• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Deploying Grav-Tanks and G-Carriers

Is there any canonical information about how grav-propelled armored fighting vehicles are deployed? Are they just released in orbit and allowed to "fly" down onto the battlefield on their own, or are they carried closer to the planet's surface aboard specially-constructed shuttles? Personally, I'm inclined to believe the latter, on the grounds that (a) shuttles would allow the jump-capable mother ship to remain beyond the reach of at least some of the ground-based planetary defense weapons, and (b) shuttles are faster, and (at least potentially) better armored than grav tanks and g-carriers, and thus harder to hit during their approach, and more likely to survive if they are hit. Grav tanks aren't that big (about 10-15 dtons each, at least according to the Regency Combat Vehicle Guide), so you could pack a four-vehicle tank platoon into a ~90 dton shuttle.

I'm envisioning a ~90 dton shuttle (probably a flattened sphere, since it's cheaper and you could fit the tanks in two abreast), with a heavily armored hull and the equivalent of a dual turret (one sandcaster, one missle rack). Does this sound about right?
 
Sounds good to me, and as far as I can recall there is no canon reference, but that seems so wrong I must be forgetting something ;) And of course I have very little GURPS knowledge, maybe GT Ground Forces said something.

The only idea I had was sticking with the IN's (who get tasked with transporting all those gro-po's) 50T model. The IN standardized it's rapid launch for that to handle heavy fighters and the Marines/Army (imtu) like the Modular Cutter (with some added armor) for operations. So I usually drop a module in as needed (advance base, troop deploy, supply, vehicle delivery). The vehicles (g-cars, g-tanks, etc.) are standardized too, to 8dT (or 4dT for air/rafts, 6dT if sealed), allowing 3 per module (or 6 or 4 for air/rafts). So the cutter's are launched by the tubes, and scoot in and drop the module and run back (at 4G now that they are just 20dT) for another module or to act as high-guard and standby for recovery missions.
 
The Broadsword is set to use 2 50T cutters to transport vehicles to ground.
The Kinunir is set to fire drop capsules from orbit to ground.
Somewhere in MT it describes grav tanks doing an assault from orbit.
 
D'oh, that's the obvious one I couldn't think of but knew I was missing. The Broadsword and it's Cutters, and I even used my own Cutter ideas as an example (obviously inspired in part by the Broadsword). Thanks Vegascat, time to upgrade my wetware ;)
 
Hi,

Some thoughts:

The imperium does not use cutters for assault landings, as the cutter is completely unarmoured.Fine for mercs but not for marines There is a 50tn troop transport (to fit inside those launch tubes) in supplement 9. It is 3G, armoured, missile and sand armed and carried 50 troops and 10 tons of vehicle (or combinations to suit).

The broadsword article in JTAS indicates that a cutter can reach the surface of a planet in about 20 minutes. An airraft takes the world size UPP hours to reach orbit. Now grav tanks etc go about 6 times as fast as an air raft but thats still about an hour for an earth sized world - a long time when people are shooting at you.

The GURPS ground forces has troops deployed in 1000tn landers, except that sometimes the grav tanks are allowed to drop in on their own (smaller target), especially if they are in the 2nd wave and the landers are busy.

Using High Guard, a 200tn lander seems about right. You can get a company of infantry and a few vehicles in, or about a company of tanks, without putting all your eggs in a 1000tn basket.

Hope this helps.

Cheers
Richard
 
The imperium does not use cutters for assault landings, as the cutter is completely unarmoured. Fine for mercs but not for marines There is a 50tn troop transport (to fit inside those launch tubes) in supplement 9. It is 3G, armoured, missile and sand armed and carried 50 troops and 10 tons of vehicle (or combinations to suit).
Uh... two points.

(a) I don't see why mercenaries would be any less careful with the integrity of their skins than the marines -- if anything, they'd probably be more enthusiastic about armor, since you can't squander your pay at startown gambling halls and bordellos if you're dead.

(b) Surely, armored "mil-spec" cutters and modules available.

I see your point, however, re. the desirability of 50-dton landing craft.
 
