tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post2862797422121949095..comments2024-03-24T11:56:12.455+00:00Comments on DROPSHIP HORIZON: Editorial - The Future of Troop CarriersMarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13835446049246785287noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-68390662109603870442012-06-17T02:31:45.483+01:002012-06-17T02:31:45.483+01:00If you ever pick up John Ringo's series on the...If you ever pick up John Ringo's series on the 'Posleen War', the first few books incorporate a plot where the military entities are Very resistant to change, despite the invention of armored combat suits. The main character describes ACS units as a blend of shock infantry, cavalry, and football plays. Nothing like it exists in modern military and would revolutionize tactics as we know themAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03638956644966329793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-64920102126819189102012-04-30T08:53:04.100+01:002012-04-30T08:53:04.100+01:00These dicussions are what makes this such a great ...These dicussions are what makes this such a great site! Long may they continue!ArmybitsUKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15341314461247490207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-7778729520704190562012-04-28T21:00:34.964+01:002012-04-28T21:00:34.964+01:00Yes, people restrict themselves to what they can i...Yes, people restrict themselves to what they can imagine is feasible, which generally means near future solutions in any hard scifi world. It makes sense in a way, because we cannot predict the medium to long term accurately (I want my flying car now! They told me they would be around by now). In fact, it is hard enough reconstructing the past with what we know was around, so how can we adequately predict the future, when cognitive shifts will mean changes in people's attitudes and approaches to problems?<br /><br />I agree completely that technology could be all over the place, depending upon where you are. You only need to look at the range of technologies across our planet at the moment. There are people living stone age existences while others have the latest gadgetry. If the facilities are not there to repair your plasma rifle then it is just a fancy club once it breaks down, if you are on a planet that has no plasma rifle industrial basis. So, yes, go wild with what you use.<br /><br />The fuel argument is an interesting one too. In my future world, there are functional fusion drives that require maintenance but little fuel. This means that once worlds can produce fusion drives they have vehicles that have massive range. If they also have plasma cannon that draw on those fuel cells then they need neither refuelling nor rearming for the duration of most battles. They just need maintenance and repair when they get damaged. I wonder how the logistics arm would be affected by this technology.<br /><br />Regarding the robot idea: at the moment and into the foreseeable future, robots will not replace people. Beyond that, well, who knows? I can imagine them replacing people for many roles at some point and the intelligent machine is a staple of science fiction too, so why not have armies of the things. If they are cheap enough to produce, you can have bazillions of the things, and they are quicker to train than people because they only require programming. "I can do kung fu!" I bet there are scientists working on the problem at the moment, and, like the infinite number of monkeys, it is highly likely that some kind of breakthrough will be made along the way.<br /><br />Anyway, I have a tendency to run off at the keyboard so I had better stop hogging the bandwidth here. I totally agree that you can go hog wild and field whatever you wish in your games. If you can imagine it, then there is no reason why you cannot feature it in your games. Who knows? You might even have predicted the future!Ruaridhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13003128932063213463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-26767483638884011022012-04-28T20:45:02.404+01:002012-04-28T20:45:02.404+01:00Of course it assumes that the current trend does n...Of course it assumes that the current trend does not continue. While the wars against Iraq or Kosovo weren't precisely "fair", they did pretty much show that you can incapacitate a country's ability to fight without prolonged campaign. If that's all you want instead of occupation, a "conventional" war would be probably decided in days, weeks at most unless some sort of new, 100% effective antiair/antimissile defense is put into production.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-84404099822905900682012-04-28T17:32:00.435+01:002012-04-28T17:32:00.435+01:00I seem to recall Wolf's Dragoons in the Battle...I seem to recall Wolf's Dragoons in the BattleTech novel "Wolf Pack" using zoomers which were little more than fast GEV sleds with a metal framework for Elementals to cling to. Easy to close quickly with the enemy and deploy rapidly using built in armour jump packs (no need to slow down to open hatches!).Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13312982908057794491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-22293091385543818632012-04-28T12:43:29.356+01:002012-04-28T12:43:29.356+01:00Good points, but what I'm arguing is rather pe...Good points, but what I'm arguing is rather people restrict themselves to a narrow scope. We can predict what sorts of wars we're going to be fighting for a very long time, since afterall, the basic forms of conflict, that we are fighting today for instance, has been around since human civilisation came to be. Its unlikely to change regardless of technology. <br /><br />But, say for instance your example of guys in bunkers controlling robots, well, thats already happening. But no matter how awesome we make bots, they could never replace the living breathing soldier, they would be an extension of. Some situations may revolve around using just robots; whereas other situations revolve around living troops, and others a bit of both. It would never be just a particular thing. Of course, everyones free to simply use whatever, and do whatever they like, but whilst we're on a debate here on a general basis, I think its worth pointing it out. <br /><br />The general point of my argument is simply, there is no need to simply restrict yourself, because of an idea. Use everything and anything. Some of my human armies operate on different levels, the extremely advanced (depending on their situation) mostly use grav/hover, others use a mix, like I intend my U.S Army force to revolve around wheeled/tracked vehicles (on the basis, these vehicles are cheaper to fuel and can hang around the battlefield for a lot longer, even entrench themselves), but the Marines use Grav/hover vehicles, and the uber elite types, or troop forces that sepcialise in long-term missions, without the logistical support of the overall armed forces may rely on say a Caiman like vehicle i.e self-sufficiency. <br />Some of armies, that would be larger, but poorer, would almost utterly rely on tracked/wheeled vehicles that are battle proven. Some communities/armies that live out on the frontiers may even use tech that is hundreds of years old. <br /><br />I actually think, that if we're talking about, wars in say, fought across the galaxy here, given the logistics, the vastness etc, maybe technology would simply just be all over the place, there may be a basic level of tech, with some armies with higher levels of tech (up to the extremes) the variety would be HUGE. <br /><br />But thats my point, go crazy, theres nothing that says we won't be using similar things to what we have now, thousands of years into the future. No need to be specific, no need to restrict it.BrummieHellvernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18444389203805620365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-55573471760509200072012-04-28T09:33:53.507+01:002012-04-28T09:33:53.507+01:00I don't think people are missing the point so ...I don't think people are missing the point so much as failing to define their frame of reference. Are they referring to near future situations? Far future? We are talking about the future here and there is potentially an awful lot of that ahead of us. This gives huge opportunities for technological change and the concomitant changes to the way that warfare is waged. As I mentioned in a previous comment, it is entirely possible that in the far future a small number of humans will be holed up in bunkers conducting the war through robots, because the technology is available to avoid the waste of human life at the front line. Alternatively, what about Traveller's idea for battlefield nukes? How would that affect the way that troops are deployed?<br /><br />Your argument holds up well, for the most part, for near future wars, but what about when grav tech is the norm for everybody? If you have sufficient access to grav vehicles that you can afford to equip troops with them, I doubt any of your strike forces would have hover, wheeled or tracked vehicles, which would be less efficient and less flexible than the grav vehicles. While I accept that argument that armies require a range of vehicles to fulfil all the tasks needed, you also need to consider how those vehicles are supplied and repaired. Greater homogenisation of vehicles means fewer different spares need to be carried and techs need to be familiar with fewer systems to repair them. Therefore the cost-effective method is to limit the number of different types of vehicles in your armed forces. Of course, as you say, things break down and you can end up improvising, possibly even taking the local taxi to the battlefront, but that is not a part of the military design process when deciding what is needed from an APC/IFV.<br /><br />In game terms and in the end, the gamer is free to field what they feel like anyway, and nobody is wrong per se (by the way, it's 'per se' not 'per say'. Gives me conniptions every time I see 'per say'. :-) ). In real life, we may be able to predict short term trends, but the weight of human experience shows that we do not have the imagination to really predict how things will turn out 1000 years down the line.Ruaridhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13003128932063213463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-10485066753888521432012-04-27T23:55:14.071+01:002012-04-27T23:55:14.071+01:00I think a lot of people are missing a great opport...I think a lot of people are missing a great opportunity, or i'd say, to a degree, even the point here. <br /><br />Human conflict, or indeed any conflict in the future, and the past, is not about reducing or being rid of a specific item within the armed inventory. APCs will never die out, just as the Horse has never become utterly useless as a means of transport; they are still used today, and will be used for hundreds, if not thousands of years to come. War is not black and white, or X, Y and Z. Having studied Human conflict for three years now (don't want to biggy it up, but this is what I have discovered) War is about extending your ability, not replacing per say. <br /><br />We are, after all, in an age, that as far as we can tell, for a very long time, will be all about Combined Arms Warfare. Every army will be faced with various situations, and thus, needs equipment to suit each and every situation involved. It will never diminish, or be rid of any part of a capability completely because it may cost them big in the future. The