I want to build an army based on the minimum of variation for a campaign
setting that would include "factories". These can only build one type of item
at a time and take time to change over to another type of item.. However I
know real world armies have lots of variations. Is there a reason other than
economics. Please feel free to nitpick it do death. It's better to find the
flaws at the planning stage than the battlefield stage.
There will be three levels - militia, regular and guard/elite.
There will be one basic vehicle frame size 4 with class with 4 armour and 2
infantry squads. This frame is used by ALL the vehicles
The militia will use fast wheeled CFE armed with either HVC/4 or a
SLAM/4 (50/50 ratio).
The Regulars will use fast GEV HMT armed with either MDC/4 or SlAM/4
(75/25 ratio)
The Guards will use GRAV FGP armed with either DFFG/4 or SLAM/4 (75/25
Ratio)
The militia are, in theoy, to hold secure areas and deal with rebels,
bandits, resistance and mopping-up operations. The regulars are, well,
regulars and supposed to do most of the slow, dangerous take and hold fighting
that is pretty much the norm for warfare. The guards are
planned to be rapid assault/counter-attack units who are expected, given
the tools at their disposal, to close with the enemy and cause a great deal of
damage in a short amount of time.
All support units such as artillery, ADS, radar, transport, etc will use
basic frames with Fast GEV HMT.
I couldn't standardise them any further siince economics are involved and a
miltia force will cost a LOT less than a regular force.
You think this is bad - My battletech force was VERY minimised - mechs
had one engine type (300), two mech weights (50 and 75) and two weapons types
(PPG and ML) whle vehicles were 50 ton gevs using 300 engines with
PPGs or cargo.
> On 7/11/08, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> There will be one basic vehicle frame size 4 with class with 4 armour
1) This is damned big for a lot of roles (scouts, utility vehicles, tank
hunters, etc).
2) This would be expensive as hell from both a real-world and a
points-cost standpoint. There is a reason that most armies do NOT use
infantry carriers armored to the same level as their main battle tanks.
3) That's too big for a troop carrier. You're neatly packaging your forces so
that it only takes me four to six (depending on dice luck)
GMS/Hs to knock out a platoon. Smaller vehicles are better.
Personally, I prefer size 3 vehicles. Size 4 looks nice on paper, but armor 4
isn't enough of a boost to their survivability to justify the points cost. My
main battle tanks are typically size 3. You can stick a size 4 weapon on there
and punch holes in anything on the field all day long, and it's probably 150
points cheaper when its all said and done.
> The militia will use fast wheeled CFE armed with either HVC/4 or a
If you're looking at this from a real-world standpoint, that's not
standardized. Changing the suspension and automotive components requires the
entire vehicle to be redesigned.
Also, the current rules as written basically mean SLAMs pretty much
suck. Guards should have MDC/DFFG mix for long-ranged/close in
combat, or just go MDC-pure. Otherwise you're basically begging to
get picked off by HKP-armed troopies.
Finally, do you not have any tanks? Or are all your maneuver forces
mechanized infantry? I have a doctrinal problem with that--you're
going to end up misusing your infantry very badly because you will want to use
their carriers as tanks.
While having a homogeneous force sounds nice on paper, if you play a competent
opponent you'll find having a combined arms force will allow more tactical
flexibility and permit your opponent to present you with dilemmas you can't
adequately solve. Given the expense of this force, you'll also have less
assets on the table to do it with than most people will.
> All support units such as artillery, ADS, radar, transport, etc will
So your Transportation Companies will have size 4, armor 4 trucks to haul
toilet paper?
That's just silly. Even with a persistent IED threat, the US can't afford to
build dedicated vehicles armored like literal tanks to haul toilet paper. Even
the uparmored vehicle we have converted to aren't anything like this (perhaps
armor 2, in Dirtside terms, and that's only around the crew compartment) If
you point out your support forces, you would find (rather rapidly) that they
would be terribly expensive.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lJoh
> n Atkinson wrote:
They were originally size 3 armour 3 however, since my concept required them
to carry 2 infantry the main weapons were inadequate and the only way to fit a
decent weapon was to up the size.
> The militia will use fast wheeled CFE armed with either HVC/4 or a
While considering your point, I noticed that my MDC/4s can't work in an
HMT/4 vehicle - they have to be a size smaller. I've decided to make
both militia and regular use Fast GEV HMT with MDC/3 or SLAM/4
> Also, the current rules as written basically mean SLAMs pretty much
The SLAMs are to give a degree of anti-personnel capabability over long
range as well as light artillery support while the other weapons are supposed
to be used in an AT role. While they may not be that effective
in the present rules, they are good enough to fit their assigned role
which is rapid close-support company artillery.
