U.S. Military in Chaos Earth

[Dustin Fireblade]

Just to keep things simple, I'm going to use the WI stuff, along with the Iron Heart Armaments stuff as well from the Rifts Merc book.

Another good source of info is at Kitsunes web site, http://www.kitsune.addr.com/palladium.htm


Edit: Yeah your idea there with the vehicles sounds pretty good.

[Dustin Fireblade]

Well the way I'm going to play it is that NEMA has the CG, but in small numbers. They would mainly be in the military.

Mike Taylor did a variant of the CG called the Guardsman that was very well done and a design that I will be using. This design would be a little more prominent in NEMA as it is not using the Chrome armor and is much cheaper to operate.

EDIT: Link to Guardsman thread...
viewtopic.php?t=16401

[glitterboy2098]

I think if anything, large RV's would have taken the field away from tanks and artillery due to their mobility and efficiency.

uh....

average robot speed-60mph.
average armored vehicle speed 120mph.

a robot will be limited to inclines less than 20%, can step over vertical obsticals equal to a tanks but must stop and work at it, has a high center of gravity requiring active balance systems like gyro's and constant motive correction, becomes bogged down in mud and soft ground, rough ground makes balancing tougher, water travel upsets balance and reduces speed to a crawl, very complex control system requiring extensive training just for simple use.

a tank can traverse inclines of up to 45 degree's, drive over verticle obsticals under 6 feet in hight, is stable with a very low center of gravity, is not effected by rough terrain, mud, shallow water, can drive through deep water for short periods with the hatches closed, and have fairly simple controls requiring minimal training for basic use.

a Robot's weapons payload is restricted by recoil and weight, you cannot mount a very heavy or high recoil weapon on a bot with out massive specialised adaption. high recoil unbalances the bot, while motive systems performance decreases in inverse squares with increased mass of bot. armor is weaker on average due to the inablity to give it slope, thus requiring additional mass for the same protective effect. motive systems take up large amounts of space, reducing available fuel and ammo loads. robot motive systems are not easily repairable in the feild, and should it fail the bot will be unable to move, and will likely lose balance, eliminating combat capacity.



a tank uses sloped armor allowing low armor mass for high protection, the low center of gravity allows high recoil weapons to be mounted with little issue, simpler internal construction allows for increased internal space for ammo and fuel. motive system is repairable in the feild, some breakdowns are repairable in the feild without resupply. motive system breakdowns result in loss of mobility, combat capacity retained.




robots do have 2 things going for them.

1) the "oh, [Censored]" effect. a 20 foot robot walking towards you, shaking the very ground with every step, is a definate moral killer.

2) in RIFTS, a robot with hands can be used in peace time for construction. tanks are less useful for this (you can weld a plow to the front for earth moving, and use it as a tow-truck, but thats about it. a bot can help build buildings, lift heavy loads, and function as a makeshift crane if needed.)

[Dustin Fireblade]

I was an M1A1 tank crewman in the Marine Corps for four years so I can can say for a fact that there are several misconceptions in your ideas regarding the abilities of tanks and their field serviceability.

Oh? Well I'd really like to hear what if you don't mind. PM me or post here as you prefer.

[glitterboy2098]

Actually, glitterboy2098, I was an M1A1 tank crewman in the Marine Corps for four years so I can can say for a fact that there are several misconceptions in your ideas regarding the abilities of tanks and their field serviceability. I don't mean that in an insulting way, it's just that much of what you've said is generally believed to be true to the general public and even amongst many non-armor MOS's in the Marine Corps.

please, fill me in.

I tend to keep it simple in the game though and say that since there are obviously large robot vehicles like the Super Mastiff, the tech is at a point where many of the disadvantages you mentioned have been overcome or have at least seen an attempt to compensate for them in some small way. Hence the many new ones in the future which are the result of technological evolution based on pre-rifts design.

however the flaws are still present, just reduced to the point where they have little effect.
doesn't negate the fact that in general, a tank will be a superior platform for most combat.

[Dustin Fireblade]

Yeah that a oops alright. Here's another...http://www.strategypage.com/humor/artic ... 511622.asp


LoB,
That was some good information there, much appreciated. Now if I could just pick your brain here a bit with a few hypotheticals...

