Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: psychophipps Jun 17 2008, 03:02 AM

I just figured that rather than thread-jacking the "Used Tanks?" thread anymore, I figured that we could just move this discussion to it's own thread.

Now we all agree, I'm sure, that urban warfare is the future of warfare. The main reason for this, contrary to what many believe, is the simple fact that with all the crazy sensors, spy drones, and precision guided munitions out there anymore a unit out in the open is a dead frickin' unit. You need to either be moving pretty fast to cover, or under cover of some sort (and buildings are mighty handy for this), or you're gonna get a JDAM or other similarly nasty PGM shoved up your ass.
Armored vehicles, especially the heavy monsters of MBTs and the like, thrive where? Out in the open. This is where their cross-country mobility, heavy firepower, and even heavier armor give them the edge. Needless to say, if MBTs were designed to be hiding amongst rubble and other cover of urabn centers on a regular basis they wouldn't need chobham, multi-layered, laminate, super-fly, double-dong armor sloped at 60-degrees and weighing in at over 15 tons. They also wouldn't run the constant risk of falling straight through older or third-world city streets.
So what does this leave us? We obviously can't have huge, heavy, hideously expensive, and easy to see via all of the aforementioned sensors, tanks running around just itching for a much cheaper PGM to take them out, right?
If the future is urban, how can we take these behemoth machines and make them cost/benefit efficient, strategically and tactically sound, and consistently mobile enough to bother with them?

Posted by: WearzManySkins Jun 17 2008, 03:12 AM

Our current day vehicle designers have forgotten the lesson of the Sherman vs Panther/Tigers of WWII. The Germans had better overall tanks but we just had more than they could cope with, also air superiority also cut down alot of German tanks.

Trying to specialize a vehicle for urban warfare is guarantee that it will have to perform alot of rural warfare.

WMS

Posted by: kzt Jun 17 2008, 03:33 AM

Actually, have you read much on fallujah? Everything I've seen says the M1s were essential to winning fallujah 2. The ability to just make strongpoints just go away is awesome. And M1A2s with the TUSK upgrade are pretty hot.

The Brads were damn effective too, but 120mm HE rounds are total fight enders.

Posted by: kanislatrans Jun 17 2008, 03:42 AM

M1 ABRAMS ARMAMENT

The main armament is the 120mm M256 smoothbore gun, developed by Rheinmetall Waffe Munition GmbH of Germany. The 120mm gun fires the following ammunition: the M865 TPCSDS-T and M831 TP-T training rounds, the M8300 HEAT-MP-T and the M829 APFSDS-T which includes a depleted uranium penetrator. Textron Systems provides the Cadillac Gage gun turret drive stabilisation system.

The commander has a 12.7mm Browning M2 machine gun and the loader has a 7.62mm M240 machine gun. A 7.62mm M240 machine gun is also mounted coaxially on the right hand side of the main armament.

source: Army technology.com


The Dogs of War own two Abrams M1A2 tanks. although both have been reconfigured a bit. The main gun has been replaced with duel Panther cannons mounted over a flame projector, the secondary weapons upgraded to fire-linked White knights. Both vehicles are set up for rigger controls.

These are defensive vehicles and are used to defend GBM-1. In the initial field test against the" Thors hammers" a Humanis supported go-go gang that once held turf adjacent to D>O>W turf the old work horses performed admirably.
The Hammers quickly learned that just as it is not smart to take a knife to a gunfight, it is equally foolhardy to take a Predator V to a Tank fight .

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 17 2008, 04:13 AM

Actually, MBTs exert less pressure on the ground than cars do. This is the big advantage of tracks. A humvee is more likely to fall through a third world road than a tank is.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Jun 17 2008, 04:18 AM

@WearzManySkins

That was a true in a world before extremely effective ATGMs for infantry. Different question no

@Thread

I still think the Way Forward is UAVs with sniper rifles and standing orders to blow away anyone with a gun and without a friendly IFF beacon.

Would make many things much harder.

Posted by: Sir_Psycho Jun 17 2008, 04:24 AM

By future warfare, are we talking future warfare or are we talking future Shadowrun warfare?

Posted by: Carny Jun 17 2008, 04:54 AM

Definitely an interesting topic. I suspect that the technology exists in Shadowrun to make an MBT even sicker then a M1A2.