> Finally, do you not have any tanks? Or are all your maneuver forces
Thats were my concept hits a problem. They're not over armed and armoured
IFVs, they're MBTs that carry infantry. The idea was based on the Soviet tank
riders of WW2. I know that as soon as possible, all armoured infantry ended up
with their own transport so they didn't have to ride on the tanks, however, no
modern force has to transport armies across space with limited load
capability. If, for example, I caould only carry 20 vehicles and 60 infantry,
it made sense to me (at the time) to make a vehicle do as much as possible.
> While having a homogeneous force sounds nice on paper, if you play a
Now that you mention it that is a really dumb error. They'd be the most
over-equipped vehicles in history*. *I'm going to have to downgrade
them to slow GEV CFE with 1 armour. What can I say - I like GEVs.
I'm deeply ignorant about real military strategy, but I'm pretty well trained
in how supply chains work.
Keep in mind that whatever other technological breakthroughs you envison, the
rise of mass customization and flexible manufacturing is already here. It
sounds like you're trading the fixed costs of having a very small number of
designs for gigantic variable costs of building those generic vehicles. That
would have been true even before the flex breakthroughs of the late 20th
century.
Also, remember, every technology has a supply chain associated with it. Those
SLAM packs, for example, have to be delivered as needed to the troops who will
use them. Having three incompatible drive technologies means three sets of
spare parts, three types of technician to maintain them, and three kinds of
fuel that must be delivered or you suddenly have a 40 ton roadblock.
The way you use militias in your system seems to imply two things: 1) labor is
cheap and abundant, and 2) you can withstand large numbers of casualties
politically. Modern manufacturing can turn out a new set of infantry equipment
very quickly, but experienced, competent combat troops still take well over a
decade to create. Your strategy implies that the militia forces will be
largely untrained, possibly conscript
forces (though I could imagine re-purposed police or state security
being represented by militia, you seem to envision them as an institution).
Such forces might not be the best choice for the kinds of misions you envision
them performing, unless you don't expect them to see combat.
Using CFE for militia is a setting-dependent decision. In most
settings, the cheapest possible vehicle will probably use whatever the local
civilians use. It's more likely that if they're genuinely disposable forces,
they'll use "technicals" (pickup trucks) for most of their vehicles. Their
artillery will be infantry mortars, and their
anti-vehicle capability will be GMS/L infantry teams. It's not just
cheaper, it has a smaller unit cost (which makes it easier to buy with limited
working capital) and has a shorter logistics tail.
If the civilians in the area use GEV trucks, then the militia will probably
use those, too; they might even commandeer civilian vehicles rather than being
equipped with their own. Setting up a supply chain for CFE is actually more
expensive (when all the costs are counted except any intrinsic cost of the
technology, which I'm not qualified
to judge and is setting-specific anyway) than simply running more fuel
down the existing HMT fuel supply chain if you need one of those any
and there's a pre-existing system for it.
Now that I re-read your original post, you seem to be looking for
reasons OTHER than economics to specialize. What is your motive for
standardizing that aggressively? Is there a game rationale you're trying to
justify?
Rob
> On 7/11/08, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lRob
> ert Mayberry wrote:
The original reason for choosing wheeled CFE was because that was the lowest
tech option. It should theoretically be possible to repair and
resupply the equipment using local resources - SLAMs are low tech dumb
fire weapons that could be supplied locally too. Like most theories though,
fact just doesn't fit.
I was hoping for a modular design where if say a turret was damaged, you
could just take an undamaged turret from a identical vehicle that had suffered
different damage. This wouldn't have any effect in a battle, jus the campaign.
If you had forty identical damaged vehicles, you could take the working
modules and make a few working vehicles quickly instead of trying to repair
each one seperately.
> The way you use militias in your system seems to imply two things: 1)
That goes to prove my post was very badly worded. In my mind, militia troops
are fully combat capable troops who lack experience (similar to the US
national guard or UK territorials both of whom can serve in war zones). They
will as time goes by become regualars. Policing and paramilitary stuff is left
to the locals.
> Using CFE for militia is a setting-dependent decision. In most
Yes there are three.
First is that I reckon good campaign construction and supply rules should make
variety a real pain to deal with. To make this have an effect, the items built
are tracked through the supply lines and can be lost to enemy action. So it's
not impossible for a force to be in urgent need on GEVs for desert warfare but
end up with boats. I know this sounds (and is) complicated but I always
preferred the campaign to the battles anyway.
Secondly is the combined arms problem. I'm absolutely terrible at using
it. I can deal with it ok but I just can't effectively USE it. I'm
much better at using Jack-of-all-trades tactics and equipment than
specialist equipment. The less variety, the better I am.
Thirdly, I like them all the same. What can I say, I'm a minimalist.
