Who needs tanks?

[copeab]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I had a friend of mine who joined the Army who told me, with a straight face, that the M113 he was going to drive was INFINITELY preferable to the M2/3 Bradley. Perhaps that's just unit pride on Johnny Rico's part...

Well, the Bradley is a bloated combination light tank and APC ...

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by copeab

Well, the Bradley is a bloated combination light tank and APC ...

Yeah, I saw the movie. But the Brad is better armored, faster, and better armed. The only advantage for the M113 is that it takes only one of them to carry 12 troops, where it takes two Brads. I'd offset this with the utility of the 25mm cannon, esp having two of them handy.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Aw, forget bot-minders. The future is behind AKVs.

In addition to the issue of people being unwilling to let machines kill with no human in the loop, if there's one thing playing lots of strategy games teaches it's that we don't know how to make a computer good at tactics.

If you've got good, trustworthy machine tacticians, bring on the new robot overlords. Otherwise, I strongly suggest supporting your automated shooters with human leadership at low levels.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Yeah, I saw the movie. But the Brad is better armored, faster, and better armed. The only advantage for the M113 is that it takes only one of them to carry 12 troops, where it takes two Brads. I'd offset this with the utility of the 25mm cannon, esp having two of them handy.

The problem is that even with better armor than the M113, the Bradley still is not that well protected on the modern battlefield. I'd rather keep it where it won't get shot at (and destroyed), which means it's really inferior to the M113 then.

(Not that I think the M113 should replace the Bradley -- it is a 50 year old design)

FWIW, i think the MICV idea (BMP, Bradley, etc) is severely flawed and the "battlefield taxi" concept was right.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by copeab

The problem is that even with better armor than the M113, the Bradley still is not that well protected on the modern battlefield. I'd rather keep it where it won't get shot at (and destroyed), which means it's really inferior to the M113 then.

Yes, but is an M113 really superior to an HMMWV? At a certain point, inadequate armor is so inadequate that you might as well not have any at all, thus giving you a lighter, faster, more agile vehicle.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Yes, but is an M113 really superior to an HMMWV?

Yes. An M113 protects against indirect artillery fire better than a HMMWV, for starters.

[mlangsdorf]

One possible reason for there to be battlesuits but not tanks if there is some weird scaling going in with respect to some piece of necessary technology. For instance, if the power requirements for a stealth field generator rise with the fourth power with respect to size, it may be possible for put a portable stealth field on a man-sized unit and still power it, but a tank would need a larger power plant than the tank itself.

[jacobmuller]

Kinda what I'd figured.

I'd envisioned a TL10 post cyberpunk setting, cybernetics TL11. Allowed access to gravitics from TL9 (the aliens had it), giving Graviton Beams at TL10 (infinite pentration) and SM0 AI/cybershells with skill 18.

But that meant combat was cybers sniping cybers and meats couldn't get a job/ only the rich eat.

Figured the following keeps combat interesting/ player participatory:
Grav tech includes EW - it can be jammed, grav guns don't fire; tanks fly but only if their ECCM beats the EW.
AI programming is such that they cannot be used for combat (they go rogue and kill anyone/thing).
Each infantry fireteam is 3 bioroids with a human team leader - remotes won't work, their ECCM is overcome by enemy EW and the bioroids need leadership.
The stealth tech makes for closer range combat despite long range weapons, therefore melee skills are still needed.
AFVs protect from area effect weapons and allow rapid transit.
Mecha are oversized infantry and fit copeab's assessment fairly well (deployable rollerblades don't beat flying but their ECCM isn't as good as AFV). Used as scouts/ special forces.

Civilians can get highly advanced weaponry (low mag cap/ low RoF, EW vulnerable; LC3) but not the military gear (high cap, high RoF, EW proof; LC2-).

[jacobmuller]

Originally Posted by copeab

Yes. An M113 protects against indirect artillery fire better than a HMMWV, for starters.

Gotta say, and I hope I'm misinformed, the scariest thing about APC/AIFVs is they're glorified flak-jackets on tracks. Better armour but not that good and really shocked that modern AIFV isn't really better armoured than M113 et al.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by jacobmuller

Gotta say, and I hope I'm misinformed, the scariest thing about APC/AIFVs is they're glorified flak-jackets on tracks. Better armour but not that good and really shocked that modern AIFV isn't really better armoured than M113 et al.

I've been told the Stryker has significantly better armor than the M113A3 but still not nearly enough to protect it from a tank.