--- On Sat, 7/9/11, Onno Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: > Brandon wrote: > > Shortly after Germany invaded Poland and the first use > of glider-borne > > battlesuits was demonstrated, the US began a crash > course to develop their own > > models. > > are you assuming an alternate history where the tech > marvels > cancel each other out, or will the history of the war > change?
The history of the war will change. > If the suits were secret, and not paraded on newsreels, > then > Germany might have reserved them for Eben Emael. I'll admit that the alternate history presented in the color text is not the one I'm using for my own campaign. I decided to go with something more generic than my background than with a lurking cold war between Atlantis and Mars, using the Allies and Axis as proxies, to some extent. > > These tactical faults might have been > > forgiven had it not been for a bigger strategic > problem -- combat deployment. > > How would they perform in urban areas? That wasn't really > in > focus in the early WWII period, but relatively light suits > might have been used in buildings. They might be useful in urban fighting, as ground pressure is actually pretty good. > > The > > American Waco glider could only carry two and the > British Horsa only four. > > It wasn't until the British Hamilcar (p.W:MP87) > entered service that a full > > seven suit squad and supplies could be deployed by a > single glider. > > New suits, no new heavy-duty gliders? I didn't fell like designing a new glider, especially as the infantry battlesuits (not yet posted) were going to be more common and don't use gliders. I'm posting the airborne suits first as I envision them coming first, chronologically. > > As a > > way around this, parachute deployment was tested. > While this worked > > (after a fashion), it required eight > four-engined bombers (B-17's or > > B-24's) to deploy an airborne platoon, with the suits > jumping out of the bomb > > bay. > > The payload of bombers depended on range. Airborne attacks > would be > much closer than strategic bombing. I was also thinking of the internal volume a battlesuit would occupy; a 1 ton battlesuit is a lot lower density than a 1 ton bomb. Although, in theory, an airborne battlesuit could be carried externally on an underwing hardpoint. > > An airborne battlesuit platoon contains three squads, > each with five > > airborne suits and two airborne flak suits. The HQ > section contains two airborne > > command suits (platoon commander and senior NCO) and > two airborne flak > > suits. Total platoon strength is 24 battlesuits. The > flak suits were used more > > often against ground targets than aircraft. > > How about medics, engineers, and dedicated anti-tank? With A medic would just be a standard suit with added medical gear as cargo. The suits are really too small for a useful engineering role (this is a different matter with the larger infantry battlesuits). Anti-tank units would just mount a different weapon pod on the shoulder. I should note an alternative HEAT warhead for the 4.5" rocket. > something like a Boys AT rifle. The pod with a .5-cal MG using API ammo would be more effective ;) > > Powertrain: 1.1-kW diesel engine with 0.8-kW legged > transmission and > > 2.2-gallon self-sealing fuel tank; 2,000-kWs > batteries > > Are the batteries necessary? Yes. They allow fully sealed operation (I should have added a 1.1 kW electric motor, which makes that more obvious. > > Occupancy: 1 BS body (120-150 lb pilot) Cargo: 0.7 > Body, 0.1 Head. > > Little kids or women? Rosie the Ranger might be hard > enough > for Americans, but how about the Germans? The Germans were even more sexist the Americans. A Soviet suit could certainly use female pilots and 150 lbs is fine for japanese solders. It will be a bit on the small size for American and German soldiers but, of course, most tankers are not giants either ;) > > Weaponry > > 2xSMGs/modified M-1928 Thompson [RArm:F, LArm:F] (200 > each). > > Is it effective to mount two SMGs? How about a Panzerfaust > > clone instead? Rocket pod. > > Equipment > > Body: Life support (6 hours), 200-lb hardpoint, smoke > discharger, Head: > > Small radio transmitter and receiver, IFF. Arms: ST 11 > waldo motors. > > * Why life support? The engine is air-breathing, so it > can't > dive, and gas could be handled with a mask. That's whi the suit has 2,000-kWs batteries. > * Why the smoke discharger? Is it efficient? Not as efficient as smoke hand grenades, no. > * What sensor/targeting system interacts with the IFF? You > > could have it on command suits only, to coordinate > with > tactical air. The IFF description on p.W138-139 says the package includes it's own trasnmitting and receiving gear. > > The most common weapon pod holds one M-2 .50-cal > Browning (Long Aircraft > > HMG) with 350 rounds. A much less common one has an > M-4 20mm cannon (Long > > Aircraft AC) with 80 rounds. There is also a > disposable triple-tube launcher > > for three 4.5" artillery rockets. It should be > remembered that the HMG and > > autocannon are aircraft versions and will quickly > overheat when used if the > > soldier not careful. > > No GPMG/MMG pod? Considering that the integral guns are > SMGs, > it could use something in the rifle range. I designed the infantry suits first and as they use .30-cal MGs rather than .45-cal SMGs, no reason to have .30-cal MG pods. The flak suits with .30-cal MGs fill the .30-cal pod role. > > The command suit adds a medium radio reciever and > trasmitter, recon > > camera, a second smoke discharger and reduces cargo to > 0.3 VSP. $4,900. > > What use is the camera? At this TL, it will use film that > has > to be developed. How about telescopic optics instead, or > nav > gear to represent maps and a gyrocompass? The camera is for after-action reports viewed by higher level command. The suit has sufficient rim to add navigation instruments and still retain the camera. > > The flak suit adds four .30-cal M-1919A4 Brownings > (Ground LMGs) to the > > body (with 375 rpg), removes the smoke discharger, and > has cargo 0.2 VSP. > > $5,200 and 2.03 tons. > > How are they aimed? Turning the torso? Yes. Point and shoot ;) Brandon _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