Something with say a 150mm binary propellant gun, for instance, or even smarter, more efficient armor. Not to mention the sensor suites. Missile defense setups, directed energy weapons, even wards to keep those pesky spirit from materializing in the crew compartment and mulching the crew.

Lots of neat possibilities.

Posted by: Drogos Jun 17 2008, 11:27 AM

On a tagental note, I just played a little Frontline: Fuel of War. It is Shadowrun warfare.

Posted by: Ryu Jun 17 2008, 11:56 AM

I think anyone not familiar with it should check out the Leopard 2.

The really ugly thing about Desert Wars is that it will have equal high-tech militaries clash. EW drones in combination with artillery are not exactly good news for an MBT. Speed and Stealth become a better choice than being ultra-hard.

I think SOTA urban warfare will belong to Cybersoldiers. What kind of Anti-Personell-Zone can keep out a Streetsam? Give them APCs with good sensors. Any downtrodden population will learn not to annoy the soldiers inside, which will survive most attacks due to mil-spec personal armor. Such a development would also work for the setting, as it justifies large numbers of people with augmentation.

Posted by: Fuchs Jun 17 2008, 12:05 PM

Masamune Shirow predicts the use of small, agile tanks in urban combat in his notes to the "Tank Police" comic. I am not so sure - I think that role is more likely to be taken over by drones like the steel lynx.

For the MBT, it depends on how good the protection gets. If a MBT can shrug off most hits and detect threats quickly, then it has a role. If man-portable weapons can kill it reliably, then MBTs won't see much action in urban settings - or not if they can help it.

For Shadowrun, that's a matter of what kind of armor rating a MBT would have. If it can shrug off most "heavy" weapon hits, then MBTs will be used often. If not, then MBTs will have become obsolete.

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jun 17 2008, 12:35 PM

The thing that is really needed in urban warfare is a weapon big enough for effective demolition. An auto cannon is just not that great against targets in heavy cover. In the idea case, you want a CEV with a demolition mortar. If you can't get one of those, a tank firing HE will work almost as well. The main problem is that the US really doesn't have anything lighter than a tank that can do the urban demolition bit. Massed javelin fire can kind do the job, but you are paying 80K a pop, and are going to need several hits.

This is one of the reasons that the BMP-2 and 3 both have low velocity canon, so that hey can fire HE against infantry strong points. Unfortunately, low velocity canons are basically useless in the open field warfare that the US army was developed for. These days, a love child of a Striker and an Ontos would probably come in very handy.

Posted by: Fuchs Jun 17 2008, 12:38 PM

Or artillery fire. I remember watching a video from Iraq where a building was first shot at from an armored vehicle, to not much effect, then a 155mm shell destroyed it.

Posted by: Ryu Jun 17 2008, 12:45 PM

http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?fid=4582&lang=3&pdb=1

I assume buildings don´t like fire from an 120mm-mortar, and you won´t need an MBT for that.

Posted by: Fuchs Jun 17 2008, 12:51 PM

Well, I served in a M113-mounted 120 mm mortar company. It's the same principle, but the range is much less than a 155mm howitzer (we topped out at 6,5 km operative range at close to max charge) and the payload is about 3,3 kg TNT in a 14.4 kg grenade.

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jun 17 2008, 12:54 PM

Erm, that's a mortar for indirect fire, it have a min range of or 200-300 meters. I'm talking about something like http://www.d-daytanks.org.uk/exhibits/churchill-avre.html

Posted by: Fuchs Jun 17 2008, 12:56 PM

So? The goal is to deliver a payload on a building. You do not need to be close to that. A single infantry soldier with a radio and a target designator is sufficient to have the building demolished. Less risk for more people.

Posted by: Carny Jun 17 2008, 02:07 PM

Alright, so basically for a vehicle to be of maximum use in sprawl warfare, it needs to be able to deliver massive firepower on a point target, reliably survive hits by heavy weapons, detect and react to threats quickly and effectively. It also needs at least some measure of protection against magical and matrix threats, in a Shadowrun environment.

Fire support vehicles on wheeled chassis can do some of those things. But they tend to be no more surviveable then APCs, since most of them are based on APC designs. Even with maximum mission oriented armor, nobody expects a Stryker to reliably survive a 120mm hit, or a Javelin strike. (Before the Stryker people get frustrated, nobody expects a Bradley or M113 to do so, either.)