> Rob
Interestingly I have seen the point made several times by people who should
know what they are talking about (Jane's Armour 2000 I think) that it would be
a very good idea for an army to standardise its tracked vehicles on their
standard tank chassis and running gear for the MBT, SPGs, APC and so on. This
would make the tank considerably cheaper and enormously simplify maintenance
and spares. The APC would be larger than the current ones allowing either more
men to be carried or much better protection and it would move at the same rate
as the MBT which is apparently a good thing.
Personally I found the argument persuasive but no army has done this, though
from what little I know of military procurement this means very little. The
ingenious and thrifty Israelis have converted captured and superannuated tanks
to well protected APCs and IFVs and I would think their experience would be
convincing.
> Michael Blair wrote:
> Interestingly I have seen the point made several times by
Um, well... APCs and MBTs can use the same chassis, at least if you don't
have any limits to your transport capacity (which the Israelis don't -
or, rather, the distances over which they have to transport their heavy
vehicles are so short that they can live with the heavy weight), but having
the same tank chassis for MBTs and SPGs means that one of them will be
horribly sub-optimal for its role - the SPG won't benefit much from the
MBT armour (since MBT armour is mostly designed to withstand heavy
*direct*-fire weapons, whereas the main threats to SPGs are other
*in*direct-fire weapons and aircraft both of which attack from above
rather than horisontally) but still has to pay all the costs, and an MBT with
SPG-style armour... well, that's a light tank, not an MBT :-/
There are certainly a bunch of vehicles that can profitably share chassis, but
IMO you need at least three chassis types: one with heavy armour, one with
light armour, and probably a small jeepish vehicle for liaison work
and similar. The lightly-armoured chassis could be used for light
APCs/IFVs, command post vehicles, tactical cargo carriers, artillery,
resupply vehicles, ambulances, communications, radar carriers, AA vehicles,
light tanks/"heavy scout vehicles" etc., while the heavily-armoured one
would be used for MBTs, HIFVs and those specialist engineering vehicles that
are likely to be used close enough to the enemy to risk getting shot at.
Regards,
Interestingly I have seen the point made several times by people who should
know what they are talking about (Jane's Armour 2000 I think) that it would be
a very good idea for an army to standardise its tracked vehicles on their
standard tank chassis and running gear for the MBT, SPGs, APC and so on. This
would make the tank considerably cheaper and enormously simplify maintenance
and spares. The APC would be larger than the current ones allowing either more
men to be carried or much better protection and it would move at the same rate
as the MBT which is apparently a good thing.
***There is a good reasons why most countries don't use MBT chassis for APCs
or artillery etc. One is weight, MBT are heavy but you must have them, by the
same token you don't want every thing that heavy or you couldn't transport it
all to where you need it. The second factor is maintenance, MBTs are a
maintenance night mare, again due to the weight, ware and tare are far worse
for tanks than lighter tracked vehicles. Tanks also burn allot more fuel.
One thing I notice here is an assumption that when using the MBT chassis that
the same amount of armor will be used. You could use the same drive train and
general hull but lesson or increase armor to fit the role that the vehicle
will fill. This of course is not full standardization, but it would greatly
reduce the more prevalent supply issues which are drive systems and frame.
No you have APCs, SPGs, and MBTs that can swap road wheels and drive
components. SPGs can trade off armor for other systems, perhaps lightening the
load of armor to improve mobility. Your APCs could be armored up to the
standards of the MBTs or they could carry a lighter armor load and then trade
that off for better mobility.
Heck, if you are going futuristic enough, you could be looking at a modular
armor system that allows you to layer on more armor onto you APCs SPGs to
better fit their mission role. If you are going to send your APCs into a
smaller battle zone where they do not need a lot of fast cross country
capability, then you can up-armor them to allow them better
survivability in close quarters. Your SPGs could have armor upped when they
are to be used against enemies with more considerable air power or counter
battery capabilities. However, if they are being used against a force with
limits
air capabilities and/or counter-battery ability, then you can leave them
light and fast.
This is of course rampant theory but if you look back to WW2 and the German
E-series concept (which never took off) and some of what the allies did
with their gear, it's a premise that can and has worked.
> From a wargaming standpoint, it can lessen the need for a huge variety
-Eli
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 2:36 PM -0700 7/12/08, Michael R. Blair wrote:
You can certainly find families of vehicles with a lot of standardized parts
or designs. The
currently fielded M2/M3 Bradleys have a lot in
common with the MLRS carrier and some proposed vehicles. The Ferrets were like
their bigger
brothers the Saracen/Saladin/Stalwart/Salamander
vehicles, with VERY similar if not alike driveline components. The B60 engine
in the ferret was used in the dissimilar Humber Pig. The family of Rolls Royce
engines for these vehicles was maintained with parts commonality with the
B40/B60/B80 engines sharing a large number of
parts and fittings. Then you've got the CVR(T) Spartan family of vehicles
which has lots of
variants from light tank (scorpion/scimitar)
through command (Sultan) and logistics vehicles (Stormer) as well as
variations on the APCs.
