IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Assault T-birds, Hot LZ troop carriers
lodestar
post Aug 18 2003, 02:59 PM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 424
Joined: 11-May 02
From: Marauding the mighty North Saskatchewan
Member No.: 2,720



Most of the T-Birds in the Rigger3 and SR rules tend to be those of a flying tank or armored car type, But do any have any significant personel carrying capacity? If not I'm looking for a vehicle similar to those that appear in a lot of Shirow's Appleseed works. Units for quick deployment of special forces teams and such, with the capacity to deploy sections or squads of troops.

OTOH a T-Bird might not be as suitable for this role with the significant jet blast area. So how is the AGV tech progressing in the SR universe...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TinkerGnome
post Aug 18 2003, 03:39 PM
Post #2


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 10-June 03
From: Tennessee
Member No.: 4,706



It'd be a simple matter to add some setting into most of the T-birds in Rigger 3. A bench seat takes up 6 CF, and all of the birds listed can hold at least 4 of them. Aside from that, you could probably do quite a good job with the Hughes WK-2 utility chopper. You'd need to armor it and install the seating after market, of course. The Ares TR-5 T tilt wing craft might also be a good solution for you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ed_209a
post Aug 18 2003, 04:08 PM
Post #3


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 944
Joined: 19-February 03
Member No.: 4,128



Regarding the downblast, it might be practical for the pilot to actually touch down and throttle back to idle while the troops get out and run for cover.

However, this is probably 10-20secs that the T-bird HAS to stay on the ground, stationary. Might not be tactically feasible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Camouflage
post Aug 18 2003, 04:14 PM
Post #4


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Reinbek, Germany
Member No.: 72



Another use for t-birds should be for heavy airborne combat-units. Fly the t-birds in with some heavy-duty cargo-aricraft for better fuel efficiency and then drop them over a LZ und blast away any resistence before the lighter airborne units come.

Perhaps you could even construct a VT-carrier for heavy ground-vehicles, basically a short-rang flying tank-transporter that simply drops of the cargo-bay, goes down to a minimum safe altitude without any running angines (to get down stealthy) and then puts all engines to full throttle to decelerate to zero just above the ground, drop the tank from a safe altitude (like 1-2 meters above the ground) and then get the hell up in the air to make it back to the cargo aircraft on the last drop of fuel. This could be a good way to get MBT's and IFV's behind the enemy lines quickly.

PS: Sorry for hijacking the thread....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Camouflage
post Aug 18 2003, 04:18 PM
Post #5


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Reinbek, Germany
Member No.: 72



QUOTE (Ed_209a)
However, this is probably 10-20secs that the T-bird HAS to stay on the ground, stationary. Might not be tactically feasible.

In this case, dropping an APC or even a simple armored container for the troops from the VT-transport may help with that. But that would perhaps create a problem with fast retreats, when the LZ for the getaway transport has to be chosen spontaneously.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nath
post Aug 18 2003, 04:27 PM
Post #6


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,756
Joined: 11-December 02
From: France
Member No.: 3,723



I think the Russian BMV-2 from SOTA:2063 (and so probably the "equivalent models", ie Saab Viggen and GMC Thunderbird) has some room inside for personel . Can't remember how many however.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Camouflage
post Aug 18 2003, 04:34 PM
Post #7


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Reinbek, Germany
Member No.: 72



QUOTE (Nath)
I think the Russian BMV-2 from SOTA:2063 (and so probably the "equivalent models", ie Saab Viggen and GMC Thunderbird) has some room inside for personel . Can't remember how many however.

The table in the german version lists it with 3s+4b, which would give enough space for a normal mech-inf. squad.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ed_209a
post Aug 18 2003, 05:21 PM
Post #8


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 944
Joined: 19-February 03
Member No.: 4,128



If you have a heavy transport with a heavy T-bird inside, and a AFV inside the T-bird, why not paradrop the AFV with maneuverable chutes, and skip the middleman?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheScamp
post Aug 18 2003, 10:12 PM
Post #9


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 400
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 825



QUOTE
Regarding the downblast, it might be practical for the pilot to actually touch down and throttle back to idle while the troops get out and run for cover.

Downblast shouldn't be any worse than a helicopter of similar weight. In fact, I think that in a number of situations, T-birds would make for better troop carriers than a helo. They're faster and have a helluva lot better armor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Laughlyn
post Aug 18 2003, 10:40 PM
Post #10


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 92
Joined: 26-February 02
From: COS
Member No.: 548



The downblast will be an issue. You don't see people walking directly behind a fighter jet for a reason. That being said you can simply push the down jets off to one side away form the door.

As an added bonus a good pilot can do a quick fast fly over of enemy positions using said blast to his advantage.

Given the power of most weapons in the game, a Shadowrun helicopter won't stand a chance because of it's low end body (compared to most combat vehicles) and low end armor. Compare that to an LAV and you can do much better. Granted it's at a higher cost. But in the end, what's cheaper? Experienced troops aren't free or easy to come by.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ed_209a
post Aug 19 2003, 02:15 AM
Post #11


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 944
Joined: 19-February 03
Member No.: 4,128



QUOTE (TheScamp @ Aug 18 2003, 10:12 PM)
Downblast shouldn't be any worse than a helicopter of similar weight.


The trick here is the speed of the thrust. A hovering 10-ton helicopter spreads it's thrust over a huge circle, so the downdraft can be slow, and more important, cold.