Originally posted by marginaleye:
(a) I don't see why mercenaries would be any less careful with the integrity of their skins than the marines --
1. Lack of cash to purchase expensive landing boats that have little use in the mercs' actual job.
2. Mercs usually do not operate in environments that feature intense space or orbital warfare. An enemy that would warrant the use of an armored and armed lander would also warrant the use of a more capable ship than a Merc Cruiser (which a Zhodani base defense as Marines might have to face would chew up whole, and spit the sorry remains into the next gas giant).

(b) Surely, armored "mil-spec" cutters and modules available.
This is rather difficult without making it incompatible with the standard cutter.

Regards,

Tobias
 
From Memory: Trepida Grav Tanks and Astrin Grav APCs are transported in large orbital landers carrying a total of 6 vees. (101 Vehicles)

Regards,

Tobias
 
Re. "mil-spec" armored module cutters:

This is rather difficult without making it incompatible with the standard cutter.
Uh...why?

The standard cutter module has a specified length and diameter and, presumably, a standard set of connection points for data, electrical power, and plumbing. As long as everything lines up externally, it shouldn't matter if some of the internal volume is taken up by armor, instead of by acceleration couches, cargo space, fuel tanks, or whatever else people stuff into cutters modules.

As for the cutter "cab," given 20 dtons, at Tech Level 15, you ought to be able to fit in respectable drives (11% for the 4-G acceleration, 4% for the power plant, and 4% for fuel tankage only comes out to a mere 9.5 dtons), a couple of acceleration couches (1 dton, 10.5 dtons total), a modest computer (a Model/2 requires only 2 dtons, 12.5 dtons total), and a missle rack and a sandcaster (1 dton, 13.5 dtons total), and still have plenty of room left over for armor.

If you're going to stick to 50 dton craft, using "mil-spec" modular cutters instead of those purpose-built troop transports makes more sense to me (I, however, still prefer larger landing craft, if only to keep costs down).
 
It would of course depend on your Grav Tanks. "At higher Tech Levels the distinction between aircraft, tanks and spacecraft blurs." Since light fighters are virtually useless in space combat they do have a use as a very serious Tank though. A Grav Tank with 6g Acceleration and 6 agility wouldn't need a landing vehicle. (And a ship based pulse laser is one hell of an antivehicle weapon.) Throw a little armor plating on it and perhaps a VFR Gauss gun and you have a great Grav Tank. (That displaces about the same a a Trepida.)
 
@ marginaleye.
1. The original cutter is a Book 2 design.
2. The standard HG cutter has a bridge, which precludes much space to be set aside for armor.
3. You should design at TL 11-13 rather than 15. Much more in line with what most mercenaries are likely to get. (Where did this "everything is TL 15" stuff start anyway?).
Sure you can design a modular vessel with armor and armament, but you cannot simply take a standard cutter and slap some armor on it.

@ Bhoins
Fighters presumably have Thruster Plates or another thrust-driven method of propulsion. Thus they would not perform well as "ground" vehicles. But the lines are certainly blurred. In any case, what we dont want is to see fighters used as "tanks" simply to cheat their way around the Striker design rules.

Regards,

Tobias
 
Hello.
I designed troop drop pods for the infantry (like the real starship troopers) about 1.5 tons each, and a modified G carrier to carry 5 troops and a Med MRL and 2 VRFGG's.
I dont have the designes with me but if anyone wants them i can stick em on hear tomorrow.
The drop pods have 6g decel and armour (the armour is realy an ablative shield for high speed reentry, and can only be used by troops in battle armour (obviously).
Drop troops are the Parachute troops of the future (light armour (armoured Gcars) and lightly armed).
I visualise these as the troops you land with the densitometers to find the deep buried meson guns. There not there to capture or hold only to find and destroy and cause havoc everywhere.
Bye.
 
@ marginaleye.
1. The original cutter is a Book 2 design.
So?
I'm not talking about the original cutter.
And, at the risk of sounding a bit incindiary, the design rules in Book 2: Starships are a embarassment, rather like the infamous line in Adventure 1: The Kinunir about four Kinunir-class "battlecruisers" keeping the whole Regina subsector safe from Zhodani aggression.