Wheeled IFV for instance, is a great piece of kit; excellent for rapid deployment, quick in and out situations, it can even be fitted with weaponry that can handle most third world armies, which for now has reduced the requirement for Tanks, or Tracked IFVs, or APCs. But only because it suits the current need. The Wheeled IFV is weak armour wise, and its expensive, thus harder to replace, nor are wheels as good as tracks for certain terrain. In a long term conventional war, you will want those cheap APCs more than you want a expensive IFV. You will want to get more of your boys to the field, and it could well be that a group of IFVs will only make a minor difference in firepower. <br /><br />So, here is how I see it. I have numerous forces, for numerous situations, my armies are practically composed of almost anything, and everything you could imagine. Its not all going to be on the tabletop at anyone time, merely, I have all the options available. <br /><br />One Force, say a Drop Force, will consist almost entirely of Grav Tanks; ejected from low flying drop ships, they are quickly deployed, and will get straight into the action. The lightly armoured troops, will all have Grav IFVs. Drop forces, after all may be small, and its infantry lightly armoured, thus require heavily armed vehicles to make up for its lack in fire power. An APC just doesn't fit that situation, you don't simply want protection for the guys on their way there, or whilst they are there, you want firepower to.<br /><br />A Marine strike force will be armed with Hover vehicles: Again a rapid assault force that would glide across the waters the first wave would ideally be IFVs; again to increase the firepower of the attacking force, but if it was to be a large force, the follow up would involve APCs, which would simply give adequate protection to troops moving up onto the beaches into support. It is possible afterwards more conventional vehicles would be brought up via transports, such as tracked or wheeled IFVs/APCs, in order to combat different terrain after the beach assault. <br /><br />The point i'm trying to make though is, don't disregard things, yes its Science fiction, but no one in the future, in his right mind is going to start cutting chunks out of his army, regardless of the reason. You might want firepower, you might want the workhorse APC, you might want a machine that gives both firepower and room, and can sustain its troops for a long time. You might want all of them at once, but different things will be used for different situations, or all of them out of sheer desperation. <br /><br />Lets be honest, when wars get really tough, when supplies aren't getting to the men, or your tech starts to degrade, no matter how great it was in the first place, you may as well just pick up a mace to take someone out, because things will eventually degrade into a medieval bloodbath anyway.BrummieHellvernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18444389203805620365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-84213756004562326382012-04-27T18:33:45.499+01:002012-04-27T18:33:45.499+01:00@Lasgunpacker: I'm not convinced that vehicle ...@Lasgunpacker: I'm not convinced that vehicle armour will 'always' be cheaper than power armour. The cost of this armour will depend upon how far into the future you go, what technological advances have been made by then, what production technologies have been developed, etc. It is entirely feasible that infantry power-armour could be cheaper than vehicle armour and even that a single power-armoured trooper could carry as much firepower as a tank at some point.<br /><br />@user@example.com: Defence versus offence is a cycle and has been throughout history. Defences become too difficult for the offensive technology to penetrate so new offensive technologies are developed. The focus shifts to defensive technologies when offensive technologies outstrip them. I suspect that this will always be the case too.Ruaridhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13003128932063213463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-88821185651101589942012-04-27T18:26:29.380+01:002012-04-27T18:26:29.380+01:00Hmm, that's a good point, Gavin. Now would you...Hmm, that's a good point, Gavin. Now would you like one can of worms or two? :-)<br /><br />The future of infantry could well be directly related to increases in the use of drones and, further into the future, decreases in the cost of intelligent robots. If the cost of producing a combat robot/drone becomes cheaper than the cost of training and equipping an infantryman then the discussion about APCs and IFVs could become moot, because there is no need to transport squishy people to the battlefield. Instead you just drop your tin cans into the combat area and set them to work.Ruaridhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13003128932063213463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-92175606482239721622012-04-27T17:53:53.320+01:002012-04-27T17:53:53.320+01:00This is a very good article which I greatly enjoye...This is a very good article which I greatly enjoyed reading and all the comments too.<br /><br />I would just add that cost is always the issue and troops need to get to the battlefield. So a small expensive force will have armour or such that gets them to the fight while the cheaper mass of troops will sit in the 'tin can' and be trundled in.<br /><br />Now we need a discussion on the future of infantry and support weaponry and we can tie it into one.