Which Trav version are you asking about?
Are grav tanks worth it?
- Thread starter Blue Ghost
- Start date
Which Trav version are you asking about?
Any.
In MGT I'd say no. Others, been too long since I played any grav tanks in battle vs. small craft.
Well, the Bradley really isn't a fighting platform as such. Or at least no more so than a Stryker. It carries troops, mounts a .50 or 30mm gun, and can fight while the troops pile out of the back, but it's not ready to lay down some serious X, Y or Z like fire at the opposition. They're not tanks.
If that's the case, then just as there's a marriage between the traditional gunship and MBT, surely we can toss the APC into the mobile ironmongery genetic code, and splice genes to come up with some kind of main battle "platform".
Just my take.
Some examples; there's a large oversized "tank" like vehicle in "Venus Wars" (an anime epic). Off the top of my head, I think in "Battlefield 2142" they have something similar to what I'm talking about, though it may be a bit more robust than what I'm trying to propose. They have a thing called a "Titan" which is like a starship hovering above the battlefield.
Link; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x9m58Vol1c
Note that in my opinion the people at EA who developed BF2142 were most likely Traveller fans, and have stolen a number of concepts to create this game.
Xerxeskingofking
SOC-13
The bradley also mounts a pair of TOW missles that are perfectly capable to putting a hole in most tanks. And in an infantry firefight, any armoured vehicle is a trump card. 30mm cannon are still fightingly powerful, and will ruin the day of anyone they fire at.
anyway, thats beside the point. the point was that if we combine every function onto the same platform, we are likey to end up with a platform less good at every function, as it has to comproimse to be able to porform other functions.
as to 2142 titans, they're cool, I'll aggree, but they are not tanks, nor can they furfill a tank like role, in terms of infantry support. you'd never have enough of them, and history has shown that infantry, when offered the choice between a a perfect weapon for one in ten or a alright weapon for everybody, tend to prefer the alright weapon, as they think that, nine times out of ten, they won't be the lucky one with the perfect weapon on call.
For plain old fire support, you would be better just using atmospheric capable Naval escorts. Their is a plentiful supply of them, they can reach anywhere on the planet in two hours at most, and they can deploy themselves to the planet without needing transport. Plus, they are fully functioning Naval escorts, so you can use them for that when teh ground war is over!
for infantry transport and close support, you are right in that we don't need anything heavier than the G-carrier or thierabouts. it can carry a squad of guys around, can defend itself with enough firepower to cover the deployment of troops and help win the firefight, and is armoured well enough to shrug off most small arms.
anyway, thats beside the point. the point was that if we combine every function onto the same platform, we are likey to end up with a platform less good at every function, as it has to comproimse to be able to porform other functions.
as to 2142 titans, they're cool, I'll aggree, but they are not tanks, nor can they furfill a tank like role, in terms of infantry support. you'd never have enough of them, and history has shown that infantry, when offered the choice between a a perfect weapon for one in ten or a alright weapon for everybody, tend to prefer the alright weapon, as they think that, nine times out of ten, they won't be the lucky one with the perfect weapon on call.
For plain old fire support, you would be better just using atmospheric capable Naval escorts. Their is a plentiful supply of them, they can reach anywhere on the planet in two hours at most, and they can deploy themselves to the planet without needing transport. Plus, they are fully functioning Naval escorts, so you can use them for that when teh ground war is over!
for infantry transport and close support, you are right in that we don't need anything heavier than the G-carrier or thierabouts. it can carry a squad of guys around, can defend itself with enough firepower to cover the deployment of troops and help win the firefight, and is armoured well enough to shrug off most small arms.
Last edited:
I find myself having to agree because of the poor design system interlinks in MGT.
I heard that Mongoose is going to rewrite "Vehicles". Maybe start a thread along the line of: Problem --> Solution. Maybe, a MGT editor would take it to heart...
E.D.Quibell
SOC-13
I know that a Bradley took out T-72s in Desert Storm, but that was only because the T-72s didin't know they were there and didn't react quick enough. If they (T-72s) had and returned fire or they has supprised them the bradleys would have been toast.
Regards,
Ewan
Xerxeskingofking
SOC-13
true enough, but analysis of most tank battles would say the same: the side that got suprise, shot first and hit first won the battle with a very lopsided KO* ratio (3:1 or more in many cases). American training and C3I helped them claim suprise, but thats outside the scope of this discussion.
whats not is that, for a standard infantryman, having the extra firepower and armoured support of a IFV is really, really useful and morale boosting. it gives them a mobile heavy weapons system that can't be shut down by anything less than dedicated AT weaponry, and up to date AT weaponry at that.
*that is, Knocked Out. the tank may be repairable, but not in battle condition.
It doesn't take dedicated AT weaponry to take out a Bradley. a .50 cal sniper rifle can poke holes in it. .30 MG with ap rounds can also damage it.
Well, as menationed earlier, something maybe the size of a pinnace (probably smaller, but the size of a few tanks welded together. Think of it as an oversized IFV/MBT platform. Something like that.
One thing to remember about AFV's is that there is two kinds of mobility, tactical and strategic. The Sherman for example was designed to be easily transportable from Detroit to battlefields all around the world, something to think about when making a larger AFV. Also as per tactical mobility, a larger AFV might have problems moving down a city street.
How about something a bit more compact? Something maybe the width of two contemporary M1A1s?
Ultimately, it is your universe, there can be all sorts of different vehicle types, huge ones to carry the Meson gun at the back of book four to small two man combat car that carry twin vrf gauss guns and everything in between. The MBT theory, derived from ww2 and carried through the cold war is not necessarily proven.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
With local air superiority the allied invasion made the german panzer largely redundant as a battlefield asset in a pitched battle.
Despite the superiority of german panzer Vs and VIs over the allied shermans etc. the allied armies were able to defeat german forces thanks to air power.
Even the battle of the bulge was settled once the skies cleared and allied air power could be brought to bear, despite the initial german success.
Despite the superiority of german panzer Vs and VIs over the allied shermans etc. the allied armies were able to defeat german forces thanks to air power.
Even the battle of the bulge was settled once the skies cleared and allied air power could be brought to bear, despite the initial german success.
The British 17 pounder in the Firefly could handle a Tiger, it's what killed Michael Wittmann. The Shermans at Arracourt handled the Panthers very well. The Tiger (arguably the first "MBT") was designed as a breakthrough tank and Panther was a long range marksman designed to take on T-34's in the east. The Sherman "Easy Eight" was one of the finest tanks of it's era: highly mobile, good torque to weight, fast turret traverse, rudimentary gyroscopic fire control, quieter rubber tracks; they did very well against T-34/85's in Korea also.
Air power has shown as to be not as effective at taking out armored vehicles in ww2 as once thought, Operation Goodwood for example.
But in terms of battlefield support. We don't know the size of "streets" in the OTU, or air corridors, or whatever.
No one with anymore thoughts on Grav-tanks?
Here's question, can grav tanks be dropped from orbit? Or inserted therefrom?
Here's question, can grav tanks be dropped from orbit? Or inserted therefrom?
shadowdragon
SOC-12
Only at fairly slow velocities, and that makes them extremely vulnerable during the entire descent. Flight is already unforgiving, so for every one damaged in the lifter portion you have an almost definite casualty.
Doable? yes. advisable? not likely. I could see a few situations where it would be acceptable risk, but not many.
