting up in South Dakota, the 1900 kilometers is gonna take you at least 79 driving hours. Redesigning the track, suspension, gearboxes, steering, etc. to allow higher speed (from a presumably more powerful engine) and survivable ride ... you might as well make a whole new vehicle.
Maybe: mount the howitzer in an open-topped version of the Cadillac-Gage Stingray 'tank'. At least twice as fast as the M7. All sorts of tanks in WW2 had "gun carriage" conversions, many just a simple rifle-proof box around the front and two sides. The Stingray was generally described (if I recall correctly) as proof against 14.5mm ammo on the front (so presumably just rifle-proof elsewhere, at best).
If an open top is important: the V150 carrying the 81mm mortar has an open top.
Why? There is a Regional base and a Combined Group assigned to South Dakota as there is for Alabama.

That is what the planners provisioned for. The Morrow Air Force C-130s (Prime Base) could be used to make that transfer faster than tractor trailer lowboys could not be provisioned. However, the Planners would have considered the move unrealistic in the after effects of nuclear war. Roads would be clogged with damaged and abandoned vehicles. Bridges would be down or too damaged to support the combined weight. Highways, Freeways, and rail pass through major cities which would be impassable after the destruction and chaos.

The open top is important for game balance. It keeps you game from power creep as you have to throw better and more heavily armed NPCs at the players ubersuperadamantiumfusiondeathdealer500000ton_Bolo .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelrir View Post
Nice to hear the artillery will be traveling with an escort (if all goes according to plan). Which, of course, it won't! "Where's the rest of the team? Where's the truck with the rest of the ammo?"
Every module and campaign begins from the Bolt hole with Team Members expecting a functioning Morrow Project and linking up with their Combined Group. Then it all falls apart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelrir View Post
Hmm, regular crew for the M7 is 7 people ... increased to 8 after the 2nd World War: http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m7priest.html
The Project doesn’t get the luxury of all the personnel they could wish for. I’ll have a look, but likely advancing technology has made one of them redundant now, like a RTO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelrir View Post
I see a little trailer being towed ... either the M8 ammunition trailer (armored) or the M10 ammunition trailer (unarmored, open-topped). Either trailer was nominally "one ton" and could carry 42 rounds of ammunition. I've worked up numbers on the M8 trailer for my campaign:
"2 wheel trailer M8 in use since World War 2. 3 meters long, 2.25 meters wide; the armored box is 1.66 meters wide, 1.5 meters long, 0.66 meters deep (1.6 cubic meters). Empty weight 1200 kg, payload 1000 kg. The wheels are 7.5x20 or the usual 9x20 CCKW type. No running brakes are fitted, but a hand parking brake is installed. Military towing lunette ring on front."
The manual:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/150148927/...RMORED-TRAILER
Kinda neat. I can see a use for one with project vehicles like the V-150 with TOW and the 81mm mortar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelrir View Post
Ah ha: the M7 didn't normally carry a radio ... it used telephone lines or just plain "adjacentness" to communicate with the FDC. Easy enough to drop in a modern tactical radio, and an operator.
Oooh, the manual:
http://cdm16635.contentdm.oclc.org/u...name/63358.pdf
Probably because in movement and emplaced it was under battery command. At the time batteries were not dispersed since counter battery radar had yet to be invented. A Project vehicle will have a radio and Autonav as standard. Since there won’t be a need for fuel tanks, additional space is open for other equipment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelrir View Post
You'll have to decide what ammo they have initially: giving them 69 rounds of tear gas and 44 rounds of propaganda leaflets would be mighty cruel!
it will be light on HE and HERA, some HEP, lots of colored smoke, Illum, and tactical CS. Some leaflet and a few fixed practice for crew drills. --
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelrir View Post
Michael B.

Last edited by ArmySGT.; 10-05-2013 at 08:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-05-2013, 10:05 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 221
Default

It might be amusing and useful to work out what a 'generic Project leaflet' says. I suspect at least one shell would be dismantled by the Team to provide paper for other (hygiene-related) purposes.

Presumably if it's being fired, the 'target' is an area that is occupied by an unfriendly force, but contains literate people who might be influenced by a leaflet. The leafles have to be generic enough to use in almost any situation, and written to use the most basic vocabulary and grammar. Heh, perhaps there are various leaflet rounds in the M8 trailer: "This one is about slavery, this one's about women's rights, this one's about democracy, this one is a reward for helping Morrow Project personnel escape, this one is encouraging defectors, and this one is some kind of warning to leave the area immediately!"

Pondering a generic text:

"The Morrow Project wants to rebuild America. Freedom, peace, justice and liberty are the rights of every American. You should have all these things, but bad people are stopping you. You and your families are victims of these bad people. We can help with food, clean water, medicine and housing, and to remove the bad people. Bring this paper to us, and we will treat you well."

As for treads: I don't think the Project had to buy the company ... just a lot of treads, for (apparently) 50 or so M7B2 gun motor carriages. Or just build them in the Cadillac-Gage factories. Ah ha, the companies making treads are mostly in British Columbia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2...ilian_variants

Here's the Morpac page on crawler equipment:

http://www.morpac.com/crawlers.shtml

Look at the treads and suspension. Notice in fact their description of track inventory!

--
Michael B.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-05-2013, 10:08 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 221
Default

And I don't think you have to go to Soucy for rubber band tracks:

http://www.rigsourceinc.com/Crawler_...r_carriers.asp

--
Michael B.
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 03:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.