Concerning tank speed, you mentioned several reasons why a tank is not able to achieve faster speed. Now what would the impact be if you introduce the Chaos Earth/Rifts envriroment of super-science, would these be negated? If so to what extant?

[RockJock]

If I ever get the chance to play CE and needed to stat out other miltary units I would go with NEMA being its own animal and the regular military using a 2 or 3 tiered system.

First you have active, frontline hardware.

Second is the older active military equipment and what part of the NG/Reserves are issued.

Third is the oldest equipment heading for the bones yard.

This is off the top of my head without any books so here goes.

Since we are talking roughly 100 years in the future, after a giant revolution in industry nothing we currently have in stock is even on the map except as museum pieces.

IHA armor, tanks, and fighters fit into the lowest tier for me. They are useful, and the tanks are quite good defensively, but slow and ponderous.
Many would still be equipped with ICE or electric engines since they sit in storage much of the time, but the active trainers could be fusion. Things like robots and PA haven't trickled down to this level yet. Body Armor would be standard issue for the most combat oriented, but somewhere along the lines of Plasticman for many. It would definately be EBA though just for the NBC protection. Many small arms would be sdc, or sdc capable since riot control, and civil defense are still high priorities for these troops. Things like the CS laser rifle with an sdc setting, the Japanese stun rifle, New Navy M16ish gun, WI Caseless SMG and pistol, and many others along with some or optional pure MDC weapons. Many of the sdc variety would have the ability to have ramjet, DU, or MDC grenades. Shoulder lauched Mini Missiles would also be at squad level and up. Some heavy combat infanty would have the equal of standard old style CS weapons.

Next you have hovertank designs like those used by the CS(though I hate the style and multiple barrels) giving much better speed and range even if they don't carry much more armor, or weapons. Units like Arty and supplies would still be mainly conventional units. Things like FQ Sky Cycles, Samson, Death's Head Samas, Wild Weasel Samas(based on the AF use of older frames in this role so the standard would be without the ECM) WI grenade/missle weapons, NEMA style weapons,The helo used by the New Navy and similar would be more common among the best equipped reserves and the average regular army. Jet wise I am a little stumped, and would go with a mix of Grey Falcon types mixed with New Navy level fighters.

At the top level you still have mainly HTs, but many support units are things like the FQ reloaded vehicle, CS Combat Cars, FQ GB Transport, Triax Mosquito and Lightning and so on. Robots, while still not very common would include something similar to the Nema Enforcer clone. PA is more advanced with USA Samas and GBs standard, and designs like the Striker Samas, and even the Silver Eagle being the bleeding edge. Weapons would be NEMA standard with a few choice pieces from Japan thrown in for good measure.

[RockJock]

If you want to make robots more common the go for it. As far as destroids, I love them, but I would have to drop their size down a notch. The main reason for their huge size was the 40' giants they were expected to fight.

If it was me I would make RDF mecha 35' and second tier, and RDF lighter, smaller faster 1st tier at say 25' each.

Another design I forgot to add that fits with the military, or NEMA since it is designed for civil defense and construction is the series of robots in Japan that has the extra human sized hands.

[Dustin Fireblade]

Speaking of tanks...
viewtopic.php?t=33657


Oh and thanks LoB from replying to my questions.

[Dustin Fireblade]

Quote:
Speaking of tanks...
viewtopic.php?t=33657


Funny that you mention that thread because I just got done reading it. Thanks.

And no comments?

[Beatmeclever]

Mind you, I was a tactical fighter mechanic not a tank mechanic, but the "emergency power" for the F16 is nothing more than a system that dumps rocket fuel (hydrazine) into the turbine. This turns the shell of the engine into a rocket thrust bell and shells out the internal components of the engine. This will get the aircraft away from combat and (hopefully) into friendly territory, but it destroys the engine. It is possible that this is how the "combat override" on the Abrams functions.

Again, I don't know, this is just a possibility.

As for Giant Robots in warfare, I am not a fan of them. However:

A Robot's weapons payload is restricted by recoil and weight, you cannot mount a very heavy or high recoil weapon on a bot with out massive specialized adaption. high recoil unbalances the bot, while motive systems performance decreases in inverse squares with increased mass of bot. armor is weaker on average due to the inability to give it slope, thus requiring additional mass for the same protective effect. motive systems take up large amounts of space, reducing available fuel and ammo loads. robot motive systems are not easily repairable in the field, and should it fail the bot will be unable to move, and will likely lose balance, eliminating combat capacity.

