Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Equipping the Project

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    as far as the concerns over the power plant. remember we aren't talking about a navy design light water reactors that irradiate everyone around at the drop of a hat. we're talking about properly designed fusion reactors that fail-safe as a default.so there is no reason to be particularly paranoid about them.

    as for requirements i think the project would have to take a more pragmatic approach to their requirements. ease of maintenance would have to be a primary concern with armor/reliability both sharing a backseat. vehicles would have to be capable of functioning for a significant amount of time without regular maintenance facilities which means every possible problem would have to be use-level maintenance. this actually eliminates most military vehicles from consideration. if you need cages and special equipment to top off air in a tire for example that is not a vehicle that can be maintained by a team in the middle of a post-apocalyptic wasteland with no fancy depot level maintenance.
    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.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by bobcat View Post
      as far as the concerns over the power plant. remember we aren't talking about a navy design light water reactors that irradiate everyone around at the drop of a hat. we're talking about properly designed fusion reactors that fail-safe as a default.so there is no reason to be particularly paranoid about them.

      as for requirements i think the project would have to take a more pragmatic approach to their requirements. ease of maintenance would have to be a primary concern with armor/reliability both sharing a backseat. vehicles would have to be capable of functioning for a significant amount of time without regular maintenance facilities which means every possible problem would have to be use-level maintenance. this actually eliminates most military vehicles from consideration. if you need cages and special equipment to top off air in a tire for example that is not a vehicle that can be maintained by a team in the middle of a post-apocalyptic wasteland with no fancy depot level maintenance.
      Facilities that change tractor trailer, older bus tires will have these cages because of the lethal split rims used on these vehicles or one can wrap a tow chain around the tire and smack it with a sledge hammer. Not the preferred method, but an expedient.

      Comment


      • #18
        One of the other issues is that recon will generally be scouting with one or two vehicles up close. And literally everytime a military has tried to do that with heavy armour it's failed.

        Tanks be they M1s or Panthers have poor visibility (well except maybe the very latest generation of all around cameras). Are limited in their agility and by their weight where they can go. The same pretty much applies to the heavy APCs they may be considering.

        So giving the Recon team a heavy vehicle on it's own would more than likely be a deathtrap if swarmed by an enemy armed with little more than petrol or the ability to knock over buildings.

        So something like a Peacekeeper or even an unarmoured Humvee would enable a team to drive away fast over most surfaces and with plain old windows that everyone can look out of, would have far superior situational awareness.

        Recon is traditionally one of the most dangerous missions for any military unit, the future maybe more so.

        If the project is considering a heavy APC for MARS etc. A popular solution is to get an obsolete tank; rip the turret out and ammo storage and put some seats in there.

        Voila instant heavy APC. In fact with the weight saved from losing the turret you can give it better all around armour then it would have had as a tank.

        Ok so you've got an APC that weighs 40 tonnes+ with all the inherent problems but it'll do the job without getting wiped out like a lighter dedicated APC.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by bobcat View Post
          as far as the concerns over the power plant. remember we aren't talking about a navy design light water reactors that irradiate everyone around at the drop of a hat. we're talking about properly designed fusion reactors that fail-safe as a default.so there is no reason to be particularly paranoid about them.
          Well aware, I am assuming something like a proton-boron plant, stable fuel and high energy density. No, my concern for a fusion plant has nothing to do with radioactivity and more to do with the massive energy densities that would need to be contained for the reaction to take place, and breaching that vessel could have some pretty bad effects for anyone in the area. Put a round through a gas engine, and the engine dies. Put a round through an unprotected fusion reactor and there is a good chance everyone within 50 feet dies.

          Originally posted by bobcat View Post
          as for requirements i think the project would have to take a more pragmatic approach to their requirements. ease of maintenance would have to be a primary concern with armor/reliability both sharing a backseat. vehicles would have to be capable of functioning for a significant amount of time without regular maintenance facilities which means every possible problem would have to be use-level maintenance. this actually eliminates most military vehicles from consideration. if you need cages and special equipment to top off air in a tire for example that is not a vehicle that can be maintained by a team in the middle of a post-apocalyptic wasteland with no fancy depot level maintenance.
          I agree that maintenance would be a large concern, but disagree that it would be primary. The reason is simple: a maintenance failure means you lose the use of the vehicle for some amount of time, while a protection failure means you lose the vehicle and the crew permanently. The most easily maintainable vehicle in the world is useless if it cannot protect the crew from the huge number of people (compared to the size of TMP) interested in killing them and/or taking their vehicles.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
            One of the other issues is that recon will generally be scouting with one or two vehicles up close. And literally everytime a military has tried to do that with heavy armour it's failed.
            I think the mission and parameters of Recon is going to be a bit different than conventional military reconnaissance. I always envisioned most of the Recon mission being performed dismounted or at least unbuttoned, with the vehicles serving primarily as (a) mobile bases of operations and (b) escape vehicles. It is on the latter that I look for decent armor - TMP expects to largely face irregular forces willing to sacrifice some portion of their force in order to capture/destroy the team, and those forces are likely to be highly mobile, lightly armored, and moderately armed. Put simply, the team isn't going to outrun an enemy using jeeps and F-150's, and they aren't going to survive if they can't handle a ton of people shooting at them with deer rifles and AR-15's.