Invariably, if something is built at one time and later versions get designed,
there's a LOT of inertia with new technology to design beyond the original
design and not maintain that backwards commonality.
Sometimes there's just a desire to bin the backwards compatibility and go for
standard COTS parts. Look at the USMC's MTVR 7 ton Truck that Oshkosh put
together. They ditched most if not all of the standard military truck parts
and controls. The cab looks more like a modern over the road truck with
illuminated rocker switches rather than a military vehicle with 1940s designed
3 lever and toggle type switches.
> Personally I found the argument persuasive but no army has
It's easier when you have a smaller force. US vehicle types have been built
domestically over the past 60 years and are still, in some ways still in
service. Many of the basic parts certainly are a hold over in basic design
(like the three lever switch). The M35 trucks were designed in the 1960s and
are STILL being updated in some forms with the M35A3s. They were all a basic
step from the WWII CCKW and
White/Corbit/Mack 5/6 ton trucks. In basic design
they're fundamentally the same.
One thing I notice here is an assumption that when using the MBT chassis that
the same amount of armor will be used. You could use the same drive train and
general hull but lesson or increase armor to fit the role that the vehicle
will fill. This of course is not full standardization, but it would greatly
reduce the more prevalent supply issues which are drive systems and frame.
I'm going by my experience here, granted it was in the US army it has it's own
way of doing things. Our tanks were designed from the ground up component by
component to be a heavy tracked monster. As a consequence virtually none of
the parts are interchangeable with lighter vehicles. I'm not saying that what
you propose is not possible just unlikely given our procurement policies.
Perhaps a smaller more logical government and military could do it. The only
thing I see as a possible problem is insuring that the track and drive train
can handle the heavy configuration as well as the light.
> From a miniature manufacturer's stand point, your quite right.
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Eli Arndt <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
The Germans were fairly successful with converting Panzer III chassis
to other uses, from self propelled guns to anti-aircraft platforms,
etc. Likewise, the Canadians converted Priest self-propelled guns and
the largely unsuccessful Ram tank into the quite successful Kangaroo APC.
However, these are exceptions that prove the modern rule. They all came about
during a major war due to resource limitations and short
turn-around times. The chassis already existed. It was a matter of
using what was at hand to the best of their ability.
If the future war is something like our modern Western wars (i.e. not
a major, all-out engagement that uses all of a nation's resources, but
rather a "come as you are" war), then it's unlikely that you'd see this kind
of standardization. Don and others have mentioned why. There are too many
inefficiencies or too many weaknesses in the hybrid vehicles. Either they are
too heavy or not armored enough, etc.
However, if the future war is more like World War II (an all-out
offensive with a need for short turn-around times to fill gaps in the
front line vehicles) I think what you propose would work. I think this is
highly unlikely in a future war, because the gaps that occurred in World War
II were largely due to the nations of the world feeling their way through a
new way of fighting.
I _do_ think it's possible, perhaps even likely, on worlds that are
far from the core systems and have to make do with what they can scrounge or
what they are given by the host planet. I can see distant planets following
the Israeli model of taking everything and anything, and converting it as
needed.
This kind of standardization is viable in a game, given particular ground
rules.
> At 10:34 PM -0500 7/12/08, Don M wrote:
Use the same roadwheels, tracks, hull design, powerpack, gear box, torsion
bars, damping springs and go with a lighter hull with less frontal armor but
similar side and rear armor, and you'll have a LOT of weight left over for
system payload. That means you'll be able to get a bigger turret with space
for say, an AA system and associated sensors. Say like the Gepard and Leopard
tanks.
An artillery vehicle on the same chassis may or may not be able to have a
common gear box given how you generally have to put the engine in front rather
than the usual rear location for tanks.
> I'm going by my experience here, granted it was in the US army it has
Or if the design board has their heads REALLY up their backsides, they'll base
a NEW vehicle on an OLD chassis design that's being phased out of the MBT
business. Say like the Sgt York which was based on a M48 chassis and was
supposed to somehow provide support to M60A3s and M1s which could more or less
get up and leave it behind.
Or if the design board has their heads REALLY up their backsides, they'll base
a NEW vehicle on an OLD chassis design that's being phased out of the MBT
business. Say like the Sgt York which was based on a M48 chassis and was
supposed to somehow provide support to M60A3s and M1s which could more or less
get up and leave it behind.
I never understood why we just didn't buy the Gepard turret and retrofit it to
an M1!
> On 7/12/08, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> They were originally size 3 armour 3 however, since my concept
True that--which is why they will be in trouble when facing
purpose-built vehicles that do one thing, and do that well.
