Eddie replied to me: > > We tried to figure out what the GURPS rules imply, not a specific > > setting. > > Do generic, universal rules actually imply anything?
You can always switch options on and off, but there is a default built into the rules. * The sensor and weapon ranges discourage little starfighters, unless you do weird things with the FTL drives. * If reactionless thrusters are available as listed (superscience like that is up to the GM), by TL11 they eclipse ground AFVs. * Rechargeable power cells are superior to internal combustion engines from TL9 or TL10 if the price is no issue. > You're right about MOUT, but so are boarding actions. Collateral damage > is a risk of any operation that is addressed in fire control measures > in the plan. Not when a weapon system is designed. Once something gets > that specialized, typically the only organizations with budgets for it > are SOFs and OGAs, not the conventional military. OGA = Other Government Agency = CIA? And if I imagine a 2,000-lb. suit in my flat, it would do damage whatever the fire control -- it might not break through the floor (I wouldn't bet on that, however) but it would damage the door frames. > I said I like to be small and light and present a smaller target. [...] > But my paradigm has shifted, I can't imagine going into a firefight > without armor now. Getting older and more responsible? > > The commander of a Bradley or Abrams would be a sergeant, right? So is > > a battlesuit operator comparable to an AFV driver or an AFV commander? > > Or higher all the way up to Colonel. Some are Corporals on occasion if > you're short on leadership. But that's an artificial constraint based > on safety concerns, not tactical or technical. Comparable? That depends > on your setting. Rank reflects responsibility and experience, right? A flying suit with gun and missile armament, that sounds like a helicopter with a warrant officer in charge. Back in WWII there were NCO pilots, but AFAIK that was discontinued. > Okay, I see two sides of this argument. Operator injury or suit > inoperability. > > Operator injury, the injured pilot comes out of the suit, someone else > within +/- 20 lbs. of his body weight gets in and moves out. That's a > planning consideration that the platoon leader and platoon sergeant > should have addressed before they ever left their base. VE80, the suit "should" be custom-fitted. Only "for simplicity" it can be assumed that people up to 20% lighter can fit it. ME40, refitting for a new operator within that range takes 2 hours and a skill roll. > That's an option. Not good, not bad. Not in line with US doctrine. > Brigades don't fight, they exercise Mission Command. Typically the > largest element that fights in our military is company but > structurally could be a battalion. I thought that corps and divisions fight, or is that a question of words? Sometimes I'm worried that the US Army and the rest of NATO along with them are getting out of the "real" ground war business. The Bundeswehr is drawing down to 225 MBT and 81 SPH. What are we going to do if NATO has to keep the promise to defend Poland or Turkey against whomever? > In the Army we call it a COIST, Company Intelligence Support Team, > but it's manned by people we pull off of the line. But that means the percentage of soldiers on the line goes down if you count that COIST as part of the company strength. > Now then, referencing my above discussions with my Marine buddies, > they use a three team squad, IIRC, which is the same thing Army > Airborne Infantry and Ranger Regiment are designed to do (the > fourth weapons squad can operate autonomously but is designed to > break down and attach a gun team to each rifle squad - sometimes > it happens, others it doesn't, but platoons typically don't want > to underemploy that WPNs Squad Leader). When that happens, the > gun team stays with the Squad Leader and while the gunner is the > gun team leader, the Squad Leader effectively becomes a static > fire team leader providing the fire portion of Fire and Maneuver. So, how about this for a suit-only unit: * Four battlesuit troopers are a fire team. * Two fire teams and the squad leader are a squad. They all have the same type of suit and the same weapons -- a rifle-equivalent and a couple of anti-vehicle missiles. * Two battlesuit troopers are a weapons team. One has a weapon like a larger missile launcher or something equivalent to a machine gun, the other carries ammo. I'd have to think if they can use the same type of suit or a specialized model. Fewer than the three-man teams used today because of the carrying capability of the suits. * Three weapons teams and a squad leader are a weapons squad. The teams are usually farmed out to the normal squads, and the spare squad leader can control a couple of UAVs. He'd be the forward observer, too, so that fits. Standard suit, drones instead of extra ammo. * The platoon leader, platoon sergeant, a medic, three normal squads and one weapons squad are a platoon, total 37 suits. * Does the platoon need a radio operator? Not to haul the gear, the suit does that, but to answer the phone. * The medic needs a different type of suit. That would mean three types in the platoon. * The company HQ has suits, too. How many? * Do they need attached engineers? That would be a 4th type of suit. * Technical support and transport don't have suits. Might be Navy techs if the suits are Marines. > > But a battlesuit has heavier weapons, improved sensors, etc. > > could two suits maneuver on their own? > > The question is can one suit establish fire superiority? Bigger > and badder doesn't necessarily equate to keeping them pinned > down if it can't do it fast enough, in enough places... A battlesuit can easily carry a HMG-sized weapon plus ammo. If they fight other battlesuits, they need relatively high damage which comes at the expense of RoF and ammo. If they fight mostly unpowered infantry, because suits are still experimental and suit-on-suit encounters are uncommon, then they can have a high RoF for suppression. Think of WWI-era light tanks or WWII British infantry tanks. They were not designed to fight other tanks. * Two suits are a team. * Two teams and a squad leader are a squad. * Three squads and one platoon leader give a platoon with 16 suits. * They're still experimental, so each suit has a 4x4 with a driver/mechanic. * A command and control truck like that bank of screens in the APC in Aliens. * A medic with an ambulance and driver. * A pair of ammo trucks with reloads. The platoon would have about 40 soldiers, 16 suits, and 20 trucks of four different types. > Personally, I don't think that the advent of more armor and > carrying more/bigger weaponry will necessarily be as big of > a game changer as the introduction of the machinegun was. > YMMV, though. Was it the machine gun or the bolt-action magazine rifle a few years before? In the Second Boer War, the Brits had trouble with commandos with (Mauser?) rifles. Either way, with machine guns and magazine rifles defenders could dig in and fill the area in front of their trenches with so much hot lead that attacks became too costly. Depending on rules and assumptions, the game-changer could be stealthy battlesuits. A suit will have about SM+1. Radical stealth or emission cloaking gives (TL-4)*2 to detection rolls. Compare the scan rating of a 25-lb. PESA (which is a pretty big and expensive sensor). Detection range is the distance where an operator with skill 12 has a 50% chance to make contact -- which may still be spoofed. TL Signature Scan Range 8 -7 15 200 yds. 9 -9 17 200 yds. 10 -11 19 200 yds. 11 -13 21 200 yds. 12 -15 21 100 yds. 13 -17 21 45 yds. 14 -19 21 20 yds. Regards, Onno _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