            Originally posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
            So something like a Peacekeeper or even an unarmoured Humvee would enable a team to drive away fast over most surfaces and with plain old windows that everyone can look out of, would have far superior situational awareness.
            I think the situational awareness problems can be substantially mitigated while still protecting the crew, and "drive away fast" isn't a realistic option unless the operational plan for the Project involves waiting until vehicles aren't running any more, and that will likely take more than 5 years. A Peacekeeper tops out at 70mph, more than enough to outrun a person but not really enough to keep anyone with cars away. And an unarmored Humvee is going to have a problem running away when the fist definitive indication of a need to run is the incoming gunfire that can easily immobilize an unarmored vehicle.

            Originally posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
            If the project is considering a heavy APC for MARS etc. A popular solution is to get an obsolete tank; rip the turret out and ammo storage and put some seats in there.

            Voila instant heavy APC. In fact with the weight saved from losing the turret you can give it better all around armour then it would have had as a tank.

            Ok so you've got an APC that weighs 40 tonnes+ with all the inherent problems but it'll do the job without getting wiped out like a lighter dedicated APC.
            What you now have is a vehicle never designed to haul people that is hard to get into and out of and that can no longer fight effectively. If I was concerned about creating a heavy APC that doesn't exist, I would probably go back to plan 1 from the original post and see if I could design one from scratch.

            Comment


            • #21
              I hate to seem like I'm stating the obvious, but equipment choice depends on a number of things: mission, opposition, terrain, available personnel, and so on.

              For example. My own version of the Atlantis Project doesn't have "Recon Teams". It has "Network Teams" which are tasked with initial contact, survey and assessment (which usually involves interaction with survivor communities). These teams also have a responsibility to 'connect' these communities with the Atlantis Project - and other survivors. Opposition is expected to be very lightly armed. Terrain would be mostly "on-road" and teams would be about 6 people (who have to transport light weaponry and LOTS of communications gear).

              Tanks would not be appropriate - but something like an armoured Unimog would be useful.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyssen_Henschel_UR-416 (check out the "home-made" PLO version)

              Last edited by Matt W; 04-04-2017, 07:28 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
                If the project is considering a heavy APC for MARS etc. A popular solution is to get an obsolete tank; rip the turret out and ammo storage and put some seats in there.

                Voila instant heavy APC. In fact with the weight saved from losing the turret you can give it better all around armour then it would have had as a tank.

                Ok so you've got an APC that weighs 40 tonnes+ with all the inherent problems but it'll do the job without getting wiped out like a lighter dedicated APC.
                In WW2 these were called "Kangaroos. The practice began with obsolete M7 Priest self propelled artillery and later extended to obsolete tank platforms. Capacity varied from a fire team to a squad.

                Currently, it is the Ukranians doing this with T-55s making the BMP-55 or the Israelis using T-55s to make the Acharzit or purpose built chassis to make the Namer.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by cosmicfish View Post
                  I think the mission and parameters of Recon is going to be a bit different than conventional military reconnaissance. I always envisioned most of the Recon mission being performed dismounted or at least unbuttoned, with the vehicles serving primarily as (a) mobile bases of operations and (b) escape vehicles. It is on the latter that I look for decent armor - TMP expects to largely face irregular forces willing to sacrifice some portion of their force in order to capture/destroy the team, and those forces are likely to be highly mobile, lightly armored, and moderately armed. Put simply, the team isn't going to outrun an enemy using jeeps and F-150's, and they aren't going to survive if they can't handle a ton of people shooting at them with deer rifles and AR-15's.



                  I think the situational awareness problems can be substantially mitigated while still protecting the crew, and "drive away fast" isn't a realistic option unless the operational plan for the Project involves waiting until vehicles aren't running any more, and that will likely take more than 5 years. A Peacekeeper tops out at 70mph, more than enough to outrun a person but not really enough to keep anyone with cars away. And an unarmored Humvee is going to have a problem running away when the fist definitive indication of a need to run is the incoming gunfire that can easily immobilize an unarmored vehicle.