MBTs are surviveable, mobile, with heavy firepower. They are very expensive, though, so even having to expend 10-12 high cost munitions to kill one is still a large net gain, in terms of value.

Any ground vehicle is going to have a certain vulnerability to airpower and artillery. It just isn't possible to armor up all faces of a vehicle equally, at least in the case of heavy armor.

So where do you go?

Do you work on a super-MBT, an Abrams for the new generation, that pretty much dominates any battlefield it appears on, but that costs through the roof?

Do you go with mobile gun systems on lighter chassis, relying on firepower and sensors, and the ability to field greater numbers of platforms, to overwhelm?

Do you largely forget the idea of a 'tank' and go with a model of simply supporting very durable and well-armed infantry forces?

None of the above?

All of the above, depending on situation?

Posted by: Fuchs Jun 17 2008, 02:15 PM

Artillery can do a lot of the indirect fire support. Mobile units like T-Birds and helicopters can do some direct fire support.

If a tank works is largely rule-dependent, mainly: Is it possible to armor it sufficiently to work within the rule?

Posted by: kzt Jun 17 2008, 02:41 PM

A Brads 25mm chain guns are pretty effective in sawing through walls, though not as effective a a large caliber gun in ending fights right now. The TOW will work reasonably well, at least sometimes. The BMP-1 had a low velocity gun, BMP-2 has a 30mm autocannon, BMP-3 has a 100mm gun and a 30mm cannon.

Posted by: psychophipps Jun 17 2008, 03:08 PM

The real secret to winning Fallujah 2 was not being forced to quit just before finishing the frickin' job by the diplo-dinks back home. They had Fallujah 1 all but done and finished when international opinion pushed our leadership to fold like a bitch and they told the Marines to withdraw despite the commanders telling the civilian leadership that the fighting was all but over and that we had won. This, in turn, gave the insurgency a huge morale and political (See?!? We can whip those running dogs of infidel imperialism! Down with the Great Satan!) boost.

The problem with this is the fact that those tank cannon shots didn't do anything that the new anti-armor/anti-strongpoint rockets can't. They have new rounds for them that will punch right through about 2 feet of concrete and then blow everyone inside into paste. Pretty dang nasty and effective from the demo I saw on TV. 60 or so years from now, this new-fangled option would probably be a pre-set for each and every man-portable AT/AS weapon in any corporate ordinance catalog.
Just call up 1-886-KILL-DEM and a polite, professional Ares representative will be more than happy to take your order. For a small premium we can guarantee next-day service to any global hotspot regardless of your political or religious faction. And If you call in the next 15 minutes, any order of 10,000 or more will come with a free case of smoke grenades. Please call now!

Posted by: psychophipps Jun 17 2008, 03:13 PM

Probably a bit of both as the GM should have at least an inkling that a lot of the SR4 base book is outdated already.
No really.
A different rocket for each type? With the newly developed multi-stage fusing, we can create a rocket or missile weapon that will go off as a HEAT, a frag, or a self-forging penetrator depending on a selection from a menu before firing or sensors in the ordinance itself selecting the right setting based upon the target type.

Posted by: psychophipps Jun 17 2008, 03:20 PM

I agree. One thing to keep in mind is the new coilgun mortars that are being tested now. You could easily get these weapons, provided you can depress the barrels enough, to lob rounds at much closer ranges than current mortars. Design a nice little APC/Striker turret with full range of motion from horizontal to vertical and computer controlled output on the coils? It weights less, fires a 120mm round just as heavy, has exponentially less recoil than a tank gun and is silent.

MWAHAHAHA!

Posted by: Daier Mune Jun 17 2008, 03:29 PM

what about a lighter-than-air drone with a mortar cannon? gives you the firepower you need, travels with the squad, and with a few upgrades can be very hard to hit.

Posted by: Fuchs Jun 17 2008, 05:38 PM

Seeing as I once saw a 10 ton M-133 get driven back (well, forward, since the gun shoots out back) by the recoil of the mortar mounted in it and demolish a barn as a result of not having the brakes engaged to fire, I'd be a bit wary about mouting a mortar in a LTA.

Posted by: CanRay Jun 17 2008, 05:43 PM

I have a few ideas. But I'll post them when I do them in game.