I think that the combat computer on the robot would take the recoil into account and it would put the robot into a stance similar to that taken by a rifleman when firing a high-power rifle in the standing position or even similar to firing from the hip to assist in the recoil reduction. Otherwise, I agree with the rest of this statement.

However, I do see PA as a major part of the future of infantry warfare. Although it will probably be more like small-scale muscle enhancement and light armor more than the things found in RPGs. Nonetheless, those aren't as fun to play as the humanoid tanks we get to play with in the games.

[glitterboy2098]

As for Giant Robots in warfare, I am not a fan of them. However:

A Robot's weapons payload is restricted by recoil and weight, you cannot mount a very heavy or high recoil weapon on a bot with out massive specialized adaption. high recoil unbalances the bot, while motive systems performance decreases in inverse squares with increased mass of bot. armor is weaker on average due to the inability to give it slope, thus requiring additional mass for the same protective effect. motive systems take up large amounts of space, reducing available fuel and ammo loads. robot motive systems are not easily repairable in the field, and should it fail the bot will be unable to move, and will likely lose balance, eliminating combat capacity.

I think that the combat computer on the robot would take the recoil into account and it would put the robot into a stance similar to that taken by a rifleman when firing a high-power rifle in the standing position or even similar to firing from the hip to assist in the recoil reduction. Otherwise, I agree with the rest of this statement.

quite possible, but then you have to stop the robot to fire that big gun, and turn the bot's whole body to aim it... while the tank your fighting can fire the same gun while on the move at nearly full speed, and in any direction it's turret can turn.

so bots either will have weaker armor and weapons than a tank, or can mount the same, but only be much slower, less manuverable, and unable to fire on the move...

tank still wins.
and i like giant robots. i just try to remain aware of their major limits, and the kinds of handwave you have to have to make them any kind of "ultimate weapon"

What, if any, vehicles, robots, etc. have you used to represent the various branches of the military?

Army: the basic RMB coalition hardware for infantry (C-12 rifle, C-14 rifle, C-18 pistol, CA-1 and CA-2 armor), the iron heart tanks and Helicopter for armor and air cav...USA-G10 Chrome Guardsmen in special trial units, the USA SAMAS (developed jointly with the airforce due to it's fixed wing flight*)
Air Force: MDC updated F-15SE, F-16, and F-22 fighters, Phalanx's F-74 Viper, and various other updated planes or new build types.**
marines: see WB7
navy: see WB7, plus the SB4 ships and a few others.


* i never liked the SAMAS being an airforce unit, since it sucks at all the mission the airforce does compared to even SDC planes. its too slow, carries too small of a payload, and has way to short of an operational range. as an army unit, it would be the ultimate in air-mobile infantry deployment. it's fixed wing flight is theo nyl thing that would keep the army from getting it though. so i assume it was a joint project, an army unit built with air force co-operation...with the air force buying a large number to attempt to convert the close air support squadrons too (despite it sucking at that role)

** since the time before the 2nd cold war (2060's on) was a time of peace by canon, i can't see much military spending occuring. so designs that were in use in the 2020's (like the F-15, F-16, a few F-22's, and so on) were constantly updated to keep them in service, rather than spend money to make new weapons. it wasn't until the advent of MDC material made all those old weapons obsolete that you saw much effort into new units..and even then the first generation of MDC units were MDC updates as either refits or new builds, of the existing units. it was the second generation and later of MDC units that were built from the startto use all the new toys of the 'golden age' tech.

[mike19k]

aside:
LoB didnt yor instructors ever tell you that the M1 prototypes without thier turrets on had been clocked at 90mph at the lima test track? not kidding.. and no thier tracks didnt have a catastrophic link failure if you are wondering-werent in the best of shape mind you, never learned about any engine damage though might have to look into that one..

Yeah, actually they did, but they also told me that with the turret on, the tank was clocked at only around 70, maybe a little more. That's what I was referring to. You sound as though you were actually there. If so, I'd have to take your word for it since I'm only speaking from what I was taught. Since no tanker I ever met had ever driven a vehicle un-governed I had to take their word for it regarding the cracked end connectors too. I didn't mean to imply anything catastrophic though. Just potentially dangerous.

I was referring to the combat override causing engine damage, but again, it's been a long time so I would have to get out the book. I could be mistaken.

