Are grav tanks worth it?

[Blue Ghost]

This has been bugging me for many years. If you have fighter technology powered by grav drives, then why invest in tanks? Specifically grav tanks? Wouldn't what we call "armor" be out modded by starships or other heavy weapons' platforms just flying nap of earth and fulfilling the role of a tank?

 

[far-trader]

Essentially once you get fast enough grav tanks they supplant air power. The lines blur. Is it a heavily armoured and large gunned attack air fighter? Or is it a fast agile flying tank? Same thing and both! NOA, pop and shoot, VTOL, all of it.

 

[Major B]

As far-trader said, grav tanks supplant the traditional (to us) roles of aviation and armor.

One of their biggest advantages is that they have the ability to either go fast or stop and hover in place. So they can defend a specific piece of terrain that needs defending, and in this role having a traditional turret arrangement is better than the fixed gun mounts of traditional aircraft who cannot own a piece of ground because they can't stop and hold it.

Most importantly (I think), grav armor gives enormous strategic advantage to the owner. Think of current (TL 7-8) military forces. If you have a brigade sitting in Kansas and there is a need for it in Europe or Asia, it will take weeks to get there. Individual soldiers can get there in 24-48 hours by aircraft but their heaavy vehicles and gear and supplies must rely on ships and trains or heavy trucks.

If that force in Kansas was equipped with high-speed grav vehicles, it could self-lift to where it was needed in a matter of hours while carrying all of the supplies it needed and would be ready for action when it arrived. And it wouldn't necessarily need a cumbersome pile of supplies nearby so long as it could fly back to a safe location in shifts to rearm and refuel.

So grav armor's most important benefit is that is makes nearly everywhere on a planet within reach at a tactical scale so strategic lift and movement and planning are then only required at system and sector level.

 

[Vile]

I always thought (based on CT Book 4: Mercenary) that at some point tanks and aircraft were both made obsolete by grav gunships.

 

[robject]

I tend to see grav tanks as a combination of armor and helicopters.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Interesting thoughts. Then, just off the top of my head, would not there be some "intermediate" armor design between traditional tanks/armor and starships? Something like a flying vessel that was the size of several tanks or something. A true grav driven gunship? Maybe something like an AC-130, minus the hull size and wings, that flew close to the ground, or within shouting distance of troops?

A true gunships, I guess.

 

[Major B]

Interesting thoughts. Then, just off the top of my head, would not there be some "intermediate" armor design between traditional tanks/armor and starships? Something like a flying vessel that was the size of several tanks or something. A true grav driven gunship? Maybe something like an AC-130, minus the hull size and wings, that flew close to the ground, or within shouting distance of troops?

A true gunships, I guess.

Now that sounds like a fun build.

Bigger is not always better - there is some safety and economy to be found in having a higher number of smaller targets rather than the opposite. Plus, as tech levels progress, power plants grow more efficient and better weaponry becomes available both of which argue for smaller designs. But I could see this idea being viable at TL9-10 when grav vehicles are not yet ubiquitous. If the bulk of a planet or polity's force is not grav-lifted (maybe even foot mobile) and funding is scarce, I can see building a small number of heavy gunships to provide mobile fire support.

It would have to have good armor to keep it survivable if the number of platforms would be low. TL9 engines are inefficient so energy weapons would be unwise. CPR guns, autocannon, multibarrel machineguns. The ammunition load would also drive a bigger volume. It probably would not be too swift or agile but these criteria would be maximized to the extent possible. Would probably mount the best senors available along with good communications gear so it could serve as eyes and ears for the ground force.

I'd like to see what I could come up with but I'm still finishing up the Citadel. Mind if I work something up after that's done?

 

[E.D.Quibell]

I always thought (based on CT Book 4: Mercenary) that at some point tanks and aircraft were both made obsolete by grav gunships.

Up until TL13 in MT, you can make a quicker aircraft than a pure grav vehicle according to COACC. From TL14 on it divergens between orbital grav fighters, and sub orbital grav tanks.

Best regards,

Ewan

 

[robject]

Interesting thoughts. Then, just off the top of my head, would not there be some "intermediate" armor design between traditional tanks/armor and starships? Something like a flying vessel that was the size of several tanks or something. A true grav driven gunship? Maybe something like an AC-130, minus the hull size and wings, that flew close to the ground, or within shouting distance of troops?

A true gunship, I guess.

That does sound like fun. (You know, that ship could be the modular cutter, or a smaller version of it. Or even a gig.)

Using Traveller5, I would come at it from two different angles: (1) a vehicle, or (2) a smallcraft.

The vehicle I would pick using T5 would be a 10t Armored Heavy GCarrier with a "Weapon" mount. The mount would let me pick something like a VH Fixed Plasma Autocannon, which potentially could damage a starship hull (but is unlikely to). It can poke along at 100kph.

Alternately, the smallcraft I would pick using T5 would probably be a Very Light, Fast Attack Boat. 13 tons, room for a turret, and a top speed of 500 kph. It's armor isn't as good as the GCarrier above: I can up the armor, but the top speed would drop to 50 kph.