                  What you now have is a vehicle never designed to haul people that is hard to get into and out of and that can no longer fight effectively. If I was concerned about creating a heavy APC that doesn't exist, I would probably go back to plan 1 from the original post and see if I could design one from scratch.



                  well no everyone from the Indian army to the Ukraneans do it, Israel more than most has made an art of repurposing old tanks. As it is buying a bunch of outdated hardware and messing around with it, is not that suspicious but building brand new multi million dollar APCs is.

                  As for recon I think they were always viewed as a disposable asset. If they don't respond on radio checks send another recon team, if that fails send a MARS team.

                  Sensible Recon teams would have worked to observe from a distance and then send foot patrols in probably in mufti.

                  I'm not sure this uparmoured and heavily armed vision of Recon was what the project would have been looking for.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by ArmySGT. View Post
                    In WW2 these were called "Kangaroos. The practice began with obsolete M7 Priest self propelled artillery and later extended to obsolete tank platforms. Capacity varied from a fire team to a squad.

                    Currently, it is the Ukranians doing this with T-55s making the BMP-55 or the Israelis using T-55s to make the Acharzit or purpose built chassis to make the Namer.
                    Just saw you wrote the same thing!

                    Yup I was reading up on it, once you take the old diesel powerpack out of a Centurion or a T55 you've saved enough room in the back for a door way out of the rear. And once you've yanked the turret you've saved enough weight to put heavy armour all the way around.

                    In fact IDF Merkavas have been knocked out by heavy Kornet ATGMS, whilst Nammer APCs have taken similar hits and kept on trucking.

                    The cost of a couple million dollars on these HAPCs usually comes down to ROWs, reactive armour, extra cameras and communication systems.

                    But if you just want a basic APC like the WW2 Kangaroo the whole thing could be done for a fraction of that.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Matt W View Post
                      I hate to seem like I'm stating the obvious, but equipment choice depends on a number of things: mission, opposition, terrain, available personnel, and so on.

                      For example. My own version of the Atlantis Project doesn't have "Recon Teams". It has "Network Teams" which are tasked with initial contact, survey and assessment (which usually involves interaction with survivor communities). These teams also have a responsibility to 'connect' these communities with the Atlantis Project - and other survivors. Opposition is expected to be very lightly armed. Terrain would be mostly "on-road" and teams would be about 6 people (who have to transport light weaponry and LOTS of communications gear).

                      Tanks would not be appropriate - but something like an armoured Unimog would be useful.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyssen_Henschel_UR-416 (check out the "home-made" PLO version)

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_Dingo
                      That would look very workable, but something with excellent off road performance. It can be surprising how often light weight and lightly armoured vehicles beat much heavier opponents by simply being in the right place at the right time in the right numbers.

                      Especially if they have advanced weapons like ATGMs to further even the odds.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
                        https://aw.my.com/gb/news/general/he...urion-variants

                        well no everyone from the Indian army to the Ukraneans do it, Israel more than most has made an art of repurposing old tanks.
                        Israel is always an interesting case, as they seem to be the only ones really committed to this idea. That having been said, the Israelis are protecting an area 1/400th that of the US, with an active roster more than 3 times what the Project could reasonably be fielding. There is some merit in that the Israelis are predominantly facing the same kinds of forces that the Project could expect to see, but the scale is so different that I am not sure a vehicle designed to operate in close conjunction with other such vehicles and within close range of support is going to be a good choice for operations where it will be out on its own and where support may be hours or even days away.

                        Originally posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
                        As it is buying a bunch of outdated hardware and messing around with it, is not that suspicious but building brand new multi million dollar APCs is.
                        The outdated hardware is already on the books. It's being tracked (ha ha). If you are building from scratch, you at least have a shot at keeping them off the books in the first place. What is the cover story for buying dozens of obsolete tanks and then making them disappear How are the FBI and CIA not all over this

                        Originally posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
                        As for recon I think they were always viewed as a disposable asset. If they don't respond on radio checks send another recon team, if that fails send a MARS team.
                        Wow. So much for Recon recruiting!

                        The Project can't just recruit or draft a replacement, losing a single team is a problem, losing 2 in one area means you don't have Recon teams in that area of a few thousand square miles any more. The fact that you are going to lose Recon teams to enemy action doesn't mean that you consider them disposable.

                        Originally posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
                        Sensible Recon teams would have worked to observe from a distance and then send foot patrols in probably in mufti.
                        Agreed!