Point up a unit of these. Then point up a unit of size 3 fast tracked
tanks with HKP/4s, a Superior fire control system, and even throw in
good ECM and a level of stealth to even out the points.
> While considering your point, I noticed that my MDC/4s can't work in
I have a Thing for HKPs, which are nearly as much fun.
> The SLAMs are to give a degree of anti-personnel capabability over
I prefer ilght RAM artillery as mortar-equivalents. More versatile
and effective. YMMV.
> Thats were my concept hits a problem. They're not over armed and
Let me know what you're going to do with them doctrinally, because I'm
curious. I'm not saying it doesn't work at all, I'm just saying that I don't
particularly like the idea and figuring out how you are going to use them is
going to be complex. I think you'll end up essentially paying the points for
the infantry and the larger size of vehicle, and getting very little use from
them.
> armoured infantry ended up with their own transport so they didn't
If you're that badly limited, you're not doing anything more than a raid
anyway. Given the logistical requirements to sustain a sizeable
force in direct high-intensity combat, the extra space needed to haul
a larger number of purpose-built vehicles will be relatively trivial
and partially offset by the fact that you could use smaller vehicles.
> On 7/13/08, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> The original reason for choosing wheeled CFE was because that was the
CFE, on the other hand, requires refined hydrocarbons, and HMT is worse. FGP
runs on water, and not much of that. If you're worried about logistics, you're
best off with FGP.
> I was hoping for a modular design where if say a turret was damaged,
Generally BDAR is a bit more complicated than that. It's also a hell of an job
taking the turret off a vehicle.
> That goes to prove my post was very badly worded. In my mind, militia
Then can you politically sell making them use crap gear? Seriously? Both the
US and UK arm reserve component troops who are actually deployed to the same
standard as Regulars. When it comes to vehicles, if you are planning to
integrate them in the same theater of combat, you do NOT want three seperate
logistical chains hauling different types of fuel, lubricants, spare parts,
etc.
> First is that I reckon good campaign construction and supply rules
The humor in this statement in only explicable if I mention that across the
parking lot from the building I work in is the offices of a Navy Riverine
detachment. Why would you design a force that is deliberately set up to cause
confusion in your logistical areas? I'd be pretty bored by a game where your
vehicles don't move because your last fuel resupply convoy brought you five
water tankers instead of diesel.
> Secondly is the combined arms problem. I'm absolutely terrible at
I really don't understand this. To me it seems MORE complex and difficult to
use tanks that carry infantry than it is to use tanks and infantry carriers.
You don't have to decide how you want each particular platoon to act today,
you already know what role you are going to put them in.
I'm going to out on a limb and guess you've never done anything with
historical or modern gaming?
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
That depends on where you are. As John points out, CFE and HMT both use
hydrocarbons that require some significant infrastructure to
support (though fusion is another story-- depending on your setting it
might be ideal, as in my setting, or tricky to maintain and expensive). On
earth you're always just a few thousand miles from the oil wells and
refineries. On a newly colonized world, there won't be oil deposits even if
you had the resources to drill and refine. You'd need some kind of chemical
refinery and power source (probably nuclear, possibly solar, wind or
biological).
Keep in mind that many technologies actually REDUCE cost rather than
increasing value. Integrated SCM systems, for example, let you do lean
production (with all its financial advantages) and can be a component of a
quality improvement regime, but they also just plain save you money. For a
concrete example, consider that in a modern setting the
lowest-tech option for transportation is animal riding. We don't use
it because we have a ton of money to spend on technology, but
cash-strapped militia-quality forces also don't use them because in
our (modern) setting it's simply pricier than using a pickup truck.
> I was hoping for a modular design where if say a turret was damaged,
For an example of this, consider the Stryker
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker). It's an example of a US
modular design, though I'd love to hear John's experience with it in
actual combat. Mostly an APC, but with anti-vehicle, and various
support/utility versions. In a business setting, modularity is used to
cut costs through economies of scale while offering more customized products
for differentiated needs.
Also, with modern CAD/CAE, you can have two seemingly-dissimilar
vehicles which share a surprising number of parts. For example, the heavy
variant of a vehicle (in a setting where cheap fusion generators are
available) might sport two light engines instead of a new, separate design.
Minor components like screws and bolts, wiring and even software, can be
aggressively standardized.
Something else to consider: when you're controlling costs, ask
yourself if this is a high-volume or low-volume product. If it's
high-volume, like a military vehicle design, then you'll want to trade
higher fixed costs for lower variable costs. Then remember your total cost of
ownership (TCO). That includes things like maintenance, spare parts, fuel,
etc, but also things like risk and cost of capital. A big expensive generic
design wastes capital.