I am nineteen years in the Army with the MOS of 19k (or M1 Tank Crewman) I have used un-governed tanks and now I never redlined them but 60mph is not hard to do, I did talk with one of our mechanics who was working on a tank that had flipped over so they took the turret off he told me that he got it to over 100mph, I did not see it but have no reason to say he lied about it. How he explained it to me in simple terms is that there is no max RPM for the engine so it will just keep going faster and faster tell it comes from together. But it also sounded like it was all or nothing as in it is all good or all bad. He also talked about how nice it was to work on a well designed tank they had that tank back up and combat ready in less than a day, and FMC not much longer. My Battalion commander at the time made us do as much of the work on our vehicles as the mechanics would let us and it is just so cool to see a tank with a bad engine go in and in about four hours come back out ready to go.

but you are one of the few i have seen -run into few treadhead gamers- who agrees that the uninformed tend to over estimate the tanks abilities just a bit, theres a major difference in book knowledge compared to actual experience in such matters..

Don't misunderstand me, please, I really loved being a tanker. It was hard work but it was a rush too. I still think that they would be of great use in Rifts. Personally, I think robots would replace self-propelled and towed artillery before they would tanks.

One of the biggest things that I see tracks will have going for them is the ground pressure. My car has about 30PSI ground pressure, me standing I have about 50PSI, and most tracks have less than 10. Now yes they can get stuck, and they can get stuck very well but for the most part it is easier for them off road or mud and such. How much ground pressure would several thousand pounds of power armor put? Just look back to WWI it was difficult for the infantry to move around (even with out being shot at), but the tanks had a much easier time of it. As for the over estimate of the tanks abilities, yes that does happen but what I have seen more of is that they try to use the tank for something it is not. I know a tanker who was in simulated combat and his tank section (two tanks) were parked behind the command post on top of a hill. A light infantry company (200-250 guys) started up the hill (they did not know the tanks were there), before the got close enough to attack of take the command post they were spotted and the tanks came around the sides of the CP. They killed over 90% of the infantry company with no losses on there sides. Lesson from this is one it was only simulated, but light infantry on the attack can not stand up to tanks. Two tanks with room to move and shoot are vary hard for ground troops to deal with. If it had been in a city and the light infantry were defending it would have been very bad for the tanks as the city is not there friend.

-hoping to avoide this being turned into a yet another tank debate, hasnt that poor horse been flogged to death and resurrected back enough times-

Nah, I see no reason to debate it. I'm always interested in talking to people with some experience in the field though. As I said, sometimes I get carried away.

[smkeyes]

If you look at how the us Military is now formed around Combat Brigade.

Infantry combat brigade: 3 Battalions Infantry - (Peacekeepers), 1 Battalion Armor/cavalry - (glitterboy), 1 Battalion artillery - (Sentinal), 1 Enginering Battalion, and 1 Support Battalion

Heavy combat brigade 4 Combined Arms Battalions, 1 battalion artillery, 1 Engineering battalion, and 1 support Battalion.

Mechanized Infantry Combat Brigade - same organization as an infantry combat brigade only with APC's apart of the Infantry battalions.

[Warshield73]

One of the problems with this is budgets and money. NEMA is taking most of the defense budget from the US for decades. Now the new cold war would cause the US to start to reinvest into DoD but how much and who gets it? We know the Navy got the Lion's share (submersible carriers and the associated underwater infrastructure are not cheap) and given what we see from Mutants in Orbit the Air Force probably spent a lot of their cash on space.

You also have to look at risk aversion. From aircraft carriers and B2s to the F-35 we do not send our most expensive pieces of equipment where people can shoot at them or do have a realistic chance of destroying them. This is why at the current time Phil Spector has killed more people than the F-35, we literally can not afford to have one shot down. So you have to figure that if the Air Force and probably the Army as well have some really expensive vehicles, and I am thinking the Army probably has it's own version of the Death's Head Transport, they probably never took them anywhere they might get shot at.

I am not suggesting that this would effect how the military would use tech once the end of the world has started, more of military disposition before it begins.

I am curious about one thing. My reading of the Golden Age was that this was a time where countries gave up nuclear weapons and that the use of nukes in the incident involving the Glitter Boys before the coming of the Rifts was a big shock to people.

[Jefffar]

Locked due to thread necromancy.