<br /><br />Gavin Syme.Gavin Syme (GBS)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07820352168938167913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-57513344808848396052012-04-27T15:51:00.492+01:002012-04-27T15:51:00.492+01:00Good write up, Chris.Good write up, Chris.The Mad Robothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05837688493939678599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-66266812472140520702012-04-27T15:09:45.163+01:002012-04-27T15:09:45.163+01:00If for whatever reason defence starts outstripping...If for whatever reason defence starts outstripping offense, and infantry armour was sufficient, I could see an argument for open-frame transports with amour limited to the bits that make it go and the bit where the crew sit. If someone shoots at it the passengers would be just as well off outside as inside. <br /><br />The Adeptus Mechanicus and Adeptus Astartes have yet to respond to my suggestion of flatbed Rhinos and Land Speeders with jungle gym-style bars underneath for transporting marines without jump packs, alas.user@example.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-34453298512040758192012-04-27T15:02:47.485+01:002012-04-27T15:02:47.485+01:00There's a simple solution - use it as a centre...There's a simple solution - use it as a centre point and objective. Buy two, model one as crashed and damaged, and have the objective be to hold off the attackers until it has been repaired. <br /><br />Yes, I did just solve your problem of not having enough table space for one by suggesting that you buy two.user@example.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-19079330918559523452012-04-27T02:42:50.591+01:002012-04-27T02:42:50.591+01:00Let me first point out that I am not a military ma...Let me first point out that I am not a military man, though I have ridden around in a few APC's at shows and things. Yes they do generally tend to be smaller than we imagine. Personally I would realistically imagine the vehicles having a lower profile or some new camouflage method making it harder to spot.<br /><br />But with making models for a sci-fi crowd people tend to use their imagination and they create these behemoths that are called APC's/IFV's that in reality would be smaller. I personally disliked the GZG light tanks, they felt small for what I wanted. They are lovely models and I will use them for another army, but speaking as someone who started as a 40k gamer I love the idea of larger APC's especially with the army I am creating for Gruntz. It allows me to create the back story that the IFV's carry supplies for the team and all the counter measures needed to protect it. As a gamer there are different manufacturers out there so if one company doesn't make the models you want you will find one that meets your requirements. It's more about what you want and what you will use more than anything else.<br /><br />I don't know how the military is going to go in the future but I doubt it will go the route of using one particular type or allow gunships to go obsolete. I believe in the future militaries will still retain the same basic combined arms approach that our armies use today. Gunships, mechs, ifv/apc, tanks, drones, infantry (armoured or otherwise) will work together in the battlefield and for every new threat or tactic a new counter measure will be introduced.Mini Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09051832066953885152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-622500995930032762012-04-27T02:15:23.408+01:002012-04-27T02:15:23.408+01:00Early Russian IFV's and APC were notorious for...Early Russian IFV's and APC were notorious for requiring short crewman - at one stage you couldn't be in a Motorised Rifle Division if you were over 155cm tall.<br /><br />There is also an additional category of troop transport - one that carries no troops but allows them to get into position. For this I'm thinking of things like the Necron Monolith that (I'm told) lets you teleport troops out of it, or the Wraith Darts from Stargate Atlantis that could teleport troops down whilst doing a gun run. Why carry them at all when you can just open up a handy wormhole and step through.GJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05246536496252658467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-58686840941661450302012-04-27T00:47:57.273+01:002012-04-27T00:47:57.273+01:00I only have 2 GZG grav vehicles (the high tech one...I only have 2 GZG grav vehicles (the high tech ones) so any comments regarding size only apply to those examples. From photos I've seen of the other vehicles, it probably doesn't apply to the range in general.<br /><br />Measuring from top to bottom of the hull is 12-13mm, which equates to just over 4 foot. Allowing for armour, ducting, power conduits for the grav plates etc, call it 3 to 3.5 foot internal height. The only way troops could be carried is if they are lying flat on inclined benches which would make exiting the vehicle through the top or rear hatches rather difficult. <br /><br />Alternatively, the troops would have to be seated facing out towards the sides, backsides directly on the bottom armour (thank goodness it's grav - or they'd get bruised by all the bumping!)with their legs bent up at the knee, feet above hip level. Again, not a particularly good position for easy exit from the vehicle.<br /><br />All that being said, they do look damned good and I wouldn't let "realism" stop me from using them.TamsinPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11759947520907448060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-25132909064204474002012-04-27T00:02:51.210+01:002012-04-27T00:02:51.210+01:00The problem is getting troops from one planet to a...The problem is getting troops from one planet to another. This requires a high intensity of effort. Modern forces are already reducing in size. I suspect that in the future units are going to get smaller, better trained and equipped with the best kit money can get.Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16293162456263037331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-31870343504980894232012-04-26T23:39:16.435+01:002012-04-26T23:39:16.435+01:00I thought about IEDs when i was writing my respons...I thought about IEDs when i was writing my response. They are an example of how the arms race works. At the moment we are playing rock paper scissors. In ten years time we will be playing rock paper scissors lizard spock, metaphorically speaking.<br /><br />The cost of lives in the first world outweighs the cost of vehicles and vice versa in the third world I think. The British have moved from snatch landrovers to more protected vehicles.<br /><br />The military mind has proven to be slow over the years. It always seems to be fighting the last war. APCs, like cavalry would eventually die when their useful life ends.<br /><br />I could even forsee a resurgence of very low tech solutions.Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16293162456263037331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-44992285819955748072012-04-26T23:11:42.147+01:002012-04-26T23:11:42.147+01:00There's plenty of ways you can play that off w...There's plenty of ways you can play that off within your own universe. The interstellar ships might be borne in space, travel from system to system with ease, but be unable to land on their own. You still have to use the dropships/shuttles to get things to and from the surface.<br /><br />Since the way governments buy military hardware isn't likely to improve, I can see the issue. Sure, the interstellar hauler can get entire armored divisions from A to B. No problem there. And we have this great design for wonderful new fighting vehicles - offering tons of protection and firewpoer. But the government just bought hundreds of X-500 Drop Shuttles, which are limited on ramp width! They aren't going to replace their X-500s, so they still have to make sure the mew fighting vehicles can fit inside them.<br /><br />Every logistics system has a bottleneck. Most of the time, the bottle neck is caused by human error. :)Chris K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03776262540828047947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-53083182208067627352012-04-26T22:49:59.965+01:002012-04-26T22:49:59.965+01:00"But how to transport?
For sci fi isn't t..."But how to transport?<br />For sci fi isn't the logistic problem how many fit into a dropship or do you use locally built simpler vehicles?"<br /><br />So they can travel across the stars, but they still have the same lift issues we do? It's funny how we are so ready to think large in some aspects of gaming, and think small just seconds later.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-91470825232560466282012-04-26T22:16:07.162+01:002012-04-26T22:16:07.162+01:00Mine resistant armoured trucks are popular at the ...Mine resistant armoured trucks are popular at the moment because of the nature of the current conflicts.<br />But how to transport?<br />For sci fi isn't the logistic problem how many fit into a dropship or do you use locally built simpler vehicles?<br />Maintainence and spares over light year distances will be an issue as to the deployment of high tech,high maintainence kit.<br />As to size is it going to be fewer boots on the ground with more from less?Guy Tnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-77073942628556823452012-04-26T19:19:37.089+01:002012-04-26T19:19:37.089+01:00Very true, and I've corrected that to "oc...Very true, and I've corrected that to "occasionally." Sometimes a very vocal minority can seem like a majority. <br /><br />As far as that particular vehicle... at just under 5m wide, it also isn't terribly useful on improved road surfaces. Unless a single traffic lane is much wider in the future. :)Chris K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03776262540828047947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-88947691152495780382012-04-26T18:59:59.962+01:002012-04-26T18:59:59.962+01:00On the other hand, vehicle armor is always going t...On the other hand, vehicle armor is always going to be "cheaper" than power armor, not the least of which because it does not have squishy humans directly against it. So throwing an armored roof on the flatbed power armor transport may be a way to make sure that you going to deliver a squad of troopers and not a bunch of suits filled with goo.Lasgunpackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13529298072677726064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2225875593099728358.post-44455868863366734572012-04-26T18:55:55.624+01:002012-04-26T18:55:55.624+01:00I think that things like the MRAP show that the AP...I think that things like the MRAP show that the APC is alive and well, just changing form a bit. Being able to carry a squad or section about quickly and cheaply, while still providing cover from less-than-anti-tank weapons is a key ability that no army is going to pass up. I would expect that something like the Stryker is going to be the new APC, possibly with a larger array of anti-personnel weapons. <br /><br />IFVs on the other hand are going to be phased out; too expensive, and too vulnerable to real tanks and anti-tank weapons, at too high a cost in both money and space. Throwing a large auto-cannon, missile launcher, and other weapons onto an APC does not make it a tank. I would expect that these become specialist vehicles in the future, either as platoon fire support, or just for scouting. <br /><br />Helos and other air transport are well and good, but AI fired guns, drones, and cheap manpads are going to make them obsolete for frontline combat. We only see so many of them in asymetrical warfare. Fighting a peer force, they are just expensive targets.Lasgunpackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13529298072677726064noreply@blogger.com