2. The standard HG cutter has a bridge, which precludes much space to be set aside for armor.
But I'm not talking about the "standard" cutter, I'm talking about a 50-dton modular boat designed (a) specifically for the Imperial Navy, and (b) to be compatible with both armored "mil-spec" 30-dton modules and ordinary civilian ones. A bridge isn't required for small craft, and since this boat isn't designed to be involved in ship-to-ship combat (I envision its missle rack being used for "softening up" targets on the ground), the penalty for not having one (-1 to effective computer rating) is an acceptable trade-off.

3. You should design at TL 11-13 rather than 15. Much more in line with what most mercenaries are likely to get. (Where did this "everything is TL 15" stuff start anyway?).
Not if the vehicle in question is being designed specifically for the Imperial Navy. Most of the vessels in the Imperial Navy are Tech Level 15. The Imperial Navy has, furthermore, had been at TL 15 long enough for its TL 15 Atlantic-class heavy cruisers to already be "fast approaching obsolescence." The Imperial Navy's heavy fighters are TL 15. The non-modular 50-dton troop transport described in Supplement 9: Fighting Ships is TL 15, too. Why would the Imperial Navy purchase modular cutters built at a lower Tech Level?

Granted, mercenaries might be restricted to TL 11-13 equipment purchased from backward frontier worlds, but a plausible "armored assault cutter" is possible even at TL 11 (4 dtons for 3-G acceleration, 4.5 dtons for the power plant, 1.5 dtons for fuel, 2 dtons for a Model/1 computer, 1 dton for a pair of acceleration couches and 1 dton for weapons leaves 6 dtons available for armor -- 3-G acceleration may not be ideal, but it's good enough for the Imperium's TL 15 50-dton troop transport, so it should be good enough for this, too).
 
Hi,

Re cutters, GURPS has a higher spec TL13+ cutter that can stand more acceleration, and is more heavily armoured.

Downside is cost, and availability. Also the broadsword is only TL12. Also the heavier armoured modules were too heavy for the normal cutter to move at more that a couple of G.

Given that most mercenaries are not landing in the teeth of planetary defences, and are probably operating on TL5 to TL11 worlds, a cutter is sufficient and easier to repair in the frontier areas.

Cheers
Richard
 
Why design at TL 12-14 for the IN?

Because the IN will be using some non IN craft for their drops (transporting army troops, forex). It is not uncommon for landing craft in sci-fi to be owned by the units deployed from them. So, the TL 9 army guys mght be deployed by TL 15 landers. But, the TL 10, guys are almost likely to be deployed intheir own TL 10-11 landers, since they could then simply lighter up aboard "Home Turf".

The LASh model has other benefits. The Armor units carry spares and tools, and the lighter becomes their mobile repair shop.

For infantry deployment, this is even MORE likely... it deploys as a combined sickbay/HQ/EWOC.

For Jump Infantry, they are likely to drop a few APC's with them, to serve the same roles.

Also, Becuase, in some sectors, the IN can't maintain TL 15 craft at more than a few points. In Core, sure, you'll never see a less than TL 15 design in the navy.

Take, forex, The Marches. not too many TL 15 ports, and they need to be A or B, and should have a navy base, to be support ports.

Many of the navy bases are at lower TL's there. (Fluke of the world generation sequences, really.)

a "Solid TL15" navy makes the few A-15-N bases way more valuable... and tempting to target.... with Hich-PSL rocks!
 
Also, Becuase, in some sectors, the IN can't maintain TL 15 craft at more than a few points. In Core, sure, you'll never see a less than TL 15 design in the navy.
This line of argument makes a lot of sense to me, and I believe I state something vaguely similiar in the thread re. Kinunir-class "cruisers." As I stated in a previous message, however, it's perfectly possible to design a plausible "armored assault cutter" at lower Tech Levels (albeit without a bridge, although I don't know why this should be offensive, since there are plenty of canonical bridge-less small craft).
 
@ marginaleye.
I will simply repeat:
Sure you can design a modular vessel with armor and armament, but you cannot simply take a standard cutter and slap some armor on it.

In any case, I don't know whether the modular concept makes too much sense for a strict military use. It sure has disadvantages beyond the pure design rules, else every ship would simply be designated "modular".