In most settings, populations in off-world colonies will be very low,
and life support costs for transportation will be very high. Except for wars
in undeveloped areas on Earth, expect your most valuable, expensive commodity
to be your trained soldiers. You'll want to gear them out so that you'll need
fewer of them to do a job, and you'll want to protect them so that you won't
have to deal with the high costs and long lead times of replacing them.
For an expeditionary force, cut off by design from its logistics tail,
you should treat maintenance-reducing and resource-efficient designs
as a performance factor, not just a cost factor. That includes survivability.
> Yes there are three.
If you're aiming for good campaign rules, you're not alone. However, my
preference is to center the game issues around the role of the player. In a DS
game, we don't worry about whether Private Funk is a good shot or not, or
whether senior command gave you a rational objective, or whether the logistics
department gave you enough fuel, except in a very general way. In general, the
game assumes that each side is approximately the same in (in)competence so
that the key difference is the commander (that is, you).
There are a ton of ways a supply chain can go wrong. Mis-routed gear
is obviously one, though computerized supply chain management makes that less
frequent. On the other hand, forecasting is a pain in the ass, and computers
haven't helped much in highly volatile markets. Are you familiar with the
"whiplash effect"? It's easy to create shortages
and unwanted surpluses even in a near-future setting, not to mention
the fact that people with guns are shooting at your supply chain. FTL and
space travel in the Tuffleyverse gives you very long resupply lead times,
which is perfect for an evil game master who wants to create havock for his
players. It also complicates resupply because communication only goes as fast
as the fastest available message courier. A convoy that heads for Epsilon
Eridani doesn't know if the
fleet/army it's resupplying will even be there when it arrives.
Factory ships with flex-manufacture capabilities might be required,
and of course those would be prime targets for the enemy.
You can even resupply locally, by confiscating from local civilians. This is
great from a mechanics perspective because there's a clear
trade-off between keeping popular support and having enough fuel/spare
parts to fight, if you want a political dimension.
Or try looting from your enemy. In a mercenary setting both sides may
be using the same commercial, off-the-shelf military equipment.
Manufacturers might sell to mercenary companies and small nations by
touting their interoperable, standards-compliant designs.
Anyway, there's a world of fun in logistics without having to resort to
crippling your force with artificial constraints.
> Eli Arndt wrote:
> One thing I notice here is an assumption that when using the MBT
Mainly because major parts of the armour on today's tanks are integrated in
the chassis, so if you remove it you destroy the chassis's structural
integrity. Another big part of the armour consists of modules that slot into
cavities in the chassis; and while you could remove those modules when you
want to use the chassis for a lighter role you can't easily use the
now-empty cavities for anything else due to their location and shape.
You could use modular armour that is purely add-on - that's pretty much
what we do today whenever we discover that our light vehicles can't survive
the insurgents' latest type of IED - but for any given level of armour
protection, such a solution is considerably heavier than using armour that is
integrated into the vehicle's structure. Purely modular armour kinda works on
light vehicles where the total armour level is fairly low anyway (so the extra
weight penalty isn't that big), but for MBTs you're looking at weight
penalties of many tons to make your armour truly modular.
> You could use the same drive train and general hull but lesson or
> full standardization, but it would
By far the biggest supply issue for vehicles is fuel (unless as JA suggests
you run your vehicles on water - and even that will be a problem in some
locations). A drive train designed to drive a 60-ton tank but used to
run a
20-ton APC is a lot heavier and drinks more fuel than a drive train that
was optimized for the 20-ton APC... so while you gain some in the
maintenance area, you lose out on fuel consumption.
Regards,
> John Atkinson wrote:
I'm taking the rules far too literally then. They say that CFEs can run
on Oil, Alcohol or synthetic based fuels. I know alcohol is rather easy
to get hold of and make but don't know if there's a specific type of alcohol
needed. I know nothing about synthetics but presumably you don't have to find
the raw material like you do with oil. I don't know
what a HMT uses for fuel (other than a power cell). The name suggests
water.
> I was hoping for a modular design where if say a turret was damaged,
So when something is "modular", it relates less to its maintainance and more
to ease if building a variety during initial construction? That is, if a
factory is biulding a modular design, the customer can request a specific
vehicle design by asking for different modules and not have to start from the
ground up.
> That goes to prove my post was very badly worded. In my mind,
I was oddly enough using the US army as a role model. Up until a few years
ago, the US army used Bradleys while the national guard used M113s. I don't
consider the M113 as a bad crap vehicle, just last generation and perfectly
suitable for many situatons.
I suspect the main reason the national gaurd suddenly got Bradleys is because
its become easier to get vehicles than troops at the present moment and they
appear to have a surplus.
> First is that I reckon good campaign construction and supply rules
Thats why I asked for ideas, I want to iron out the problems. Best people to
ask are experienced people who can see the glaring errors.