                        Originally posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
                        I'm not sure this uparmoured and heavily armed vision of Recon was what the project would have been looking for.
                        I'm not that familiar with 4ed, but in 3ed we see the following vehicles for Recon teams:

                        R-001: Recon Team with V-150 w/ 20mm cannon
                        R-002: Recon Team with Commando Scout w/20mm cannon and XR-311
                        R-003: Recon Team with V-150 w/M2HB
                        R-004: Recon Team with Commando Ranger w/M2HB
                        R-005: Recon Team with V-150 x/ 81mm mortar
                        R-007: Recon Team with V-150 w/ TOW and FAVs
                        R-010: 3 Recon Teams with (1) Commando Ranger w/M2HB, (2) Commando Scout w/20mm cannon and XR-311, and (3) V-150 w/ 20mm cannon

                        Out of 9 Recon teams, 5 V-150's, 2 Commando Scouts, and 2 Commando Rangers. Recon teams were never envisioned as being lightly armored or armed unless you look at some optional takes on a couple of modules. And I think that is a reasonable starting point, I see no reason to say that Recon teams should be in uparmored pickups.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
                          Just saw you wrote the same thing!

                          Yup I was reading up on it, once you take the old diesel powerpack out of a Centurion or a T55 you've saved enough room in the back for a door way out of the rear. And once you've yanked the turret you've saved enough weight to put heavy armour all the way around.
                          I am honestly not sure if you are arguing for these or against them at this point. Just because I don't want Recon in truly light armor does not mean that I would put Recon in anything nearly this heavy. I'm looking for something that shrug off .50cal fire, you're proposing something that shrugs off ATGMs

                          Originally posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
                          But if you just want a basic APC like the WW2 Kangaroo the whole thing could be done for a fraction of that.
                          The kangaroos were about repurposing old gear at a lower relative standard of performance, I think you could do a much better job by other means, especially if you don't already have the tanks and a desire to save money.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I think in some of the official stuff that came out in magazines afterwards there was description of the rather sinister replacements. Basically a team of similarly skilled MORROW members with a basic equipment load. Who when the first team were reduced in number or wiped out could replace them.

                            Most military or paramilitary organisations work on the basis that not everyones going to make it. And when you're job is going out and looking what's going on in a world of desperate lawlesness then more so.

                            And the generically skilled team in a small armoured vehicle are way more disposable than the specialised disaster recovery team or medical unit.

                            nb the Commando is pushing the definition of a heavy armour vehicle. Developed in the Vietnam War as a quick and cheap way of providing armoured support for military police escorting convoys or guarding air bases.

                            It's basically an armoured school bus with the same engine and drive system. Which left it lightly armoured and not really capable of taking on much more than it came with.

                            Not to mention a 4 wheeled military vehicle is always going to be at risk of being crippled by having one of them blown off.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
                              I think in some of the official stuff that came out in magazines afterwards there was description of the rather sinister replacements. Basically a team of similarly skilled MORROW members with a basic equipment load. Who when the first team were reduced in number or wiped out could replace them.
                              The Frozen Watch. They are hidden and widely dispersed under locations marked "Ash Pits".

                              There is a thread for them here ---> Frozen Watch

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
                                Most military or paramilitary organisations work on the basis that not everyones going to make it. And when you're job is going out and looking what's going on in a world of desperate lawlesness then more so.

                                And the generically skilled team in a small armoured vehicle are way more disposable than the specialised disaster recovery team or medical unit.
                                There is a big difference between how military organizations work and the word "disposable". Military commanders risk assets, and occasionally sacrifice them for something more valuable, but they almost never consider them disposable. Yes, the Project knows that they will some team members during the war, and some more due to cryotube failure or bolthole collapse, and they know that some will die on the job. None of that makes them disposable or makes their preservation any less of a high priority. The closest they come to disposable is when not sacrificing them wouls result in a more costly loss, like sacrificing a MARS team to save a Science team, but even then you do everything you can to save BOTH teams.

                                If your men are disposable, you're the bad guy. Even if there are ONLY bad guys, you're still one of them, there is no one you can stand next to that makes you a good guy. There are huge sections of history and fiction that illustrate this.

                                Originally posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
                                nb the Commando is pushing the definition of a heavy armour vehicle. Developed in the Vietnam War as a quick and cheap way of providing armoured support for military police escorting convoys or guarding air bases.

                                It's basically an armoured school bus with the same engine and drive system. Which left it lightly armoured and not really capable of taking on much more than it came with.

                                Not to mention a 4 wheeled military vehicle is always going to be at risk of being crippled by having one of them blown off.
                                Every vehicle has vulnerabilities and limitations, and the V-150 stops rifle fire, which is my Recon threshold requirement. I never claimed to like that particular vehicle, I consider it at best adequate for the Recon mission.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X