Posted by: psychophipps Jun 18 2008, 04:01 AM

It would be a weight issue, really. Each mortar round weighs enough that it would quickly become a heavier-than-air vehicle if you had a magazine of any reasonable size. Once you add the launcher, targeting systems and mechanical functions...
This is why rockets and missiles are so popular. They're self-contained weapons that only need a light tube, in the case of rockets, and a decent aiming apparatus to work.

Posted by: Daier Mune Jun 18 2008, 04:16 AM

just be sure not to position the blimp by any airborn barns and it should be okay.

seriously, though, if the Tower drone is capable of serving as an airborn launch facility for other drones, i think it could handle a recoilless rifle, or a gyro-stabilized mortar. grenade launcher, at least.

Posted by: Earlydawn Jun 18 2008, 04:30 AM

It's really a question of where we are from an overall perspective. Tanks have the upside of being survivable, bristling with firepower, and obviously capable of demolishing a strongpoint. That said, I'll bet any kind of offensive corporate or merc force in Shadowrun is going to operate light APCs. First and foremost, demolishing buildings tends to ruin public opinion, whether necessary or not. A megacorp would rather lose half a platoon clearing a building rather then leveling the thing and giving anti-corporates and hostile megas a bigger negative spin capability. Second, tanks are big. They're certainly restricted in urban environments, not to mention a fairly big signature target for some kind of drone strike. With a wheeled IFV, you can maximize speed, and perhaps design a lower signature vehicle that accomodates an urban environment.

Posted by: kzt Jun 18 2008, 05:14 AM

Urban areas actually are far more lethal than open areas. You encounter targets at far shorter range, which means you encounter short-ranged lethal weapons well inside their effective range and have too little time to kill them before they can fire.

Knife fights in phone booths often don't turn out well.

Posted by: Earlydawn Jun 18 2008, 05:18 AM

Which is precisely why I'd rather not get detected, as opposed to getting sandwiched between two apartments bristling with angry guys with RPGs, not to mention have the speed and maneuverability to get out of it.

Posted by: Sir_Psycho Jun 18 2008, 05:31 AM

I'm fairly sure (feel free to contradict me) that you can mount an MGL-6 on a MCT Fly-Spy. (in regards to the mortar LTA post)

I wouldn't be surprised if by SR4, Urban warfare is handled almost exclusively by grunts with logistics and air support. With the advent of cheap ruthenium armour and cyber-ware, some specialised units are more versatile than armoured vehicles.

Posted by: Fuchs Jun 18 2008, 07:23 AM

I can't comment on MGL-6s, never having received the training with my countries version of the M204, but the recoil from a current 120 mm mortar is nothing to sneeze at. Missiles would be far more likely to be used on LTAs, IMHO, if we are talking artillery.

Posted by: Sir_Psycho Jun 18 2008, 10:12 AM

an RPG seems like a good choice. The grenade pops out, and then the charge activates and off it goes, minimal recoil to you, with a decent payload and range. Of course, this could not stand up to other aircraft, but could piss of ground troops.

Posted by: Ryu Jun 18 2008, 01:24 PM

What can current rules do for your corps military?

- 20 Ares Citymasters with upgrades to the electronics suite (Response 6, sensors, software etc) provide the modular base.

- 5 get one concealed flexible turret for a missile barrage launcher.
The ammunition of choice is the Heimdall, the gunner is a combat rigger. A few more expensive Outlaw-Block IIIs are our tank-busters. If in doubt empty the magazine. (Caveat: Some might question the use of non-standard missiles in the barrage launcher. I have no problems with that.)

- 10 get to be Drone Carriers, the mix is mission-specific but favours rotor-drones.
Should carry up to six drones, two additional riggers and one matrix security specialist.

- 5 are APCs with Heavy Autocannons on top
The drones do most combat patrols, infantery is used as shock troops.

- Grunts have Mil-Spec armor with sensor suite, ruthenium-polymer covering, thermal dampening, and an arm-mounted silenced SMG as a backup-weapon. All have at least an Attention Coprocessor, this years winner of the Evil Overlords Minion Upgrade Top List.

Strategy: Drones or soldiers detect threat, everything except pure recon drones can kill soft targets, rockets kill hard targets. Every part of the network can provide target aquisition. Detachments have two drone networks, one squad of soldiers, and one source of rockets.

Add-ons:
- 4 Ares Dragons that can handle fast redeployment of a detachment on top of carrying a squad of grunts.