Since a T-bird must concentrate it's thrust in a small area, it must be faster and as a result, hotter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Camouflage
post Aug 19 2003, 03:14 AM
Post #12


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Reinbek, Germany
Member No.: 72



QUOTE (Ed_209a)
If you have a heavy transport with a heavy T-bird inside, and a AFV inside the T-bird, why not paradrop the AFV with maneuverable chutes, and skip the middleman?

Better manouverability and survivability during the actual drop as well as a possibility for fast retreats/evacuations without having to leave the heavy equipment behind.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Laughlyn
post Aug 19 2003, 04:30 AM
Post #13


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 92
Joined: 26-February 02
From: COS
Member No.: 548



Wait an AFV on chutes? I don't mean to sound ...well harsh, but go out and look at the size of chutes that are put on something as small as jeep/truck/etc. Then add lots of weight and thus lots more square feet of chute.

Dear God!!! Bobby Joe, look that there cloud is fallin."

The other huge issue with a AFV for getting into and more importantly out of a hot LZ is getting out fast. Nothing on the ground can be relied on. That's why you move troops in and out quickly on things that fly. So even if you air drop that AFV in, it has to roll out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Birdy
post Aug 19 2003, 10:16 AM
Post #14


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 637
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,528



QUOTE (Ed_209a)
If you have a heavy transport with a heavy T-bird inside, and a AFV inside the T-bird, why not paradrop the AFV with maneuverable chutes, and skip the middleman?

QUOTE

If you have a heavy transport with a heavy T-bird inside, and a AFV inside the T-bird, why not paradrop the AFV with maneuverable chutes, and skip the middleman?


But what will you do in the scenario with that remote colonie site that has fallen silent and needs to be scouted out by a bunch of Marines and a civil expert? Just can't do without crashing the T-Bird into something explosive and easily damaged ;-))

Question: Do T-Birds always use Jet-Engines directly or could one define them as using a gas-turbine to power high-speed blowers that generate a pressure "cushion" and some jet-assist jumping? (kind of like the tanks from 2300AD or Hammers Slammers?)

Birdy
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheScamp
post Aug 19 2003, 01:08 PM
Post #15


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 400
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 825



Slap some electric fuel cell engines in a T-bird, and the exhaust heat becomes a virtual non-issue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lantzer
post Aug 19 2003, 01:36 PM
Post #16


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 693
Joined: 26-March 03
Member No.: 4,335



QUOTE (Birdy)
Question: Do T-Birds always use Jet-Engines directly or could one define them as using a gas-turbine to power high-speed blowers that generate a pressure "cushion" and some jet-assist jumping? (kind of like the tanks from 2300AD or Hammers Slammers?)

I think T-Birds are always pure thrust. If you want hovertanks, I suggest using air cushion vehicles (hovercraft).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Laughlyn
post Aug 19 2003, 09:26 PM
Post #17


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 92
Joined: 26-February 02
From: COS
Member No.: 548



TheScamp

By changing the type of powerplant to fuelcell you limit the capabilities to much bother with a T-Bird. You may as well use a helicopter at that point.

The on only issue with the hot wash is that you can't land right next to people. They'd have to make a run for where you landed. Or you'd have to arrange an LZ where you could either provide cover (ie hard object in the way of fire) or where you had a stepped landing like a small wall, around a corner, etc.

Birdie

As was said above. Short of attaching a few LAV powerplants to said vehicle for jump capabilities you'd either on the ground, hovering just above it, or flying. For jump capabilities though you incur a huge cost just to be LAV capable. You put an underpowered powerplants on said vehicle and just use it for small jumps by adding a stress point. It might be fun to play with, but in the long run I can only see it ending in tears.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheScamp
post Aug 19 2003, 09:45 PM
Post #18


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 400
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 825



QUOTE
By changing the type of powerplant to fuelcell you limit the capabilities to much bother with a T-Bird. You may as well use a helicopter at that point.

A helicopter which has less than 1/2 the speed and worse handling, signature, and acceleration.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Daishi
post Aug 19 2003, 11:23 PM
Post #19


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 224
Joined: 6-April 02
From: ab.ca
Member No.: 2,522



In a campaign about a year ago, I think, our group's rigger designed a transport LAV based upon the Pelican from Halo. It was actually fairly effective and entertaining until it was shot down by a missle towards the end of the campaign. We replaced it with a zeppelin, which we found to be much more useful for long range insertions. Of course, this just felt really wrong...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Laughlyn
post Aug 21 2003, 02:44 AM
Post #20


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 92
Joined: 26-February 02
From: COS
Member No.: 548



I can think of few reason why a fuel cell powered T-Bird would suck big time.

1. First they have a starting range of 100km, compared to the 350km for regular one. Or for that matter the 500+ for helicopters.

2. Cost. Cost is a huge issue when you’re talking about a LAV. The initial, cost, the overhead, etc. The powerplant cost on a fuelcell is the most expensive out of all of the LAVs. Considering your need to modify it upgrade it to get it up to decent, that spell more cost.

3. The load ratings starts out of “man I’m wimp” and can be bought up to “I guess I can hang”. Making it an expensive target for people to shoot at. One that may or may not have enough armor hang out with the big boys.

4. Electronic warfare is weaker on fuel cell and battery-powered vehicles.

5. The heat isn’t that big of a deal.


Bonuses for Fuelcell LAV:

1. It doesn’t run as hot.

2. You only have two choices: Lame and ultra expensive

Bonuses for a Helicopter:

1. It’s cheap enough to upgrade and still be in the reasonable price range.

2. It’s got a 6,000m flight ceiling.

3. Doesn’t have nearly the financial impact if you loose one or two.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th April 2024 - 09:38 PM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.