[Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like

[Michael Thayne]

As I'm looking for away for well-funded TL10 armies to gain some decisive advantage on poorly-funded ones, chameleon and invisibility surfaces look like a good candidate. At TL10, night vision and possibly infrared optics are likely to be widespread, but this won't be true of the hyperspectral optics needed to defeat the best TL10 camo. Somewhat oddly, invisibility surfaces are slightly superior vs. normal and infrared vision, but lose their effectiveness entirely vs. hyperspectral vision. Chameleon surfaces degrade more gracefully against advanced optics.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Realistically, making munitions smarter will probably also lead to their being smaller.

Eh, depends on targets. The savings from smart might be eaten up by harder targets.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Eh, depends on targets. The savings from smart might be eaten up by harder targets.

This is a bit of a tricky question, and "harder targets" might work for bunkers. But for tanks, you can only make them so heavy before they have trouble using bridges designed for civilian vehicles. Although I was initially skeptical of Fred's claim on this point, after looking at it under Ultra-Tech assumptions proliferation of top-attack capability looks like it probably pushes MBTs into obsolescence.

Big warheads, with their big fragmentation damage, might be popular as antipersonnel weapons though, as a counter for nanoweave tacsuits.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Current parachute-style cluster munitions don't seem ideal for hitting an upright human. Thought I guess GURPS doesn't usually worry about that level of detail.

It does at least somewhat, but that's true. In modern contexts it's not a big problem since infantry spend a lot of time prone especially when they're under fire...and because the munitions don't need direct hits of course.

If UT infantry adopt a practice of staying on their feet in the face of bombardment because it's actually safer, there might be an appeal to non-parachute (or rather minimal parachute, since HEAT needs it to orient) beehive-style rounds that might have trouble spreading as far but will scythe in at a lower angle.

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

The "Metal Embrittlement Agent" needs to be tailored to work on one specific metal. Which would you go for? Possible it would be almost entirely countered by designing equipment to have minimal exposed metal parts, but instead always covered in at least a minimal protective layer of something else.

Whatever gun barrels are made of is an easy start. Yes, non-metals are possible, but (A) not sure they're generally a good idea for that and (B) there's no real reason you can't have tailored anti-material chems for non-metal materials.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

TL6-8 style indirect field artillery died with the MBTs and their targets went into stealth mode anyway. You're searching for a way to do indirect fire before you've got a real use for it. I assume it's non-existent at TL10.

Indirect-fire artillery is largely, though not exclusively, used to fire on targets that are spotted by your ground forces and often actively engaged with them. That still works just fine at TL10, unless there are area anti-shell defenses. Which is something lasers might provide, that's being tried already.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I really don't see why people keep trying to invent "heavy" weapons and vehicles for the UT TLs. What do you think they're needed for.

Are there no fixed position at all in UT combat? If so, humans will be unable to survive it psychologically for long. Also, you'll be unable to site effective anti-air, anti-space, or long-range anti-missile weapon systems, all of which require either fixed positions or large carrier vehicles.

[Michael Thayne]

One thing that's useful to note: Ultra-Tech indicates electromagnetic armor has a certain minimum thickness. It's vague on what that thickness is, but the thinnest electromagnetic armor we have is 150/100 on the heavy battlesuit. The commando battlesuit, with DR 105/75, is apparently too thin. Based on that, I suspect a popular approach for "light armor" is going to involve ~120 DR (electromagnetic). Won't protect against a direct hit from a HEAT grenade, but will keep you safe from gyrocs and gattling lasers. Sadly, we have no examples of vehicles designed to that spec.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Whatever gun barrels are made of is an easy start. Yes, non-metals are possible, but (A) not sure they're generally a good idea for that and (B) there's no real reason you can't have tailored anti-material chems for non-metal materials.

You can only have tailored anti-material chemicals for materials that possess such weaknesses. The specific chemical reactions that metal embrittlement agents use are not entirely understood, but are specific to metals.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Indirect-fire artillery is largely, though not exclusively, used to fire on targets that are spotted by your ground forces and often actively engaged with them. That still works just fine at TL10, unless there are area anti-shell defenses. Which is something lasers might provide, that's being tried already.

Are there no fixed position at all in UT combat? If so, humans will be unable to survive it psychologically for long. Also, you'll be unable to site effective anti-air, anti-space, or long-range anti-missile weapon systems, all of which require either fixed positions or large carrier vehicles.

I suspect that ground targets will first be detected by small Scout Robots. The one on p. 80 would do fine with some added Stealth. Then the "engagement" would be with Striker and Hunter missiles and/or flying Warbots with more direct-fire missiles. Your ground forces such as they are survive as well as they do by being mobile and stealthy.

Anything you can't move does indeed end up being a "fixed" position but given the 32 mile range of the Hunter missile you have to maintain probably multiple layers of mobile forces to hunt down hostiles before they can launch such weapons.

There's also the "high ground" i.e. orbit to consider and it will be extremely difficult to maintain fixed ground bases after you've lost the fight for orbital control.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I suspect that ground targets will first be detected by small Scout Robots. The one on p. 80 would do fine with some added Stealth. Then the "engagement" would be with Striker and Hunter missiles and/or flying Warbots with more direct-fire missiles. Your ground forces such as they are survive as well as they do by being mobile and stealthy.

It sounds to me like you're not arguing that there's no indirect-fire artillery, you're arguing that there's almost nothing but indirect-fire artillery. That's what your brilliant missile spam is.

Guns firing cluster munitions, or longer-range cruise missile launchers, can be used in exactly the same place, but should deliver much more bang for the buck due to scaling benefits. Obviously the downside is that the guns themselves are larger and more valuable targets than a small missile carrier might be, but they have more standoff range.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Anything you can't move does indeed end up being a "fixed" position but given the 32 mile range of the Hunter missile you have to maintain probably multiple layers of mobile forces to hunt down hostiles before they can launch such weapons.

The presumption that being able to launch missiles at a target implies its destruction seems to ignore basically the entire human history of fixed position.

Hunter missiles aren't terribly powerful, either. They've got less than 4 pound warheads, extrapolating from the basic hand grenade. It's plenty to kill land vehicles using HEAT and guidance smart enough to target vulnerable areas, but it's on the small side against larger targets.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

There's also the "high ground" i.e. orbit to consider and it will be extremely difficult to maintain fixed ground bases after you've lost the fight for orbital control.

Alternatively, it's impossible to establish orbital control while your opponent retains fixed ground-to-space laser installations.

(The viability of those installations depends mostly on whether they can be protected against over-the-horizon kinetic strikes.)

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Whatever gun barrels are made of is an easy start. Yes, non-metals are possible, but (A) not sure they're generally a good idea for that <snip>

FTR Ultra-Tech fluff seems mixed on the role of metal at TL10. Metal seems to go away as a material for armor—even as part of laminate—but the holdout laser makes a big deal of the fact that it can get through metal detectors, which suggests weapons with no metal components are unusual (not just for slugthrowers but also lasers). Gas guns can be non-metallic for 1.5x price, which reinforces the idea that non-metallic weapons are unusual, though that's for TL9.

[Michael Thayne]

Question for Ulzgoroth: if fixed positions are crucial, what do they look like?