> Secondly is the combined arms problem. I'm absolutely terrible at
Oddly enough, I have. In games that used horse cavalry, I quickly found
out that I am NOT a cavalry commander. Give me infantry however, and I'm not
so bad. I'm vastly better at defending than attacking.
In WW1 games I was ok and could avoid WW1 casualty rates even when attacking
(again not if it was cavalry). Tanks weren't a problem since they were little
more than mobile pillboxes moving at infantry speed.
Modern games proved that just because the cavalry didn't have four legs,
it didn't make me a good cavalry commander. I lost a LOT of armour in most of
my attacking battles.
Got to admit though that most of my modern wargames were done using PC games
called Steel Panthers and Operational art of war from the early 90s. Neither
my opponent nor me could afford proper model armies so we used software and
email. It worked
> Robert Mayberry wrote:
Striclty speaking, the rules state that fuel isn't only oil but also alcohol
and synthetic. I don't know what the minimum requirements are
for a multi-fuel engine which is what I'm assuming a CFE is.
> Keep in mind that many technologies actually REDUCE cost rather than
I like this vehicle. I could easily see a GEV version been rather effective.
> Also, with modern CAD/CAE, you can have two seemingly-dissimilar
That was why I'm looking at standardisation. The less variation, the more
compatibility.
> Yes there are three.
> There are a ton of ways a supply chain can go wrong. Mis-routed gear
12/07/2008 16:31
> [quoted text omitted]
> Adrian1 wrote:
> >CFE, on the other hand, requires refined hydrocarbons, and HMT is
Alcohol is easy to get hold of in small amounts - enough to get a big
party thoroughly drunk, say. Alcohol in large enough amounts to power your
armoured battlegroup for a few weeks takes as much industrial
infrastructure to produce as using oil-based fuels would, though the raw
materials might be easier to get hold of - provided that you have
bacteria or yeast cultures capable of fermenting the local vegetation, which
isn't a given.
Other types of synthetic fuels are similar: the raw materials may be easier to
get hold of than crude oil is, but you still need a *big* industrial plant to
turn those raw materials into enough fuel to power your army.
The term "hydro-magnetic turbine" is... well, looking at what the words
in
the name actually means it would probably be the power-generating
equipment in a power dam (which isn't entirely suitable for use in a mobile
combat
vehicle <g>), but according to the PSB description it is an advanced power
cell and has nothing to do with turbines at all. Power cells do not run on
just water, because water is a quite stable molecule and it is damn hard to
get any energy out of it without using fusion reactions. (Which is why so many
combustion reactions have water vapour as a reaction product, ie. they turn
other substances *into* water.)
Regards,
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> That depends on where you are. As John points out, CFE and HMT both
I've always interpreted that as being that CFE stands for a wide variety of
engines. The differences between an alcohol, gasoline,
diesel, bio-diesel or flex fuel are not important in a game like DS2
or SG. In a strategic setting, they obviously do make a difference.
It's perfectly valid to assume that, in your setting, CFE represents a
highly adaptive flex-fuel engine capable of burning a variety of
fuels. But if I used a force limited to a particular grade of gasoline (for
example) then I would ALSO use CFE to represent it. The rules don't care about
the fuels. In a strategic setting, these distinctions become important.
Re infantry carried as part of a tank force....
If you look at the armoured cav use in vietnam or british recce units in
wwii, you'll see examples of platoons/troops with infantry as one of the
several weapons of the platoon in question. I can see a cav doctrine that
integrates the apc and the tank in one vehicle and has every vehicle able to
engage heavy targets with the heavy armament and dismount infantry to do
infantry type things.
However there are times when your tanks must do one thing and your infantry
another. If that requires that your infantry move over ground the tanks can't
cover and its a long way, you may have problems with that.
That's not to say I haven't designed some super heavy vehicles with infantry
space. I haven't worked out that system much.
I thinkl the main problem is goingto come with vehicle ergonomics though.
Infantry want a large high volume so they're not stuffed in a can like soviet
bmps. Combat kit on a grunt takes up room. So do thei heavy weapons and other
parts. A large and high compartment doesn't work well for the back of a tank.
The merkava works only as a way to carry a very small squad and that cuts into
their ammo supply for the main gun. If you want infantry very close with your
armor, stick them in heavy apcs and use some light weapons on those. Like an
overhead weapon station with an atgm. Add some extra mgs if you want it more
urban combat capable.
--
Ryan Gill sent from my treo
[quoted original message omitted]
> Robert Mayberry wrote:
wrote:
> The original reason for choosing wheeled CFE was because that was
You'd
> need some kind of chemical refinery and power source (probably
It was intended that CFE would be a catch-all term for an internal
combustion type engine; what it runs on can depend on your own
setting - that may be refined hydrocarbons, or it may be fermented
juice from the snargle-fruit trees of Anthrax IV, as long as it goes
"bang" enough to drive a piston or turn a rotor..... ;-)
Gday All,
Take a look at the Namer
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carrie
rs/namera/Namera.htm
Its hulls is higher than that of the standard tank but lower overall. Past the
Stryker pics are some interior shots but I'm not sure if some aren't CGI.