Regards,

Tobias
 
Of course Grav Tanks aren't ground vehicles either.
If they aren't to be used as Tanks, (And the T20 rules make this just as possible and just as nasty.) what use are they? They are virtually useless in space combat. (Especially in Mayday with limited fuel, and High Guard where everything gets multiple automatic critical hits against them.) The only thing that can't just splat them consistently is a Merchie because they don't carry a big enough computer to generate hits on a score of less than an 11. A Mercenary Cruiser (which isn't really any form of space combat vessel) can splat (depending on battery configuration) 5-8 of them a combat round.

They take up about the same space as a Trepida, just because they can go faster doesn't mean they have to. They are much more agile and pack a serious punch. I think they make a great tank. Think of the design as the same concept that the Soviets applied to Helicopters. The Hind was designed as a High Speed Armored vehicle that happened to fly. If you are worried about the exhaust, try standing behind an M1 Tank. (Please don't the US Army had to pay a ton of claims when the Tank was first deployed because the exhaust destroyed the paint job on Mercedes cars pulling up behind them at intersections in Germany when the Tank accelerated away.)

As for cheating around the vehicle design rules, Isn't the Cobra the same thing, cheating around the vehicle design rules? Turning a Transport platform into a superb, high speed anti-vehicle/anti-personnel platform. The first time it is used everyone says it is cheating until everyone else decides to cheat.


By the way, who is "we?"


Originally posted by Tobias:


@ Bhoins
Fighters presumably have Thruster Plates or another thrust-driven method of propulsion. Thus they would not perform well as "ground" vehicles. But the lines are certainly blurred. In any case, what we dont want is to see fighters used as "tanks" simply to cheat their way around the Striker design rules.

Regards,

Tobias
 
Originally posted by Bhoins:
If they aren't to be used as Tanks, (And the T20 rules make this just as possible and just as nasty.) what use are they? They are virtually useless in space combat.
That depends on the Fighter. The Rampart, sure, but that is one excruciatingly bad design. A few even moderately well designed fighters will rip the Mercenary cruiser you mentioned into small pieces.

They take up about the same space as a Trepida, just because they can go faster doesn't mean they have to.
Doesn't it? If their propulsion is purely thrust-based, it does indeed mean just that. An F-22 not only *can* go faster than an Apache, it has to.

They are much more agile and pack a serious punch.
More agile? Faster, you mean?

I think they make a great tank. Think of the design as the same concept that the Soviets applied to Helicopters. The Hind was designed as a High Speed Armored vehicle that happened to fly.
a) The Hind still is not a tank, nor a viable replacement for one.
b) A space fighter is not a helicopter.

As for cheating around the vehicle design rules,
Cheating around the design rules, because armoring a fighter to the degree that HG makes easily possible is absolutely impossible when using Striker rules.

By the way, who is "we?"
The Association of Non-Munchkins with Rules Knowledge.

See it any way you want. Designing a Fighter using HG rules, than converting it to Striker, with the simplistic conversion rules, to use it exclusively as a Striker vehicle, is cheating your way around the rules. If you want a Ground Vehicle, design it using the Ground Vehicle rules. If you then come up with something that still resembles a fighter, okay.

Btw. The basic ramparts would make lousy tanks. The are far to soft-skinned. Even a light APC's Plasma-A can down them.

Regards,

Tobias
 
The Trepida, or any grav tank for that matter, is a high speed, 3-d maneuverable, plying weapons platform, with HEAVY armor.

As for the Trepida: It goes fast (Trepida's are high subsonic), is very agile, is space capable, has no maneuver fuel need (at least under Striker and MT), has a whopping big weapon, and can, if it can catch them, do serious hurt to even capital ships. In groups, they can do MAJOR DESTRUCTION.

Even more important: It can only go out to about 10 diameters on gravitics... and past 1 diameter thrust is reduced.

A 14 ton (The trepida was 10 tons + a 4 ton turret...) fighter under same rules set is liekly to be less well armed, less armored, but more maneuverable. And uses exactly the same tactics: Swarms and dodging. Also, due to the more expensive space drives, no gravitic drop-off. (Or, fro T4, much wider bands of operation).
 
Back
Top