(Thinking about it further, I might rather just work up a version of the Attack Fighter. Good armor, good speed, enough payload. Very expensive.)

Because its combat rules are integrated, T5 has made me start thinking of the hard tradeoffs made in vehicles between speed, firepower, and armor. I never had to really do that much with CT.

 

[Vargas]

They exist because they're considered cool. That's it.

 

[Dragoner]

Tanks will be the striking power of a ground force, combined arms, but infantry won't be, as is now, an offensive force. Large gunships will become high priority targets and hard to camouflage or cover, better to break power down into smaller subunits. Ultimate power will be a spinal particle accelerator or meson cannon in orbit, make the rubble bounce.

 

[robject]

I suppose a meson cannon doesn't have to be in orbit. Couldn't it just be just hovering somewhere beyond the horizon?

 

[Major B]

Ultimate power will be a spinal particle accelerator or meson cannon in orbit, make the rubble bounce.

True for the meson gun. Particle accelerators are ineffective against targets in atmosphere according to what I've read in MT references. Other versions may be different.

I suppose a meson cannon doesn't have to be in orbit. Couldn't it just be just hovering somewhere beyond the horizon?

If the gunship is mounting a meson cannon it can be anywhere you want - and with the cost driving down the number of those available I'd be keeping them as far out of danger as their effective range allows. Orbital platforms are good but only if they are mounted on a ship able to leave. A satellite platform is vulnerable because it is visible and follows a predictable path. Better to hide them deep underground where they are harder to find and target.

This is why I don't see a lot of utility in a meson sled. Supporting the surface troops with meson cannon can be done better with ortillery. Meson cannon will be supporting fires from a distance no matter how they are sited, so they will probably not be mounted on the gunship idea that Blue Ghost has in mind - it is more of a close support platform. And the resoning behind developing a gunship seems to me most plausible as being driven by lack of funds to build more effective systems, so that also makes meson cannon less likely to me.

 

[Dragoner]

Generally, I'm thinking of ships in orbit bombarding the planet, which would be as successful as Napoleon's theories about surrounding a fortress. The fortress will always fall to the external forces eventually as geometrically it cannot put as much fire on the external encircling force. Tanks, APC's and Armored AFV's such as a Missile Tank will all be crucial elements of a ground striking force.

I did not know about PA weapons rule in MT, I am going off general theory and the article in JTAS #13 pg 6. If PA weapons can be used to bombard planets, ships like the Azhanti High Lightning, while not being an excellent ship-of-the-line, would still be highly usefull in a planetary bombardment role. Other weapons as well, such as missiles would be effective from orbit, ground based artillery would either have to be highly mobile or extremely hardened as it would be a high value target.

 

[aramis]

I tend to see grav tanks as a combination of armor and helicopters.

Me, too. Fighters remain, but become gravitic VTOL, often with thermo-fan assist for speed.

The role of a grav tank, for me, is a tank that maneuvers like an attack chopper, and attack choppers jobs are to kill tanks, so it's a unification of form.

This is, by the way, somewhat influenced by the Space Opera game's Turbograv craft, and the Star Wars speeders from both Ep IV and V.

I have had in CTTU and MTTU a hybrid jet/speeder, 3 displacement tons, 2 VRF gauss guns, 1.2G's gravitics, aerodynamic maneuver, and 2G additional forward thrust available. Looks much like an A6.... but a bit smaller.

 

[samuelvss]

Grav tanks use the existing terrain to be able to hide their softer parts. All combined arms is like an incredibly complex game of rock-paper-scissors.

Mother earth can protect the grav tank's softer belly. Air power covers her thinner deck. Terrain helps mask her approach.

The problem with putting her way up in the air, and calling her a small craft is that you lose the advantages of terrain and geometry

Until meson guns wide proliferation really make the protective aspects of hard terrain illusory, there's still a niche for this highly specialized creature.

I'm a grunt with a heavy/mech background. We LOVE our brothers in the Corps Blindee'. When they need to transit a defile, they love us too.

 

[HG_B]

Grav tanks use the existing terrain to be able to hide their softer parts.

I think reality would result in amroured fighters rather than partially armoured "tanks". Even today, the days of thin topped tanks are numbered due to smart munitions...

 

[travlar]

On the other hand, advances in point-defense may largely counter said munitions. Either way, I think there would both tanks and fighters still; the tanks trade speed and maneuverability for toughness and firepower, while the fighter are the other way around.

 

[HG_B]

On the other hand, advances in point-defense may largely counter said munitions.

Not currently. Therefore, you'll see tank designs starting to change in order to remain a viable non-coffin.

 

[Dragoner]

Fighters will use altitude and speed as a defence against AA fire. Tanks will be using concealment amongst gullies, forest, structures, etc.; also as cover, without as much concern about AA as indirect fire. Probably above NoE, it would be subject to AA, but as far as being armored, anything that can KO a tank will do in the infantry and their APC's. I would think the battlefield will have become lethal enough that advanced armor is for survivability as anything lightly or un-armored would be quickly destroyed. This is including both fighters and AFV's and including EW/ECM.