Still it looks to carry an 8 man squad even if there looks to be less space
than the old M113's.
Interestingly it seems, I can't read Hebrew, that the chassis is built up from
semi modular units. (Right at the bottom of the page) It's like you build a
tank or APC chassis and then fix the armour to it. You could
use the same method for SPG's or engineering vehicles choosing at that point
how much armour to fit. Israeli's being Israeli's with no bridge problems and
relatively short distances to travel will armour them to the hilt.
Just something to think about.
Tony.
> Ryan GIll wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:14 PM, Tony Wilkinson <twilko@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> Take a look at the Namer
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carrie
rs/namera/Namera.htm
> [quoted text omitted]
Russia is building the same type of thing though on the older T-55 hulls
(of which I'm sure they have bajillions of them).
Link: http://www.military-today.com/apc/btr_t.htm
And in Jordan... Link: http://www.military-today.com/apc/temsah.htm
I'm sure others will follow.
Damo
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lRus
sia is building the same type of thing though on the older T-55 hulls
(of which I'm sure they have bajillions of them).
Link: http://www.military-today.com/apc/btr_t.htm
And in Jordan... Link: http://www.military-today.com/apc/temsah.htm
I'm sure others will follow.
Damo
Well considering that the Israelis had done the same thing with captured T55s
years before:
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carrie
rs/achzarit/Achzarit.html
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Don M <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com> wrote:
> Damo
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carrie
rs/achzarit/Achzarit.html
> [quoted text omitted]
Sure. That's old news -- just didn't know if other folks on the list
knew the concept was spreading to other nations.
Damo
> At 9:27 PM -0400 7/13/08, Damond Walker wrote:
<pedant>
Technically, outside of the old Mother type Tanks from WWI that were turned
into APCs, the
Canadians/British technically invented the
Turreted Tank turned into an APC concept...
Ram Tanks (a Canadian Sherman, more or less) had their turrets removed and
retained the front hull MG, and some modifications (like an armoured air
intake peculiar to the Ram Kangaroos).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_(armoured_personnel_carrier)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IWM-BU-2956-Ram-Kangaroo-Ochtrup-1945
0403.jpg
</pedant>
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lSur
e. That's old news -- just didn't know if other folks on the list knew
the concept was spreading to other nations.
Damo
I think the first to do it post WWII where the west Germans, built their APC
the Marder on a Leo I chassis. But then they had a small area to defend and
they wanted protection over mobility, it's always a trade off. This sort of
thing goes way back, I read somewhere that the Greek Hoplite equipment was
approximately 70lbs that's also the approximate weight of a modern soldier's
kit, around that you make allot of decisions, more rations or more ammo etc.
Some things don't really change.
Don
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Ram Tanks (a Canadian Sherman, more or less) had
I wonder if my e-mail didn't go through. I mentioned them yesterday in
an e-mail, but I haven't seen it appear yet and I didn't see any
comments on it.
(The first Canadian Kangaroo was based on a Priest chassis.)
> At 11:51 PM -0500 7/13/08, Allan Goodall wrote:
wrote:
> Ram Tanks (a Canadian Sherman, more or less) had
It may have, I didn't see it however.
> (The first Canadian Kangaroo was based on a Priest chassis.)
Yep, though technically not an APC from a tank chassis. More of an APC from an
SP Gun chassis
from a tank chassis... ;-)
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_25988_1216046171_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_25988_1216046171_2--
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWer
en't the Russians doing something similar to produce an APC with better
survivability than the BMP/BTR?
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Damond Walker" <damosan@gmail.com>
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Don M <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com> wrote:
Damo
Well considering that the Israelis had done the same thing with captured T55s
years before:
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carrie
rs/achzarit/Achzarit.html
Sure. That's old news -- just didn't know if other folks on the list
knew the concept was spreading to other nations.
Damo
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Michael R. Blair <pellinoire@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Interestingly I have seen the point made several times by
> At 12:27 PM -0600 7/14/08, Richard Bell wrote:
unless they are all the same weight. Cross country speed is a
combination of the ratios of power-to-wieght and sprung weight to
unsprung weight. An APC on an MBT's running gear, that does not have the same
armor, will need to have a softer suspension.
Different rate torsion bars will take care of that. I've seen where the
Aluminum and Steel road wheels for the Bradleys and derivatives were
interchangeable across all vehicles EXCEPT where the steel wheels had to be on
the front stations on Bradleys for their higher durability....at least I think
that's what I recall from one maintanance conversation on the subject.